I like film...(open thread)

[Doc Henry]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

F6, 105/2.8 Micro, Superia 400, X1 scan:

 

Black trumpet lily by chrism229, on Flickr

 

Chippers by chrism229, on Flickr

 

Edit: I see Chippers has a bot fly on her belly. I wish I could catch her and pop it out.

 

Wonderful shots specially the second picture

I see it's Fuji it looks like Portra 160

Lovely picture

Thank you

Henry

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[A miller]

Adam,

 

Thanks. I never pretend that the colour rendition I manage from scanning the negatives are true to the original. With me it seems more like "hit and miss"; perhaps more miss... This could explain the lack of orange, but on the other hand it does look a bit like that down there in Tasmania. As to your squinting, I think in the English speaking forum I should use n(negative) s(scan) or some such thing. Anyway, makes more sense with B&W to indicate that the picture is scanned from the negative and not from a print. 

 

Rgds

 

C.

 

Christoph - Not meaning to suggest that our photos need to resemble the typical rendition of the film stock used.  I was just making an observation.  In fact, I think the second Ektar photo that you posted as it is, a tinge of orange or red likely would have been as pleasing.

[Doc Henry]

For Adam, Michael,Dan, Keith and All castle lovers

 

 

A ballad in "calèche" in Fontainebleau castle

July 2017

 

 

Leica MP-Summicron 35 Asph-Kodak TX400

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

Leica M7-Summilux 35 Asph-Kodak Portra 160

 

 

 

As I think when you convert color in b&w you lose details

I have always 2 rolls of film in each camera. A simple "purist" spirit 

 

Any correction 

Best

Henry

Edited August 2, 2017 by Doc Henry

[Doc Henry]

A photo the King's Cross tube station in London.

 

Had this on my hit list during my short visit a couple of week's ago.

 

Seen a lot of photos of this though none on film

 

SWC Ektar

 

Here's the Tri-X version

 

Both are nice Adam with the preference of TX version because more contrast

Thanks for posting

Best

Henry

[A miller]

Ciao Henry, I rated at 100 to have more saturated colors, and to use the lens at larger aperture during the day.

What are you referring to when you say "artificial" lights? The only lights here are the ones of the bookstore, I guess I don't understand the relation with the photo. Do you see any yellow tendency?

Regards

Massimo

 

 

Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

 

Massimo - My experience has been that to the extent a negative is over-exposed color saturation and sharpness will be degraded.  Your photo doesn't look to me to be more saturated than what one would normally expect from this film.  It is hard to tell whether the photo was truly over exposed b/c your scanner likely has flattened out the tones so that no highlights are blown and no shadows are crushed.   In my scanning workflow for C41 film, I can generally make photos that I have overexposed look properly exposed.  But the colors and sharpness will be different from the same photo that I took with a more spot on exposure.  To me, that is the downside of the ETTR workflow.  A little or even a modest amount can be necessary to provide needed shadow detail and will not degrade color saturation and sharpness meaningfully.  At some point, however, these effects do present themselves.  

 

As for the lovely photo of your wife and daughter, I don't necessarily see yellow like Henry, but I do sense a slight greenish/yellowish tinge in the skin tones.  Nothing that Portra can't fix

Edited August 2, 2017 by A miller

[Doc Henry]

Ciao Henry, I rated at 100 to have more saturated colors, and to use the lens at larger aperture during the day.

What are you referring to when you say "artificial" lights? The only lights here are the ones of the bookstore, I guess I don't understand the relation with the photo. Do you see any yellow tendency?

Regards

Massimo

 

 

Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

 

Massimo , when I mean "artificial" light , it's always for light not coming from sunny natural light

or in short "natural" light

You noticed like me, in digital you can have "a yellow" cast , when you photograph in artificial light

coming from yellow "sodium" bulb light (in the streets) or sometimes "neon" white tube (I think it's your case) .

I prefer to photograph when i have this artificial condition in b&w . I always have 2 cameras

with me, color and b&w.

Thank you for your question .

Best

Henry

Edited August 2, 2017 by Doc Henry

[Doc Henry]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Massimo - My experience has been that to the extent a negative is over-exposed color saturation and sharpness will be degraded.  Your photo doesn't look to me to be more saturated than what one would normally expect from this film.  It is hard to tell whether the photo was truly over exposed b/c your scanner likely has flattened out the tones so that no highlights are blown and no shadows are crushed.   In my scanning workflow for C41 film, I can generally make photos that I have overexposed look properly exposed.  But the colors and sharpness will be different from the same photo that I took with a more spot on exposure.  To me, that is the downside of the ETTR workflow.  A little or even a modest amount can be necessary to provide needed shadow detail and will not degrade color saturation and sharpness meaningfully.  At some point, however, these effects do present themselves.  

 

As for the lovely photo of your wife and daughter, I don't necessarily see yellow like Henry, but I do sense a slight greenish/yellowish tinge in the skin tones.  Nothing that Portra can't fix

 

Adam in the case of Massimo , I agree with you for a "greenish" cast probably coming from neon tube

 

Thank you for your intervention

Best

Henry

Edited August 2, 2017 by Doc Henry

[edwardkaraa]

Massimo - My experience has been that to the extent a negative is over-exposed color saturation and sharpness will be degraded.  Your photo doesn't look to me to be more saturated than what one would normally expect from this film.  It is hard to tell whether the photo was truly over exposed b/c your scanner likely has flattened out the tones so that no highlights are blown and no shadows are crushed.   In my scanning workflow for C41 film, I can generally make photos that I have overexposed look properly exposed.  But the colors and sharpness will be different from the same photo that I took with a more spot on exposure.  To me, that is the downside of the ETTR workflow.  A little or even a modest amount can be necessary to provide needed shadow detail and will not degrade color saturation and sharpness meaningfully.  At some point, however, these effects do present themselves.  

 

As for the lovely photo of your wife and daughter, I don't necessarily see yellow like Henry, but I do sense a slight greenish/yellowish tinge in the skin tones.  Nothing that Portra can't fix

I agree. Overexposure negatively affects colors and sharpness. I try to expose for the shadows if they have an important role in the composition, otherwise I expose normally.

[Doc Henry]

Some more color in this nice place

 

 

Kodak Portra 160-Leica M7-Summilux 35 Asph

Portra dev myself in Tetenal at 38°C 3mn15

 

 

The look with the complicity of the duck

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

 

Not corrected

 

Best

Henry

[wes54]

Nice scene and picture of Paris Wes

Glad see you back. Some more ?

Thank you for posting

Henry

Thanks Henry ........ I've been busy with work recently and I went to the dark side with my 240 for a while but much prefer the rendition of film

Wesley

[philipus]

It is very interesting how everyone's experiences differ on this topic, I find. As I mentioned earlier in the thread I virtually always expose all my colour negative, except Ektar, 1 or even 2 stops over, and regardless of whether I shoot 135 or 120 film. In my workflow, I see no degradation at all in colours, sharpness etc, but I get benefits in terms of scanning (using the type of scanners I have). So I think it may be a workflow and scanner thing to a large extent; there are just so many ways to process colour negative scans, the medium itself is so malleable and different scanners treat images quite differently that it is difficult to give hard and fast rules. As with so many other things in life, whatever works and is satisfying enough, seems to be the closest one can get to a principle. Again, all just my opinion of course. Just a few examples to show what I mean. These were inverted in ColorPerfect without any other adjustments than clicking the Restore Settings button to find a colour impression I like, and then adjusted in Adobe Camera Raw. Clearly more accurate colour can be achieved but, for me, this is good enough.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Superia 200 at EI100

 

Superia 400 at EI100

[stray cat]

Here I find nature trying its best in an industrial environment:

 

 

Moorabbin, 2016

M6TTL, 35mm Summaron (1958), Adox Silvermax 100

[edwardkaraa]

It is very interesting how everyone's experiences differ on this topic, I find. As I mentioned earlier in the thread I virtually always expose all my colour negative, except Ektar, 1 or even 2 stops over, and regardless of whether I shoot 135 or 120 film. In my workflow, I see no degradation at all in colours, sharpness etc, but I get benefits in terms of scanning (using the type of scanners I have). So I think it may be a workflow and scanner thing to a large extent; there are just so many ways to process colour negative scans, the medium itself is so malleable and different scanners treat images quite differently that it is difficult to give hard and fast rules. As with so many other things in life, whatever works and is satisfying enough, seems to be the closest one can get to a principle. Again, all just my opinion of course. Just a few examples to show what I mean. These were inverted in ColorPerfect without any other adjustments than clicking the Restore Settings button to find a colour impression I like, and then adjusted in Adobe Camera Raw. Clearly more accurate colour can be achieved but, for me, this is good enough.

 

36275573966_5196ed98dc_b.jpg

Superia 200 at EI100

 

36150952332_a04cbac571_b.jpg

Superia 400 at EI100

Very nice shots Philip! I agree that scanners definitely play an important role. Most consumer grade scanners are not able to scan well through the denser parts of a negative.

[Doc Henry]

Thanks Henry ........ I've been busy with work recently and I went to the dark side with my 240 for a while but much prefer the rendition of film

Wesley

 

I understand Wesley...Valdor

"prefer the rendition"  specially in color (watch all my pictures comparison posted here

and look at the difference of color)....  and also the synthetic and flat and too sharp side ,  I don't like

You are always Welcome

Thanks again for posting Wes

Best

Henry

Edited August 2, 2017 by Doc Henry

[Doc Henry]

It is very interesting how everyone's experiences differ on this topic, I find. As I mentioned earlier in the thread I virtually always expose all my colour negative, except Ektar, 1 or even 2 stops over, and regardless of whether I shoot 135 or 120 film. In my workflow, I see no degradation at all in colours, sharpness etc, but I get benefits in terms of scanning (using the type of scanners I have). So I think it may be a workflow and scanner thing to a large extent; there are just so many ways to process colour negative scans, the medium itself is so malleable and different scanners treat images quite differently that it is difficult to give hard and fast rules. As with so many other things in life, whatever works and is satisfying enough, seems to be the closest one can get to a principle. Again, all just my opinion of course. Just a few examples to show what I mean. These were inverted in ColorPerfect without any other adjustments than clicking the Restore Settings button to find a colour impression I like, and then adjusted in Adobe Camera Raw. Clearly more accurate colour can be achieved but, for me, this is good enough.

 

36275573966_5196ed98dc_b.jpg

Superia 200 at EI100

 

36150952332_a04cbac571_b.jpg

Superia 400 at EI100

 

Very nice shots Philip! I agree that scanners definitely play an important role. Most consumer grade scanners are not able to scan well through the denser parts of a negative.

 

Philip your pictures posted above are fine for me ! very nice color

You have a Coolscan 9000 if I have a good memory

 

Edward and Philip, as i develop myself color film , I notice sometimes you can have a little cast

in the negative on some pictures... i think it comes from the light when I photograph

but it happens not often 

It depends secondly on the development of the color film (chemical products or temperature)

In this case ,  I correct a little in LR but it's rare . If not nice I don't post here ....

Best

Henry

Edited August 2, 2017 by Doc Henry

[Doc Henry]

Henry, if I may add a comment here - I also generally rate colour negative films at half the box speed. This may be a carryover from my college days when we did a lot of testing with them, and I still have the results. The overexposed colour negs were way more vibrant than those rated even at box speed, but especially than those with even the slightest underexposure.

 

I'd also like to comment that Massimo's scene is a salient reminder of the grace and beauty photography can bring to the everyday. In years to come, such a picture will come to mean much more than it even does now.

 

Phil I prefer to keep the original Isos of the film , except when I use in the dark (with Portra or TX 400)

I push at 800 Isos when I am in bad light condition , but not often ...  If I cannot photograph , I prefer

abstain  or I try to take a monopod , if I have it with me

Best

Henry

[Khun Hans]

A photo the King's Cross tube station in London.

 

Had this on my hit list during my short visit a couple of week's ago.

 

Seen a lot of photos of this though none on film

 

SWC Ektar

Excellent. 

[Doc Henry]

In bad light condition and almost in the dark , you have another factor,

I mean the "lens" after factors in my previous post

 

The advantage to have a luminous lens is certain , like the Summilux

Secondly , film is so sensitive than color and details of stone are still visible

in this condition

 

Leica M7-Summilux 35 Asph-Kodak Portra 160 Isos and only 160 , not push

open at f/1.4 , without monopod or tripod

 

 

 

Senanque Abbaye

2016

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

Best

Henry

Edited August 2, 2017 by Doc Henry

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Doc Henry]

...   and in b&w with Kodak TX400,  I obtain this picture

in the same Abbey , taking at the same time

 

Leica MP-Summilux 50 Asph-Kodak TX400

No correction and without tripod , open at f/1.4

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

Conclusion : without requiring Isos race in digit camera with more Isos

and finaly distortion , you can perfectly have your picture with film  !

Regards

H.

Edited August 2, 2017 by Doc Henry

[A miller]

It is very interesting how everyone's experiences differ on this topic, I find. As I mentioned earlier in the thread I virtually always expose all my colour negative, except Ektar, 1 or even 2 stops over, and regardless of whether I shoot 135 or 120 film. In my workflow, I see no degradation at all in colours, sharpness etc, but I get benefits in terms of scanning (using the type of scanners I have). So I think it may be a workflow and scanner thing to a large extent; there are just so many ways to process colour negative scans, the medium itself is so malleable and different scanners treat images quite differently that it is difficult to give hard and fast rules. As with so many other things in life, whatever works and is satisfying enough, seems to be the closest one can get to a principle. Again, all just my opinion of course. Just a few examples to show what I mean. These were inverted in ColorPerfect without any other adjustments than clicking the Restore Settings button to find a colour impression I like, and then adjusted in Adobe Camera Raw. Clearly more accurate colour can be achieved but, for me, this is good enough.

 

36275573966_5196ed98dc_b.jpg

Superia 200 at EI100

 

36150952332_a04cbac571_b.jpg

Superia 400 at EI100

Philip - i think you are now getting into the question of whether the scenes are really overexposed. To my eye, they are not. There are no highlights that show undue stress and the green in the grass is properly exposed (which is a sign of proper exposure b/c greens in brightly lit foilage tend to require less exposure than most other colors.)

 

The key question to figure out to see whether we are talking apples and apples or apples and figs is how did you meter the scene??

 

Did you use the in-camera spot meter, and incident meter reading from a hand held device, an in-camera average meter reading, or, what i use for C41 film, a hand held average reading with a spot meter (adjusted as appropriate). Each of these metering methods will likely give you a different exposure reading. I often will take an incident meter reading to compare what i have come up with according to my average reading with my spotmeter and will be surprised at how different the reading is. Nonetheless, i always will trust my average reading with my spot meter. It will tell me exactly what zone each point in the scene is. And if the shadows that i want good detail dip below EV -2, i will generally increase the exposure to retain the detail, even at the expense of some color saturation in the highlights.

 

This apples-and-apples level setting really needs to be established to avoid us talking past each other. The fact that we all get good results suggests to me that we are not far apart.

Edited August 2, 2017 by A miller