I like film...(open thread)

[chrism]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A confession to make: all the photos I have ever posted were digital (think about it - and don't quote-mine me!) If I had to do it all over again, I'd probably save money and time by using a D850 and it's film copying attachment rather than the Flextights and Coolscans. I don't know if the results would be the same, but I doubt if I could tell the difference. I'd probably still have to have a proper scanner for MF and LF though.

 

And now I find myself enjoying a bizarre fantasy in which Nikon executives fling themselves from windows at the thought of their magnum opus camera only ever being pointed at film and never at the real world! This will compensate for me not being able to take any photos lately - too cold, too snowy and too much snow to dig. Up on the roof twice yesterday shovelling off skylights and the glass roof of the conservatory. Got to shovel a couple of tons off the back deck today, so I need something pleasant to occupy my mind while I labour.

 

C.

[Advertisement]

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

[Steve Ricoh]

Don't think the Nikon execs would be disappointed as long as they sell cameras, plenty of them.

 

Thought I read somewhere that the D850 saves the negative scans as JPEGs. If so it's not good having a piece of silicon and some fancy software making artistic choice. A flat scan is best allowing the user to have as much control as he or she wishes.

 

Do we live in an analogue or digital world. I often think about this. My answer and reasoning: a) Analogue, b ) at the subatomic level God reveals the structure as probability waves having analogue type behaviour.

Edited January 19, 2018 by Steve Ricoh

[Wayne]

I thought, somewhere in quantum theory there is postulation  that there is some measure of communication, twin-like behavior?, between photons that have at some point in time been in contact....Even when they are subsequently departed from one another.

 

Maybe there is some significant distinction between our negative/digital scans and the digital files...............Something upon which we can be re-assuredly smug about.

[Steve Ricoh]

Abert Einstein called it spooky action at a distance. He was greatly troubled by the idea that two entangled photons sent in opposite directions in the universe, light years apart, could somehow instantly 'communicate' instantaneously. If the probability wave of one is forced to collapse - by observation or measurement - the second will instantly collapse irrespective of distance. Faster than light.

 

I think there is a connection with photography, the probability function of producing a good photo is <1. The photons know what they're going to do before they hit the emulsion, especially if operating at f16 or smaller in the territory of difraction.

[Dr. No]

am watt by nattens, auf Flickr

 

At the see

 

M2, Summaron 2,8

[A miller]

Phil - My prognosis is that you should make burial arrangements for any remaining Cinestill now. 

Schmootzitosis??? Sounds serious, doc - how long have I got?

 

Yes, and you are doing so once removed from an Iraqi American!  

Hahaha! Hilarious!

The nice thing about this thread is that we can even learn Yiddish photography terms

 

Thanks, Phil.  I actually remember being congratulated by the guy who was walking right behind her.  It was nice to see someone appreciate me in the moment once in a while!

Her expression?

 

Priceless.

 

Thanks, James.  Yes, it looks like she is walking right in front of a giant snow blowing machine.  But she is too classy for that, of course

This one has a very nice three-dimensional appearance!

[philipus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The little I know about post-processing is that one can pretty much to most of the things in almost any order. But sharpening is usually best left for later. If you want my standard approach, in Adobe Camera Raw but the knobs and buttons are probably similar, it is that I first set the black point by using the slider until the very first clipping occurs, then I do the same with the white point (in ACR the sliders are Blacks and Whites). Then I adjust the shadows and the highlights with the two sliders called, wait for it, Shadows and Highlights. Then I colour correct, either by using the blue-yellow and green-magenta sliders or by using the eyedropper. Then I sharpen and save as jpg, and as necessary resize.

 

I realize Lighroom is superior software, and do have a copy, but I enjoy working with my photos in the Photos application on my Macbook. Photos simplicity seems well suited to my relative ignorance pertaining to PP.  Maybe I will delve into LR when I become more familiar with simple adjustments available in Photos.

 

I am curious as to order of operations most use when adjusting a negative scan. When I DO play around with PP, I generally limit my adjustments to Neutrals, Tone, Luminance, and Exposure. What is the best order to use as adjustments are made? Does it make any difference? Sorry for the, possibly, dumb question, but I am clueless when it comes to these matters. I do mess around with Definition slider, and see a difference, but do not really understand exactly what is going on there.

 

Best,

 

Wayne

 

I think the exposure for the highlights worked well here but, personally, I would have lifted the shadows to reveal more detail, for instance in the young man's face.

 

 

 

M3 | Portra 400 | DR Summicron-50

Pak Nam Pran

_________________

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

Instagram: @mitchalland

 

 

I have concluded, from seeing the photos in this thread and after having shot (only) one roll of Cinestill 50 and seen the crud adorning virtually every frame on that roll, that I will never waste money on that emulsion until I see some real darn improvement in quality. Still that's a nice photo, Phil.

 

Thank you Adam. I've scanned one of the worst frames from the cinestill rolls and include it here. I'd like to make the point that neither of the Agfa rolls had any marks remotely like this - in fact they were cleaner than most lab processed rolls I've received - so I conclude it's not the home processing. The marks on the picture posted here are absolutely certainly to do with the roll of cinestill. If anyone from cinestill happens to read this, I'm afraid I won't be buying any more cinestill film until I am assured this sort of thing won't happen again. At $16 a roll here it is just too expensive - and too upsetting to see your photos corrupted like this:

 

- scanned without i/r cleaning or any photoshop.

 

And this one is simply spectaculoso.

 

Meanwhile, in the red corner...

 

 

Rosebud 2018

Canon F1N, FDn 50mm f3.5 macro, Agfa Vista 400

 

I could send you some more negs to scan for me for X1 trouble-shooting purposes if you're bored

 

A confession to make: all the photos I have ever posted were digital (think about it - and don't quote-mine me!) If I had to do it all over again, I'd probably save money and time by using a D850 and it's film copying attachment rather than the Flextights and Coolscans. I don't know if the results would be the same, but I doubt if I could tell the difference. I'd probably still have to have a proper scanner for MF and LF though.

 

And now I find myself enjoying a bizarre fantasy in which Nikon executives fling themselves from windows at the thought of their magnum opus camera only ever being pointed at film and never at the real world! This will compensate for me not being able to take any photos lately - too cold, too snowy and too much snow to dig. Up on the roof twice yesterday shovelling off skylights and the glass roof of the conservatory. Got to shovel a couple of tons off the back deck today, so I need something pleasant to occupy my mind while I labour.

 

C.

[Michael Hiles]

The statefunction of my pictures collapses the moment I press the button. 

[Wayne]

Allthough I was spared the schmootz on my rolls of Cinestill I repeatedly found these magenta blobs on my 35mm exposures. In a conversation with the brothers Wright they stated, that they might come from residues of the the removed remjet. When I made my Kickstarter pledge for the 120 version, they gave me an extra roll of 35 with my pledge. Besides that I quite like the results with Cinestill - although there are cheaper options on the market.

I had some similar, bad experience with Lomography film I purchased some time ago. While the result was not identical to yours, there were several instances of very different result, some rather unpleasant, in use of different rolls of the same film. I wonder if it has anything to do with the possibility of some film products, e.g. Cinestill, Lomography, being simply re-packaged, salvaged film stocks from other manufacturers, rather than film products produced specifically for the brand.  Even the least discerning photographer wants some level of consistency.

[farnz]

Allthough I was spared the schmootz on my rolls of Cinestill I repeatedly found these magenta blobs on my 35mm exposures. In a conversation with the brothers Wright they stated, that they might come from residues of the the removed remjet. When I made my Kickstarter pledge for the 120 version, they gave me an extra roll of 35 with my pledge. Besides that I quite like the results with Cinestill - although there are cheaper options on the market.

 

.

(Comment about CineStill not particularly directed at you, James.)  I've just finished my first roll of CineStill Double-X and I haven't noticed any of the crud and marks shown in Phil's picture so might the poor production be restricted to their colour emulsions? 

 

Pete.

 

CineStill BWXX with M3 and 50/2 Rigid Summicron.

 

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!

[chrism]

 

 

I could send you some more negs to scan for me for X1 trouble-shooting purposes if you're bored

 

 

It would be my pleasure, but you'll have to wait until I'm finished shoveling snow!

[chrism]

Don't think the Nikon execs would be disappointed as long as they sell cameras, plenty of them.

 

Thought I read somewhere that the D850 saves the negative scans as JPEGs. If so it's not good having a piece of silicon and some fancy software making artistic choice. A flat scan is best allowing the user to have as much control as he or she wishes.

 

Do we live in an analogue or digital world. I often think about this. My answer and reasoning: a) Analogue, b ) at the subatomic level God reveals the structure as probability waves having analogue type behaviour.

 

JPEG only? That's stupid. Now I shan't even feel sorry for them as they jump.

[Suede]

Breadwinner.

Mandalay, Myanmar

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!

Ilford HP5

[A miller]

Lo

 

.

(Comment about CineStill not particularly directed at you, James.)  I've just finished my first roll of CineStill Double-X and I haven't noticed any of the crud and marks shown in Phil's picture so might the poor production be restricted to their colour emulsions? 

 

Pete.

 

CineStill BWXX with M3 and 50/2 Rigid Summicron.

 

Pedestrians.jpg

Lovely photo, Pete.  The background reminds me of a scene from our recent snow blizzards

 

The CInestill problems are limited to the color film stocks.  Only heard good things about their BW film stock

[Suede]

Masters of Patience   ~   continued..

now waiting for the train, Pyin Oo Lwin, Mandalay.

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!

HP5

[Guest Nowhereman]

...I think the exposure for the highlights worked well here but, personally, I would have lifted the shadows to reveal more detail, for instance in the young man's face...

 

The exposure, by incident meter, was fine; and, while the tropical light was high-contrast, there was no need to lift shadows to get more detail, and a "straight print" would be somewhat lighter than the image below — as I lowered the density a bit here. In the image on the previous page (post #46165), I lowered the density still more to get the saturated, vivid colors and blacks that I wanted. I realize that most people would consider the darker print over the top, but I like the feel of it. 

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!

[A miller]

this version is MUCH better.  The previous version crushed the shadows and the shadows has an ugly unnatural blue cast.  This is all fixed in this image.

 

The exposure, by incident meter, was fine; and, while the tropical light was high-contrast, there was no need to lift shadows to get more detail, and a "straight print" would be somewhat lighter than the image below — as I lowered the density a bit here. In the image on the previous page (post #46165), I lowered the density still more to get the saturated, vivid colors and blacks that I wanted. I realize that most people would consider the darker print over the top, but I like the feel of it. 

[A miller]

Two days ago we got a few flurries in the morning... 

NYC

Portra 400

M7, 28mm elmarit pre-asph

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!

Edited January 19, 2018 by A miller

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[stray cat]

 

 

I have concluded, from seeing the photos in this thread and after having shot (only) one roll of Cinestill 50 and seen the crud adorning virtually every frame on that roll, that I will never waste money on that emulsion until I see some real darn improvement in quality. Still that's a nice photo, Phil.

 

 

And this one is simply spectaculoso.

 

 

Thank you sincerely, Philip. I can't take credit for the flower picture - that was taken by my son James (we shared the camera with the Cinestill 50 in it, both wanting to see how it worked. Both disappointed).

 

 

.

(Comment about CineStill not particularly directed at you, James.)  I've just finished my first roll of CineStill Double-X and I haven't noticed any of the crud and marks shown in Phil's picture so might the poor production be restricted to their colour emulsions? 

 

Pete.

 

CineStill BWXX with M3 and 50/2 Rigid Summicron.

 

Pedestrians.jpg

 

Excellent picture, Pete - the whole people thing in the bottom half is a riot of shapes and gives the picture some real energy. We have some XX (not by Cinestill) which we haven't tried yet but will be interested to see how it goes. What did you develop yours in?

 

Breadwinner.

Mandalay, Myanmar

Mother & son.jpg

Ilford HP5

 

This is wonderful, Pritam - the boy's expression is... enigmatic.

[philipus]

Excellent gritty shot, Pete. 

 

I wasn't aware that Cinestill had a b&w film so I had to read up on it. I see it's actually not "Cinestill Double-X" but rather just ordinary Kodak Double-X (5222) which they've rolled and slapped their own labels on. So it seems to me it's got nothing at all to do with their colour emulsions. There's no poorly removed remjet to crudify the negative, but just glorious 5222 which is a wonderful film. But at 8,99 USD a roll it is extremely expensive. A 400ft roll is 257 USD and gives about 70 rolls. Here in Europe they'll be a little bit more, I've seen for around 200 GBP. True one has to bulk load but it's actually easy. 

 

 

 

 

.

(Comment about CineStill not particularly directed at you, James.)  I've just finished my first roll of CineStill Double-X and I haven't noticed any of the crud and marks shown in Phil's picture so might the poor production be restricted to their colour emulsions? 

 

Pete.

 

CineStill BWXX with M3 and 50/2 Rigid Summicron.

 

Pedestrians.jpg