Fotoklaus Posted July 25, 2017 Share #36901 Posted July 25, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Rollei 35SE, Tmax 400, D76 1:1 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! 16 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/205842-i-like-filmopen-thread/?do=findComment&comment=3323236'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 25, 2017 Posted July 25, 2017 Hi Fotoklaus, Take a look here I like film...(open thread). I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Doc Henry Posted July 25, 2017 Author Share #36902 Posted July 25, 2017 (edited) To the Portra- Question: Portra 160, one Picture metered at the lights, one at the shadows, about 1,5 stops difference P160-2973-07.jpg P160-2973-08.jpg Klaus the first is better When you mean "metered at the lights" you mean a majority at left You focus at 0.70m ? IMO when I am in the same situation as you, I'll direct half on a tree and half on left ... or if you have a M7 just remain support shutter with focus on tree first , and turn a little left and release Portra 160 is for me one of the best film for natural color and cheaper than 400 with fine grain Regards Henry Edited July 25, 2017 by Doc Henry Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted July 25, 2017 Author Share #36903 Posted July 25, 2017 (edited) So many great great photos You post - impossible to say how much I appreciate the daily moment I look at Your pictures !!! I like the Ferrania film/photos. I'll give this film a try, I think - if they do continue production ? Today, a phot I shot outside my workshop with the 100 years old wooden camera. I should have wrapped some more black scotch tape around the back before shooting. I love the athmosphere of these so terribly unperfect "oldtimer" cameras. If I remember well, this is Tri-X 400 aswell. Sometimes I am a bit chaotic, I know. My wife tells me every day...;-) Web.Appareil très ancien photo 2.jpeg .jpg Jean-Marie something magic for me when I watch this picture maybe a vintage side and great memories behind. I think also it's TX Thank you for posting and for your encouragement Best Henry Edited July 25, 2017 by Doc Henry 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted July 25, 2017 Author Share #36904 Posted July 25, 2017 San Cosimo's celebration in Francavilla Fontana (Italy) M6 + Summicron asph 35 + HP5@1600 Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro Antonio atmosphere of feast through your nice pictures Great b&w pictures in spite of bad light condition It's HP5 Ilford 400 Isos Thank you Henry 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted July 25, 2017 Author Share #36905 Posted July 25, 2017 Rollei 35SE, Tmax 400, D76 1:1 Südtirol_Sept.14_38.jpg Original idea very nice black Klaus I know you like TMAX400 , it was your favorite film I remember Rollei 35SE, Tmax 400, D76 1:1 Südtirol_Sept.14_13.jpg South Tyrol I like much this one . Great composition Thank you Klaus Best Henry 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stray cat Posted July 25, 2017 Share #36906 Posted July 25, 2017 Well I guess I asked for your thoughts! BTW it is the second picture posted which is the one I scanned as a transparency. Phil red is superb here and with the sun reflection more beautiful Great pictures Thank you Henry Thanks Henry. It is a spot that really does catch that evening light particularly well - there is a rare translucence to the light. Look at those grasses and flowers! In my opinion, the differences are quite minimal and I wouldn't prefer one over the other. Scanning color negative as a positive requires a lot of post processing, and I'm not sure it's worth the trouble when it's possible to get close results with software automation. Not that I particularly enjoy the scanning/processing thing, but I don't particularly mind a bit of extra processing if I end up being happy with the results - and scanning as a tranny only requires one or two more steps, but gives a bit more choice I find. Software automation is just something that doesn't compute with me (pun intended). Hi Phil, I'm happy to hear your scanner's been fixed and hope that computer arrives quickly. It's a nice photograph and I can now see why Meyerowitz called his book Cape Light And from a post-processing point of view, it's quite a tricky image, too. I think it would be a challenge to maintain/obtain a pleasant sky colour (that pale blue-pink variety), natural sun-lit grass colour (green without going yellow-pink and overblown) and normal-looking shadows around the boat (dark without going mushy red or brown while retaining detail), and then all this without the sand going purple or magenta. Tricky, tricky indeed. I think you did a very good job. I prefer the second one because all these aspects of the image look natural. Was this one scanned as colour negative and did you scan as non-linear TIFF or did you use ColorPerfect to invert the image? br Philip Thanks a lot Philip. It seems technology sometimes gets the Gremlins and leaves you somewhat stranded. Another good reason (for me) not to bother with digital gear. Yes, the light is very special there. It is a wonderful place and I am now able to cross it off my "photographer's bucket list". Although I'd relish any opportunity to go back. The clam chowder's pretty good too. I also have a slight preference for the second picture posted - this was scanned as a transparency. The translucency I felt there is just a wee bit more present with this scan. I scanned it as a .tif (not sure what "non-linear" means, sorry). I've used ColorPerfect before but tend to forget about it and doubt if I could remember how to use it. It's a great program though (from memory). I just changed the orange mask (film rebate) area to white using levels in Photoshop, then Invert (under Adjustments) and processed it as a normal colour picture from there. Phil I prefer the first one. When you mean "transparency" is it directly from the scanner without VS ? I think you must crop to see the difference in example red boat and little green grass About you Mac died , we meet and will meet this kind of problem in the future . Computer obsolete because too old or too "tired" Digital process needs computers , no digital , no change , no software and save the money In my case , I keep one old computer with Windows XP to scan with my Nikon Coolscan and I am happy to post here for sharing but normally I prefer print directly to watch all my pictures I only need PC just to watch and send pictures on Leica Forum Best Henry Thanks a lot Henry. No, when I say I processed as a transparency, I told VueScan that I was scanning a colour slide (I call them transparencies) even though I was scanning a colour negative. Then I processed initially as described above to Philip. After that it's just normal processing - curves, exposure and stuff like that. Yes I agree with you completely about technology. I worked in IT for many years and still don't relish the opportunity to spend a lot of time in front of computers (hey what am I doing here??). But I don't at the moment have a darkroom so... c'est la vie. BTW Henry just listening to my Australian-built (just a few km from my home) tube amplifier - Janis Joplin "Summertime" and now Cream "Tales of Brave Ulysses". Doesn't get much better than that. I have looked at them for a while. The contrast seems greater in the second photo, especially between boat and rope. I think I prefer the first. In it, the first, the shade-to- sunlight transition area on the top/bottom of the boat seems better represented; the scuffs are more discernible. Thank you as always Wayne for a well-considered and thoughtful response. I could live with either scan. In fact I think I may play with this neg a bit more in the future, as I still think there's room for improvement. But there are other pictures waiting to be scanned... and taken! 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stray cat Posted July 25, 2017 Share #36907 Posted July 25, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Rolleiflex 6002, Planar 80, Velvia 100F 6002_Juli17_004.jpg Wo! This is huge! Bang! What impact - great shot. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stray cat Posted July 25, 2017 Share #36908 Posted July 25, 2017 To the Portra- Question: Portra 160, one Picture metered at the lights, one at the shadows, about 1,5 stops difference P160-2973-07.jpg The overexposed neg of course (number one). Number two shows the blocking and loss of shadow detail that exposing for the highlights with colour negative film gets you. I am one of those who shoots colour neg generally at half box speed, then meters generally, for this very reason. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted July 25, 2017 Author Share #36909 Posted July 25, 2017 (edited) Phil, "Yes I agree with you completely about technology. I worked in IT for many years and still don't relish the opportunity to spend a lot of time in front of computers (hey what am I doing here??). But I don't at the moment have a darkroom so... c'est la vie. BTW Henry just listening to my Australian-built (just a few km from my home) tube amplifier - Janis Joplin "Summertime" and now Cream "Tales of Brave Ulysses". Doesn't get much better than that" Summertime a great song and tubes amplifier a great listening ... I listen at present time , Piano Concerto and orchestra of Edouard Grieg it's sublime with tubes dark room ? you'll come back , I am sure Phil Best Henry Edited July 25, 2017 by Doc Henry 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stray cat Posted July 25, 2017 Share #36910 Posted July 25, 2017 Also want to than Christophe for his examples of Ferrania P30. A fascinating looking film - absolutely killer for certain situations (like that first shot especially). I am an initial funder too and eagerly waiting for the release of their colour transparency film, but I may just have to try and get my hands on some of the P30 and try it out under various conditions like you have Christophe. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotomas Posted July 25, 2017 Share #36911 Posted July 25, 2017 Having been without, firstly, my scanner (now fixed!!) and secondly my computer (the old Mac Pro finally died. I am waiting on a new iMac which #&$%@! Apple seem to have "lost" for the last couple of weeks and am using a borrowed computer with the drives from my old computer), I have been neglectful in regards to this forum. Anyway, I've been noticing a lot of conversation around the relative merits of various colour films. Whilst I think we all have our favourites, and with good cause, I'd just like to add a small consideration of processing to the conversation. It can potentially make a vast difference to the end result, at least as displayed on our monitors - and this is independent of whether the original picture was taken using digital, colour negative, slide or black and white film. As an example, here are two different treatments of the same picture from my recent trip to Cape Light ...er Cape Cod. The negative is on Portra 160. One of these examples was scanned as a transparency, the other as a colour negative (using Vuescan) and both were processed to the best of my ability - ie I tried to get the picture as aesthetically pleasing as possible, while keeping it reasonably accurate to my memory of the scene. Perhaps you prefer one or the other? I'd be interested to hear any comments anyone might care to make: Wellfleet, Massachusetts June 2017 M6TTL, 35mm Summicron, Portra 160 Rather interesting comparison. Whenever you scan you have to made a decision, how it should turn out. On the computer you even have more choices then in the lab. So you might be able to have a picture from a negative looked a bit like from a slide-film. I am going trough scanning my archive in these days and starting with the very first negatives. Yesterday I scanned a film I exposed in 1980 with stuff you are interested in in this age. A Fujicolor F-II 100 ASA. So I set up the scanner with a setting which I found to turn out fine in my thoughts. Looks quite nice on the first look. 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 bit contrasty for being from a negative, more then from a slide. But the I remembered that I have made a scan from this negative a while ago in 2003, so 23 years after exposing the picture, with my old Nikon LS-30 scanner. Never was so happy with the results so I rescan it again with the new scanner, now 37 years after. So I searched for the old Nikon scan and here it is: What I found was that the negative seemed to have faded in the last 14 years after the first scan, and probably it faded even before. So I decided to make a new approach with the new scanner to try to get as close as possible to the old scan. This is what I got: Looks like the shadows have faded most. Especially red tones seemed to have gone. Look at the red belt of the guitar at the man at the right. In the new scan you can barely see it. Shadow definition is way better in the old scan. In these days I was a schoolboy an didn't have a own lab. So all films was given to a supermarket to be developed. So the negatives are in very poor condition, since you get them lose in a paper-bag. Later I put them in a adequate sleeve. I have left all the dust and scratches in the scan. They also cut in the negative, as you can see in the right. In these days I got not so sharp prints in 9 x 12 cm size (3.5 x 4.7 inches) from the lab where you hardly see all this dirt. I was so happy, when I was able to develop my films on my own. There are a lot of discussions about if to enlarge or to scan, but I am quite happy to have the opportunity now to save some of the old stuff through scanning. From the faded negative you wont get a result as new even printing on color-paper in the lab. Would be interesting to know if you have also experience about fading or if newer films have more stable dyes. Regards Frank 8 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! A bit contrasty for being from a negative, more then from a slide. But the I remembered that I have made a scan from this negative a while ago in 2003, so 23 years after exposing the picture, with my old Nikon LS-30 scanner. Never was so happy with the results so I rescan it again with the new scanner, now 37 years after. So I searched for the old Nikon scan and here it is: What I found was that the negative seemed to have faded in the last 14 years after the first scan, and probably it faded even before. So I decided to make a new approach with the new scanner to try to get as close as possible to the old scan. This is what I got: Looks like the shadows have faded most. Especially red tones seemed to have gone. Look at the red belt of the guitar at the man at the right. In the new scan you can barely see it. Shadow definition is way better in the old scan. In these days I was a schoolboy an didn't have a own lab. So all films was given to a supermarket to be developed. So the negatives are in very poor condition, since you get them lose in a paper-bag. Later I put them in a adequate sleeve. I have left all the dust and scratches in the scan. They also cut in the negative, as you can see in the right. In these days I got not so sharp prints in 9 x 12 cm size (3.5 x 4.7 inches) from the lab where you hardly see all this dirt. I was so happy, when I was able to develop my films on my own. There are a lot of discussions about if to enlarge or to scan, but I am quite happy to have the opportunity now to save some of the old stuff through scanning. From the faded negative you wont get a result as new even printing on color-paper in the lab. Would be interesting to know if you have also experience about fading or if newer films have more stable dyes. Regards Frank ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/205842-i-like-filmopen-thread/?do=findComment&comment=3323263'>More sharing options...
stray cat Posted July 25, 2017 Share #36912 Posted July 25, 2017 ...and here's Molly, a firehouse pooch: Molly, Boston Massachusetts, June 2017 M6TTL, 35mm Summicron, Portra 160 (scanned/processed as a negative this time!). 14 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted July 25, 2017 Author Share #36913 Posted July 25, 2017 (edited) One more Kodak Portra 160 for Ray in contre-jour Film is amazing and great all details in the shadows still visible ! and analog camera costs cheaper ! Kodak Portra 160-Leica M7-Summicron 35 Asph The day of departure of my last mission DN airport at sunset 2016 ... and reflection is for Philip 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 July 25, 2017 by Doc Henry 10 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Best Henry ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/205842-i-like-filmopen-thread/?do=findComment&comment=3323265'>More sharing options...
Fotoklaus Posted July 25, 2017 Share #36914 Posted July 25, 2017 Rolleiflex 6008 I2, Portra 160 at Box speed 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! 11 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/205842-i-like-filmopen-thread/?do=findComment&comment=3323266'>More sharing options...
stray cat Posted July 25, 2017 Share #36915 Posted July 25, 2017 Rather interesting comparison. Whenever you scan you have to made a decision, how it should turn out. On the computer you even have more choices then in the lab. So you might be able to have a picture from a negative looked a bit like from a slide-film. I am going trough scanning my archive in these days and starting with the very first negatives. Yesterday I scanned a film I exposed in 1980 with stuff you are interested in in this age. A Fujicolor F-II 100 ASA. So I set up the scanner with a setting which I found to turn out fine in my thoughts. Looks quite nice on the first look. 09A80-20-2.jpg A bit contrasty for being from a negative, more then from a slide. But the I remembered that I have made a scan from this negative a while ago in 2003, so 23 years after exposing the picture, with my old Nikon LS-30 scanner. Never was so happy with the results so I rescan it again with the new scanner, now 37 years after. So I searched for the old Nikon scan and here it is: 09A80-20Nikon.jpg What I found was that the negative seemed to have faded in the last 14 years after the first scan, and probably it faded even before. So I decided to make a new approach with the new scanner to try to get as close as possible to the old scan. This is what I got: 09A80-20b.jpg Looks like the shadows have faded most. Especially red tones seemed to have gone. Look at the red belt of the guitar at the man at the right. In the new scan you can barely see it. Shadow definition is way better in the old scan. In these days I was a schoolboy an didn't have a own lab. So all films was given to a supermarket to be developed. So the negatives are in very poor condition, since you get them lose in a paper-bag. Later I put them in a adequate sleeve. I have left all the dust and scratches in the scan. They also cut in the negative, as you can see in the right. In these days I got not so sharp prints in 9 x 12 cm size (3.5 x 4.7 inches) from the lab where you hardly see all this dirt. I was so happy, when I was able to develop my films on my own. There are a lot of discussions about if to enlarge or to scan, but I am quite happy to have the opportunity now to save some of the old stuff through scanning. From the faded negative you wont get a result as new even printing on color-paper in the lab. Would be interesting to know if you have also experience about fading or if newer films have more stable dyes. Regards Frank Firstly, thank you Frank. Secondly - what an incredible resource we are afforded when we have our old negatives and transparencies that, in effect, trace the stories of our lives. That you can resurrect them at will - even finding them in a paper bag or a shoe box or whatever - is pretty mind-blowing when you think about it. There they are, those pieces of plastic that were there - with you! - at that concert, or that wedding, or in front of that loved one or that sunset or whatever. The camera, the sunset, even sometimes the loved one may have gone from your life, but these tangible souvenirs remain. Photography. Isn't it great? 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotoklaus Posted July 25, 2017 Share #36916 Posted July 25, 2017 Rolleiflex 6008 I2, Portra 160 at Box speed 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! In my opinion Portra is best at Box speed. Those negs were scanned at meinfilmlab.de and i asked the boss about his opinion. He told me the same. Correctly exposed, Porta has a wide range from highlights to shadows. They are developing and scanning a lot of Portra, so i believe in his words. 14 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! In my opinion Portra is best at Box speed. Those negs were scanned at meinfilmlab.de and i asked the boss about his opinion. He told me the same. Correctly exposed, Porta has a wide range from highlights to shadows. They are developing and scanning a lot of Portra, so i believe in his words. ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/205842-i-like-filmopen-thread/?do=findComment&comment=3323269'>More sharing options...
Fotoklaus Posted July 25, 2017 Share #36917 Posted July 25, 2017 Rolleiflex 6008 I2, Portra 160 at Box speed 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! 12 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/205842-i-like-filmopen-thread/?do=findComment&comment=3323271'>More sharing options...
Wayne Posted July 25, 2017 Share #36918 Posted July 25, 2017 ...and here's Molly, a firehouse pooch: Molly, Boston Massachusetts, June 2017 M6TTL, 35mm Summicron, Portra 160 (scanned/processed as a negative this time!). Molly seems very comfortable as a model. It is kind of funny. I find myself taking quite a number of dog photos recently; I do find it difficult to get them to look directly into lens. Using a treat seems like bribery. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparkassenkunde Posted July 25, 2017 Share #36919 Posted July 25, 2017 Having been without, firstly, my scanner (now fixed!!) and secondly my computer (the old Mac Pro finally died. I am waiting on a new iMac which #&$%@! Apple seem to have "lost" for the last couple of weeks and am using a borrowed computer with the drives from my old computer), I have been neglectful in regards to this forum. Anyway, I've been noticing a lot of conversation around the relative merits of various colour films. Whilst I think we all have our favourites, and with good cause, I'd just like to add a small consideration of processing to the conversation. It can potentially make a vast difference to the end result, at least as displayed on our monitors - and this is independent of whether the original picture was taken using digital, colour negative, slide or black and white film. As an example, here are two different treatments of the same picture from my recent trip to Cape Light ...er Cape Cod. The negative is on Portra 160. One of these examples was scanned as a transparency, the other as a colour negative (using Vuescan) and both were processed to the best of my ability - ie I tried to get the picture as aesthetically pleasing as possible, while keeping it reasonably accurate to my memory of the scene. Perhaps you prefer one or the other? I'd be interested to hear any comments anyone might care to make: Wellfleet, Massachusetts June 2017 M6TTL, 35mm Summicron, Portra 160 I also compared your pictures for a while. Both are developed very nicely and in my opinion neither is better than the other, but overall I like the second a tad more for the slightly fresher greens and the for the "poppier" red of the boat. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stray cat Posted July 25, 2017 Share #36920 Posted July 25, 2017 Molly seems very comfortable as a model. It is kind of funny. I find myself taking quite a number of dog photos recently; I do find it difficult to get them to look directly into lens. Using a treat seems like bribery. Thank you Wayne. Yes, Molly was an incredibly composed doggy. Getting a lot of attention on a Saturday morning - lots of pats and hugs from all sorts of people. I suspect she was thoroughly enjoying herself. I was reading my Elliott Erwitt book just yesterday, where he was explaining how he got a lot of his doggy pictures. He barked. He barked and the dog responded, and this is how he got the picture. One time he barked and the lady whose pooch it was gave the dog a whack because she thought it was HER dog barking. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.