Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

These statements simply are not true. A tiff file — because of its structure: you can read up on it — is at least 3-4 times larger than a DNG file, although they both contain the same amount of information. So, an M10 DNG is about 30MB and an exported TIFF from the DNG is about 140MB — and both contain the same amount of information. It's the structure of the TIFF files that makes scan files so much larger than DNGs. Similarly, an M9 DNG is about 18MB and the exported TIFF is about 108MB. BTW, it's been a long time since most people on this forum shot 10MB DNG files.

 

Since I got the M10, for the last nine months I’ve been shooting digital but, now, in Chiang Mai where there is an excellent analog photo lab, I hesitate each time I go out whether to take my M10 or the old M3. My general thinking though is to shoot color digitally and to shoot film occasionally for B&W. While I like the “roughness” of the above image from Paris shot nine months ago on Portra 400, my feeling is I could probably do something similar with the M10, considering that the DR Summicron-50 would flare either way in this strong back-light at that angle.
 
24893331577_b11f63681c_o.jpg
Paris
_________________
Instagram: @mitchalland

 

 

 

Nice shot !

Edited by JMF
Link to post
Share on other sites

x

Don't forget that film goes through multiple x-rays already before it reaches you. I order my film online and it gets shipped from the US to Thailand. Who knows how many times it goes through these evil machines on its way :)

 

Yeah, I've always wondered shipping and transportation ...

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Many centennial olive trees here in southern Puglia (Italy). This one might look like a dead skeleton, but it is well alive.

There's an infection now arrived probably from central America spreading around and killing olive trees. Regardless of all the political/scientific discussions and fights, nobody knows the cure. I guess one day we will stop producing extra virgin olive oil.

 

Shot on Mamiya 645, Sekor-C 80/2.8, Ilford FP4@200, HC-110 dil B

 

back side

27985190099_bf2a94f11c_b.jpg

20180107-img914 by antoniofedele, on Flickr

 

front side

38864801385_21c4db55d8_b.jpg

20180107-img911 by antoniofedele, on Flickr

 

 

  • Like 16
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Many centennial olive trees here in southern Puglia (Italy). This one might look like a dead skeleton, but it is well alive.

There's an infection now arrived probably from central America spreading around and killing olive trees. Regardless of all the political/scientific discussions and fights, nobody knows the cure. I guess one day we will stop producing extra virgin olive oil.

 

Shot on Mamiya 645, Sekor-C 80/2.8, Ilford FP4@200, HC-110 dil B

 

back side

27985190099_bf2a94f11c_b.jpg

20180107-img914 by antoniofedele, on Flickr

 

front side

38864801385_21c4db55d8_b.jpg

20180107-img911 by antoniofedele, on Flickr

 

 

So sad to read the news . Nice photos though !

Link to post
Share on other sites

.... perhaps you are a victim of one rather zealous Australian customs officer Phil

Best

Henry

 

Henry, the zealous customs officer was in Los Angeles. My point being, it is probably best to avoid anything that may cause customs officers to become suspicious or curious about what you're carrying - not least because they should be alert to anything else that may be passing by while they are concerned with you. Luckily (!) on that occasion I had a 5-hour layover in LA so it didn't cost me my connecting flight.

 

 

 

Reposting, oops !

 

38855100295_c563eaa09c_h.jpg

Buziós by JM__, on Flickr

 

Jean-Marc, your recent Acros work is outstanding! The drama in this picture and some of the others is palpable. Not to mention your wonderful desert pano. Chapeau!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Henry, the zealous customs officer was in Los Angeles. My point being, it is probably best to avoid anything that may cause customs officers to become suspicious or curious about what you're carrying - not least because they should be alert to anything else that may be passing by while they are concerned with you. Luckily (!) on that occasion I had a 5-hour layover in LA so it didn't cost me my connecting flight.

 

 

Jean-Marc, your recent Acros work is outstanding! The drama in this picture and some of the others is palpable. Not to mention your wonderful desert pano. Chapeau!

 

 

 

Thanks so much, being able to shoot BW film out at sea on a kayak is simply exhilarating and I am happy to share these moments here !

 

39760161831_1d77223bdd_b.jpg

Buziós by JM__, on Flickr

 

And these truly inspiring locations  do help !

 

7801703820_539c6e5d7d_b.jpg

Sahart, Northwestern Sahara, Morocco by _JM_, on Flickr

 

 

Cheers, Jean-Marc.

Edited by JMF
Link to post
Share on other sites

What a pointless dialogue.

 

These statements simply are not true. A tiff file — because of its structure: you can read up on it — is at least 3-4 times larger than a DNG file, although they both contain the same amount of information. So, an M10 DNG is about 30MB and an exported TIFF from the DNG is about 140MB — and both contain the same amount of information. It's the structure of the TIFF files that makes scan files so much larger than DNGs. Similarly, an M9 DNG is about 18MB and the exported TIFF is about 108MB. BTW, it's been a long time since most people on this forum shot 10MB DNG files.

 

Since I got the M10, for the last nine months I’ve been shooting digital but, now, in Chiang Mai where there is an excellent analog photo lab, I hesitate each time I go out whether to take my M10 or the old M3. My general thinking though is to shoot color digitally and to shoot film occasionally for B&W. While I like the “roughness” of the above image from Paris shot nine months ago on Portra 400, my feeling is I could probably do something similar with the M10, considering that the DR Summicron-50 would flare either way in this strong back-light at that angle.
 
 
Paris
_________________
Instagram: @mitchalland

 

 

Love it!

 

Sahart, Northwestern Sahara, Morocco by _JM_, on Flickr

 

Agfa RSX 50 - Horizon 202

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Nowhereman
What a pointless dialogue.

Love it!

 

Adam - In your wisdom, would you like to elucidate why pointless? Actually, though, you might consider what a dialogue is.

 

But, substantively, in a post on my thread on digitalizing slides with a camera, you stated that a 30MB DNG file couldn't have the quality of the 140 MB TIFF file from your Coolscan 9000. That's worse than pointless, considering it's wrong.

_______________

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

Instagram: @mitchalland

Link to post
Share on other sites

you

 

Adam - In your wisdom, would you like to elucidate why pointless? Actually, though, you might consider what a dialogue is.

 

But, substantively, in a post on my thread on digitalizing slides with a camera, you stated that a 30MB DNG file couldn't have the quality of the 140 MB TIFF file from your Coolscan 9000. That's worse than pointless, considering it's wrong.

_______________

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

Instagram: @mitchalland

 You say it is wrong, but that doesn't mean it is right. And I stand by my belief based on shooting, editing and printing plenty of both raw digital files and also high quality film scans.  

But I think it is pointless b/c even if you are right:

1.  the file sizes are effectively the same, which fares very well for a film scan

2.  plus, the film scan will have the sublime aesthetics of film, which digital files woefully lacks, 

3. plus once you get into the medium and large format world film starts to pull away big-time  by any standard and so you lose there, as well.

Above all, film is film and a good film scan can be digitally dodged and burned plenty sufficiently and can be printed plenty big.  

So it comes down to whether you like film or digital.  

This is a film photo sharing thread.  You are invited to share film scans.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...