I like film...(open thread)

[chrism]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

17 hours ago, Doc Henry said:

Look at this Chris ... I posted several years ago . All pictures and crops are not corrected Scan in Tiff 16 bits with Nikon CS5000

Notice the "loss of details in the shadows" when you converted color in b&w .... and look at the details in the shadows with Kodak TX400

 Camera Leicaflex SL +Portra 160 and Leica R4S + TX400 same lens 50 Summicron  for both and same aperture 

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!

original crop in color

Color converted in SE

in Kodak TX400

... Best regards

the "can' s worms"

....    so when you converted  digital color in b&w  I let you guess the result

Yes, I remember you showing that before. It may well be that shadow areas on colour film show details that are distinguished not by luminance, but by their hue, which is lost in conversion to B&W. I'm not sure that comparing to a silver halide B&W film is quite fair, given that a different chemical technology is used - perfectly fair, though, when judging by results which you choose to use! The reason I did a lot of B&W conversions was that when travelling in my old MX-5 Miata, my camera bag has to sit on the tiny parcel shelf behind my headrest, and I can't fit a big bag with two cameras there (next summer I'll take the 500c/m with two film backs to get around this). Now the really interesting question that comes to mind is whether the better performance with respect to shadow detail of silver halide over dye cloud films remains true for XP2 Super? It ought to be true, and would be a definite drawback to my use of chromogenic film, but I do have a freezer full of the stuff to use up, having committed to it in the days when I could afford to buy film and liking it for the minimal grain. So I'll have to stick with it until it runs out or I do.

There is one very interesting positive aspect to converting a colour shot B&W though, that can be exploited for good effect, and that is to use the colour sliders to simulate the effects of B&W colour filters for dark skies etc. It means I can convert the photo to a result that simulates a yellow, orange, red or green filter without carrying filters, which is good as I have a full set only for my Leica lenses, but none for the larger Nikon or Hasselblad lenses.

 

 

[sblitz]

1 hour ago, Doc Henry said:

Steve scan youself if you love film each picture can reach 120 Mb in Tiff

Best H

I certainly could, but I long ago gave up the illusion of having that time between work and family/home tasks. I leave the scanning to digitizing my old slides and negatives.

 

I do, however, have a yen to start developing my own black & white film. But this has been a yen for a long time, see sentence above :-)

 

[Advertisement]

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

[Doc Henry]

20 minutes ago, chrism said:

Yes, I remember you showing that before. It may well be that shadow areas on colour film show details that are distinguished not by luminance, but by their hue, which is lost in conversion to B&W. I'm not sure that comparing to a silver halide B&W film is quite fair, given that a different chemical technology is used - perfectly fair, though, when judging by results which you choose to use! The reason I did a lot of B&W conversions was that when travelling in my old MX-5 Miata, my camera bag has to sit on the tiny parcel shelf behind my headrest, and I can't fit a big bag with two cameras there (next summer I'll take the 500c/m with two film backs to get around this). Now the really interesting question that comes to mind is whether the better performance with respect to shadow detail of silver halide over dye cloud films remains true for XP2 Super? It ought to be true, and would be a definite drawback to my use of chromogenic film, but I do have a freezer full of the stuff to use up, having committed to it in the days when I could afford to buy film and liking it for the minimal grain. So I'll have to stick with it until it runs out or I do.

Chris good argument

" I'm not sure that comparing to a silver halide B&W film is quite fair, given that a different chemical technology is used - perfectly fair, though, when judging by results which you choose to use "

Chris , I have other examples like digital converted to black compared to b&w film,  it's the same conclusion ....   I photographed with a TX400 to see what it gives with a b&w  film ... at first I did not know but after comparison I noticed that there is a lack of details  

Chris compare it with the color converted black-white with the XP2 and you'll see

Best Henry

 

Edited November 26, 2018 by Doc Henry

[frame-it]

20 hours ago, sblitz said:

Outside Penn Station (7th Ave side for those keep track), the rush for trains and umbrellas .... this is also Cinestill800 and fuji645 with 60mm lens ...

 

 

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!

delicious colors

[Bobitybob]

Ropes end ...

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!

 

Canon EOS 1n, Kodak BW400CN

[Michael Hiles]

2 hours ago, chrism said:

Now the really interesting question that comes to mind is whether the better performance with respect to shadow detail of silver halide over dye cloud films remains true for XP2 Super?

 

 

Uninvited comment…

XP2 – correctly exposed – holds and separates shadow detail really well. Correct exposure is 200 ASA, according to my tests (using densitometer), and many others come to the same conclusion. This is true whether you process in C41 or HC-110 (using Chrism’s method). In fact, Ilford says (not very loudly, but they do say) that the best negatives from XP2 come from exposing for 200 ASA.

Achieving good shadow detail involves exposing for the shadows – measure the shadow area and open 2-3 stops (your meter assumes you are measuring 18% reflectance). In zone terms this is getting zone II – III right. If you can’t actually measure the important shadows, be generous with your average exposure. Don’t worry about highlights – blowing highlights with XP2 is very rare – just get good exposure in the shadows. XP2, if you follow these principles, is wonderful.

I have not made organized comparisons between XP2 and classic silver films. But I know that XP2 is close to unbeatable in every respect that matters to me..

[AntonioF]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Campomarino Marina - whatever EHF means

FM2, Nikkor 50/1.8 AIS and Cinestill 800T

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!

20181125-DSC01772 by antoniofedele, on Flickr

[Stealth3kpl]

2 hours ago, Michael Hiles said:

 

Achieving good shadow detail involves exposing for the shadows – measure the shadow area and open 2-3 stops (your meter assumes you are measuring 18% reflectance).

Do you mean if you measured the shadows at 1/250 to be f5.6, you would open up to f2.8 to f2?

Pete

[Michael Hiles]

17 minutes ago, Stealth3kpl said:

Do you mean if you measured the shadows at 1/250 to be f5.6, you would open up to f2.8 to f2?

Pete

No. I have misled you – I have steered you 180 degrees the wrong way.

If you measure the shadow and it says 1/250 @ f5.6, you would then be exposing the shadow to come out as a middle gray on the negative (i.e. the negative will show the shadow {and everything else} as too thick). You want the shadow to get less light (and density) so you will expose 1/250 @ f11, or maybe f16. This will give a thinner negative, representing a shadow density (zone III or II).

Apologies for suggesting that east is west and west is east. The general reasoning stands.

Edited November 26, 2018 by Michael Hiles

[Stealth3kpl]

1 hour ago, Michael Hiles said:

No. I have misled you – I have steered you 180 degrees the wrong way.

If you measure the shadow and it says 1/250 @ f5.6, you would then be exposing the shadow to come out as a middle gray on the negative (i.e. the negative will show the shadow {and everything else} as too thick). You want the shadow to get less light (and density) so you will expose 1/250 @ f11, or maybe f16. This will give a thinner negative, representing a shadow density (zone III or II).

Apologies for suggesting that east is west and west is east. The general reasoning stands.

Haha, I thought that must've been what you meant!

Pete

[sblitz]

1 hour ago, Michael Hiles said:

No. I have misled you – I have steered you 180 degrees the wrong way.

If you measure the shadow and it says 1/250 @ f5.6, you would then be exposing the shadow to come out as a middle gray on the negative (i.e. the negative will show the shadow {and everything else} as too thick). You want the shadow to get less light (and density) so you will expose 1/250 @ f11, or maybe f16. This will give a thinner negative, representing a shadow density (zone III or II).

Apologies for suggesting that east is west and west is east. The general reasoning stands.

 

You have it correct, but I would take it in the direction, namely that moving the shadow further into the black by shifting to f11 or f16, as you suggest, you bring the highlight towards middle ground and the result is a photo of greater depth to the eye ....  but of course it depends on what part of the shot one wants to highlight.

 

[benqui]

Ilford Delta 400, M6, Apo Summicron 90 mm

best regards

Marc

 

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!

[sblitz]

1 minute ago, benqui said:

Ilford Delta 400, M6, Apo Summicron 90 mm

best regards

Marc

 

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 sure how you find these beautiful women, maybe its the space helmet (what it looks like to me, apologies if it isn't)!!!!! If they are all in your home town, I am happy to visit next time I am Europe. 🙂

Keep posting, makes my day

 

[chrism]

This is basic stuff, I know, but using several cameras with no in-built meter, I have been experimenting with various metering methods:

1. Use a tiny digital camera in manual mode with a live view LCD that lightens or darkens as the exposure is changed

2. Use an incident reading with a Sekonic L-758

3. Spot meter highlights with the Sekonic and increase exposure 2-3 stops according to how bright the highlights in the subject are

4. Spot meter shadows with the Sekonic and decrease exposure 2-3 stops according to how dark those shadows are

5. Take at least three spot readings - highlights, shadows, and mid-tones - then let the Sekonic average them

6. I've toyed with the rather complicated method Sekonic have suggested in videos where you take multiple readings and then shift the midtones to fit them all into the dynamic range of your film or sensor. I don't think I have the skills or patience to do this properly. I guess it's really intended for digital sensors and requires calibration of the meter for each sensor or film with a colour card.

I would like to find that just one of these is always reliable, but naturally life isn't so simple! #5 seems to work the best, but it just boils down to an averaged reflectance metering, just like an in-built TTL meter. Probably the proper thing to do would be to take a digital camera, set it to Manual, and use the Sekonic for method #3 and #4 and practice for a few hundred shots. It's too cold, wet and snowy to do this at present. I'm not as hardy as I used to be and I hate to go out in this weather.

[benqui]

vor 10 Minuten schrieb sblitz:

Not sure how you find these beautiful women, maybe its the space helmet (what it looks like to me, apologies if it isn't)!!!!! If they are all in your home town, I am happy to visit next time I am Europe. 🙂

Keep posting, makes my day

ha ha ha, you made my day!! As an astronaut, it is not so difficult to find beautiful women for a shooting 😉😉

For sure it is not the space helmet, it is of course our old film camera. Most of the women like a lot that they are not "machinegunned" by 25 photos/sec . Unfortunately I do not find them all in my hometown. Would be very good reasons never to leave it!

[sblitz]

Benqui -- This is the best I could do, sneaking a shot on the Central Line heading to Bank Station 🙂

 

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!

[benqui]

vor 1 Minute schrieb sblitz:

Benqui -- This is the best I could do, sneaking a shot on the Central Line heading to Bank Station 🙂

I really like it!! Go for it!!

[Xelor]

.

.

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!

[Ernest]

20 hours ago, stray cat said:

Than you yet again, Rog. I didn't know of the circumstances of Gibson's Mum's death, and now of course the picture of the beauty parlour on fire in The Somnambulist makes considerably more sense to me - and inspires considerable pathos. It would certainly be interesting to read Gibson's thoughts on the tragedy, and on the picture. It puts me in mind of the great crime writer, James Ellroy, and how the murder of his mother when he was just ten informed the rest of his life. And of course Trent Parke's Mum died of asthma in front of him when he was just twelve.

Trent Parke's work is of course rather incredible, and The Black Rose is an intensely personal and affecting account of the effect of a number of changes in his life, including his brush with cancer, his children growing older and he and Narelle uprooting the family and moving from Sydney to Adelaide. I can only wonder what the effect of the exhibition/installation at the Art Gallery of South Australia, where it took up a number of rooms, must have been.

www.artgallery.sa.gov.au/agsa/home/Learning/docs/TP_Ed_resource_Final.pdf

 

We weren't, unfortunately, able to get over there to see it at the time - I wonder if David Strachan (who is a valued contributor here) was able to see it and, if so, would share his thoughts with us?

There is such a rumble of applause for Trent Parke! The intrigue of his vision is only exceeded by my ignorance of his work. Paraphrasing you, "I have much homework to do, no matter how lovely, deep, and dark the woods. . . ."

Gibson says in Self-Exposure that after his mother died, he moved back to New York. "I was walking down Sixth Avenue and came upn a burning beauty parlor. It drew me towards it like a moth. I raised the Leica to understand it better through the viewfinder. And as I released the shutter, the tears of grief and loss from my dear dead mother were liberated. As I sobbed I understood that photography was my salvation" (97-98). And on page 99, is Gibson's street photograph of the fire, which is cropped and printed differently than the same photograph published in The Black Trilogy (61), opposite Mary Ellen Mark. In Self-Exposure, the beauty salon sign is cropped "EAUTY SALON" and the entire "WASH & SET" on the right of the frame is included, whereas in The Black Trilogy, the beauty parlor sign is cropped at "UTY SALON" and the right side of the WASH & SET sign is cropped. The blacks are denser in Self-Exposure than in The Black Trilogy.  I don't have The Somnambulist for comparison. With the backstory in mind, one can certainly read Gibson's diptych of Mary Ellen Mark and the beauty parlor fire, the verso and recto of the facing pages, as a gesture of reaching out to the memory or spirit of his mother. It is significant that Mark is not looking into the camera, so while there is a direct POV that invites the viewer to "participate" in the scene by assuming the perspective of the camera eye, the moment is fixed by Mark's focus on the hands joining. Perhaps there's little evidence to argue such a reading, but Gibson constructed the pairing with purpose, even though according to him, he simply "made this photograph of her while waiting for a ferry" at the Staten Island terminal. He says, "It is a perfect portrait of our relationship, revealing our love affair and that abstract space between us that a lifetime of friendship was never able to bridge" (Self-Exposure 118).

When your copy of Self-Exposure arrives, perhaps you can compare The Somnambulist against it. It would be interesting to know if Gibson decided to open the cropping in Self-Exposure.

Cheers, Rog

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[A miller]

19 hours ago, edwardkaraa said:

Hi guys,

Looking for some advice here. Hope you can help.

Has anyone here ever been using a Nikon Coolscan and a Plustek (any model, preferably recent).

I would like to know your opinion about output quality and differences.

Thanks!

Edward - I have extensive experience with the coolscan 9000 but have never used the Plustek.  There is a guy on the forum (first name is Steve but can't remember his last name) who swears by his plustek.  But he is the only person that I have come across with this view.  The reviews that I have read put the Plustek as a second class unit.

10 hours ago, sblitz said:

I certainly could, but I long ago gave up the illusion of having that time between work and family/home tasks. I leave the scanning to digitizing my old slides and negatives.

 

I do, however, have a yen to start developing my own black & white film. But this has been a yen for a long time, see sentence above 🙂

 

Steve - I think if you know what kind of potential your negatives had with better scanning you'd free up some time.  Those lab scans just don't do them justice, most of them anyway.  

9 hours ago, Bobitybob said:

Ropes end ...

 

 

Canon EOS 1n, Kodak BW400CN

Very nice, Bob!

1 hour ago, benqui said:

Ilford Delta 400, M6, Apo Summicron 90 mm

best regards

Marc

 

 

Wow, what a woman, what a lens !