Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 9/19/2021 at 7:47 AM, evikne said:

A walking tree? 🤔😄

I do really like the idea of this tree walking back and forth this path :) Maybe he is on guard over the dolmen that sits at the other end of that path and that I have shown here some pages before...

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

beetroot aka beet

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!

HB 205; Makro Planar, Ektar

  • Like 19
Link to post
Share on other sites

M177, the Chambers meeting room, was fancier than other meeting rooms, with a big wooden table and wood panelled walls. Well on one of the walls. The wall behind the camera was bulletproof glass because the wall went to the front of the building and there was a fear of attacks.

I don't know how many times I've been in this room but it's a lot. This room has seen the deliberations in most of the judgements that the ICTY issued, that is, the meticulous and very time-consuming discussions between judges and their legal team on the weighing of the evidence and assessing the parties' arguments on facts and law. This room has also seen representatives of Chambers, the Prosecution and the Defence meet during the pre-trial phase to iron out issues and hopefully ensure a smooth trial. Or realise that it's going to be a terrible experience where each and every little thing is going to be debated ad nauseam. Innumerable team meetings have taken place here as well as meetings of the principals the three organs of the ICTY – the President, the Prosecutor and the Registrar.

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!

Flickr
203FE 40/4 Ektar X1

  • Like 15
Link to post
Share on other sites

Philip, I have to say this is remarkable for the complete lack of grain. If I say it doesn't look like film I don't mean anything negative (oops, that just got more complicated still)!

I have always strived to make film look like high megapixel digital, even before digital was invented. So what I said above is high praise, believe it or not.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Stamper  Stanzas
M-A APO 50 & Tele-.Rolleiflex Portra 400

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!

  • Like 14
Link to post
Share on other sites

Seaside

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!

MP; Voigtländer 1,4/35 Nokton Classic II MC, Ektar 100, bw converted.     The VC lens is nicely built, but optically... well, let's say it´s got a lot of character. 🙂. Maybe I keep it for the evening walk. 

Edited by Kl@usW.
  • Like 17
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Catching flare. New Orleans, 2021

 

M2-R | Lux' 35mm f/1.4 |Kodak Portra 800, CS-41

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you very much Chris, I really appreciate it and know precisely what you mean. It is also something I've strived to achieve for a long time, if for no other reason than to dispel the internet-received myth that film results in lomographical results all the time.

What's so interesting, well perhaps only to someone like I who finds strange meta discussions interesting, is that film seems to love light whereas digital seems to dislike it. It's a silly generalisation of course, because it's not true to all types of film. Slide film clearly doesn't always love light since it overexposes quite easily much like digital does. But certainly colour negative and black and white emulsions prefer more light to being subjected to "photonical starvation". Most of my C41 35mm films are shot at one or two stops over box speed without ill effects (and developed at box speed) because highlights can easily be recovered in post. 

Digital on the other hand seems built on the premise that a sensor should be able to function in near-complete darkness. It takes that starvation in stride and begs for more. This is great and actually quite amazing, but it means that all those little pixel wells fill up fast when there's a lot of light around.

As I said, a silly and philosophically poorly founded generalisation. But in some situations there's a grain of truth to it I think, even when it comes to slide films. I've often been able to recover detail from what looks like a totally white area for instance. Seen like this, tilm is perhaps a bit more true to the etymological basis of photography, as in writing with light, whereas digital might be true to the opposite, whatever that would be (tenebrigraphy?). 

I'm rambling on about this because I shot the project on Ektar 100 and most frames were exposed for several to many seconds depending on the scene, usually 20 secs to 1,5 mins. Initially I bracketed to account for reciprocity because supposedly that rears its ugly head already at about 20 secs. But after several rolls I realised that any ill effects were effectively nil and absorbed in the post-processing chain, for instance in the inversion in ColorPerfect and by my own colour corrections in Adobe Camera Raw. So I stopped bracketing (and had considerably less frames to scan and dust spot...). 

The clean look is probably a combination of three things: first that Ektar is very fine-grained and secondly that being C41 it loves light and really enjoyed those long exposures. The third thing is likely the grain reduction and sharpening that I've applied in ACR. Apologies for getting a bit technical but it might be interesting (and I'm always interested in hearing thoughts on workflow so feel free to suggest better ways).

The sharpening feature in ACR under the Detail tab is both powerful and simple and is usually enough for great results. Photoshop's Smart Sharpen is much more complex and works wonderfully well but it's a bit more involved with many more steps. Depending on how much noise I see in the shadows of an image I will first use the Colour slider to get rid of any blue and purple noise. Over the years I've found that it's mostly gone by 15-20 on that slider. Any higher than that has no effect. The next step is to put the Luminance slider at around the same amount. This will make the image REALLY soft. But it will also reduce the impression of grain especially in the shadows. The last step is to sharpen. It's pretty amazing to see all the detail to reappear but without the graininess. On 120 film it's possible to pull the Amount slider quite high, 60-80 even. Because of its relatively larger grain size 35mm film looks best at lower amounts.

As with most workflow descriptions it's more complicated to describe than it is to do. It's really just a few clicks.

Thank you again for your kind comment.

16 hours ago, chrism said:

Philip, I have to say this is remarkable for the complete lack of grain. If I say it doesn't look like film I don't mean anything negative (oops, that just got more complicated still)!

I have always strived to make film look like high megapixel digital, even before digital was invented. So what I said above is high praise, believe it or not.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, philipus said:

Thank you very much Chris, I really appreciate it and know precisely what you mean. It is also something I've strived to achieve for a long time, if for no other reason than to dispel the internet-received myth that film results in lomographical results all the time.

What's so interesting, well perhaps only to someone like I who finds strange meta discussions interesting, is that film seems to love light whereas digital seems to dislike it. It's a silly generalisation of course, because it's not true to all types of film. Slide film clearly doesn't always love light since it overexposes quite easily much like digital does. But certainly colour negative and black and white emulsions prefer more light to being subjected to "photonical starvation". Most of my C41 35mm films are shot at one or two stops over box speed without ill effects (and developed at box speed) because highlights can easily be recovered in post. 

Digital on the other hand seems built on the premise that a sensor should be able to function in near-complete darkness. It takes that starvation in stride and begs for more. This is great and actually quite amazing, but it means that all those little pixel wells fill up fast when there's a lot of light around.

As I said, a silly and philosophically poorly founded generalisation. But in some situations there's a grain of truth to it I think, even when it comes to slide films. I've often been able to recover detail from what looks like a totally white area for instance. Seen like this, tilm is perhaps a bit more true to the etymological basis of photography, as in writing with light, whereas digital might be true to the opposite, whatever that would be (tenebrigraphy?). 

I'm rambling on about this because I shot the project on Ektar 100 and most frames were exposed for several to many seconds depending on the scene, usually 20 secs to 1,5 mins. Initially I bracketed to account for reciprocity because supposedly that rears its ugly head already at about 20 secs. But after several rolls I realised that any ill effects were effectively nil and absorbed in the post-processing chain, for instance in the inversion in ColorPerfect and by my own colour corrections in Adobe Camera Raw. So I stopped bracketing (and had considerably less frames to scan and dust spot...). 

The clean look is probably a combination of three things: first that Ektar is very fine-grained and secondly that being C41 it loves light and really enjoyed those long exposures. The third thing is likely the grain reduction and sharpening that I've applied in ACR. Apologies for getting a bit technical but it might be interesting (and I'm always interested in hearing thoughts on workflow so feel free to suggest better ways).

The sharpening feature in ACR under the Detail tab is both powerful and simple and is usually enough for great results. Photoshop's Smart Sharpen is much more complex and works wonderfully well but it's a bit more involved with many more steps. Depending on how much noise I see in the shadows of an image I will first use the Colour slider to get rid of any blue and purple noise. Over the years I've found that it's mostly gone by 15-20 on that slider. Any higher than that has no effect. The next step is to put the Luminance slider at around the same amount. This will make the image REALLY soft. But it will also reduce the impression of grain especially in the shadows. The last step is to sharpen. It's pretty amazing to see all the detail to reappear but without the graininess. On 120 film it's possible to pull the Amount slider quite high, 60-80 even. Because of its relatively larger grain size 35mm film looks best at lower amounts.

As with most workflow descriptions it's more complicated to describe than it is to do. It's really just a few clicks.

Thank you again for your kind comment.

 

What a wonderful mix of the technical and philosophical. Thanks so much for this!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Kl@usW. said:

Seaside

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!

MP; Voigtländer 1,4/35 Nokton Classic II MC, Ektar 100, bw converted.     The VC lens is nicely built, but optically... well, let's say it´s got a lot of character. 🙂. Maybe I keep it for the evening walk. 

A little known fact is that Steven Spielberg shot his first 16mm film, Encounter (22 min.),  in color but printed it in black and white for a film noir look. Your delightfully enigmatic "Seaside" nudges elbows with Roman Polanski's Beckettian Cul de Sac, so absurd, so wonderful. I wonder if you were standing in the middle of an absurd number of pilings with Vija Celmins balancing behind you.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Rowan (mountain ash) berries.

 

  • Like 12
Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess, I am really sucker for classic cars.

New Orleans, 2021

 

M2-R | Lux' 35mm f/1.4 |Kodak Portra 800, CS-41

  • Like 10
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Collecting Fractures
M-A APO 50 & Thambar-M CS ADOX Color Implosion

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!

  • Like 17
Link to post
Share on other sites

Rollie infrared at the river

Leica 35mm 

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!

  • Like 15
Link to post
Share on other sites

same walk

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!

  • Like 16
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
×
×
  • Create New...