bideford Posted February 11, 2014 Author Share #21 Posted February 11, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Update - 3 weeks later. First I'll make an admission. Decided to change the M2 for an M6 TTL. Why? Two reasons, mainly: Firstly, qbviously the light meter is a factor. I am pretty good at the old Sunny 16 (from my old film days) and frequently revert to manual exposure with the M (aided of course by the histogram). I also usually carry a handheld meter for incident readings in any case. Quite simply it is easier. Better to admit my guilt than deny! Secondly, I quickly recognized that I enjoyed being back in this medium and will probably use it more extensively than I had originally anticipated. I had a small window of time to make my decision and went with my head (rather than my heart) and returned the M2 in exchange for the M6 TTL. Ok, so the only logic to this statement is that it is newer by 40 years.... Anyway, now this is out of the way here are a couple of initial thoughts/musings: Film is a certainly a "different" environment for creating images. Not better or worse than digital. And not necessarily slower than digital either - CalArts 99 posted earlier in this thread about this. Getting used to 36 exposures will certainly have an affect on my "digital technique" (when my M returns from Solms/Wetzler). More measured, thoughtful, less waste - each click matters. Workflow is certainly different! Developing (all B&W at this stage) at home is easy. 45 minutes start to finish for 1/2 films in a Peterson. Images scanned with a Plustek 8100 - and a far better result than sending out. Dust/scratches rarely a problem if done with care. Will further reduce cost by buying film in bulk rolls. Digital sensors. We obviously do not get on! M8 went back to Solms for pixel remap. M currently at Solms for pixel remap. First Plustek 8100 scanner returned due to........hot pixel line. At least with film when I get a mark it is not anyone's fault but my own..... What I can only describe as "Digital fury" disappears. Barely got round to changing my lens from the 50mm Summicron. Changed to Nokton 50mm 1.5 (low light) and thin Tele Elamrit 90mm (reach) occasionally - but otherwise not given it too much thought. No "pixel peeking" (400 asa film certainly cures that one!). No ISO hopping for that perfect image shutter speed. As mentioned previously no scattergun/repeat imagery. I could go on but would summarize this as being more content with less. Take the picture and move on. Analogue to digital workflow brings together two perfect mediums. Lightroom brings a whole box of tricks to a scanned negative. A huge amount of detail can be exploited from images that are over exposed. Underexposed areas will of course yield very little. And finally, without a doubt there is a huge amount of satisfaction in taking, developing, scanning and processing to create an image yourself. Not much more to add to that. Yet. Apologies - this is probably all completely obvious to you gents/ladies! James Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 11, 2014 Posted February 11, 2014 Hi bideford, Take a look here Took me a while but..... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest Ansel_Adams Posted February 11, 2014 Share #22 Posted February 11, 2014 MP next for you... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
imsilly Posted February 11, 2014 Share #23 Posted February 11, 2014 It would be nice to see the Plustek scans. I have an old Plustek, but it doesn't seem to do justice to my negatives, they look undersaturated and grainy. I would like to know if it's just a problem with my particular scanner. I personally work in film 90% of the time. I find it far more rewarding and fun to work with. I don't actually think it makes me more selective at all, but it does actually force me to put my camera down due to low light. That means I have time to mentally debrief myself and analyse my old shots before I shoot more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bideford Posted February 11, 2014 Author Share #24 Posted February 11, 2014 It would be nice to see the Plustek scans. I have an old Plustek, but it doesn't seem to do justice to my negatives, they look undersaturated and grainy. I would like to know if it's just a problem with my particular scanner. I personally work in film 90% of the time. I find it far more rewarding and fun to work with. I don't actually think it makes me more selective at all, but it does actually force me to put my camera down due to low light. That means I have time to mentally debrief myself and analyse my old shots before I shoot more. I have tagged my scans on flickr at Plustek - hope they are not too undersaturated and grainy to you - I'm still very much new to scanning negatives! Plenty of other examples on flickr if you search for Plustek groups as well. James Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ansel_Adams Posted February 12, 2014 Share #25 Posted February 12, 2014 It would be nice to see the Plustek scans. I have an old Plustek, but it doesn't seem to do justice to my negatives, they look undersaturated and grainy. I would like to know if it's just a problem with my particular scanner.. Here's one of mine with the Plustek 8100. I had the same image scanned professionally with a Nikon 5000 ED and could not really see much difference. The Plustek scans very nice but in my experience no scanner comes close to seeing the image printed on FB paper, etc. (never had a drum scan so perhaps that is better)... I use my scanner as a quick and easy "contact" printer to see what to print properly in the darkroom. f2 by - Antonio Russell -, on Flickr p.s. Bear in mind Flickr will have sharpened the above image also. The 8100 has a nice multiple exposure feature which digs deeper into the negative but takes longer to scan. Most important control seems to be the gradation curve. Set it with a nice shoulder and toe like film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted February 12, 2014 Share #26 Posted February 12, 2014 Thanks for the update James. Whether obvious to others or not, it is nice to read about your positive experience rediscovering film. For me it is certainly very satisfying to handle the b+w process from start to finish and it also involves the added pleasure of developing one's developing skills (sorry). On the M2/M6 thing - I fully understand your choice. I had an M3, do have an M4, but use my TTL the most because of the convenience of the light meter, esp. since I am these days shooting almost exclusively slide film. There's a lot of snobbery going on about the early M models being the only real Leicas but it's a bunch of rubbish imo. The M6 is as close to perfection as one can get I think. What you wrote about the lacking chimping possibility, inability to change ISO to find the perfect shutter speed for an image, accumulating lots and lots of unnecessary shots, well it's exhausting even to read. Every time I see such descriptions I feel even more persuaded that, for me, film is, and will be for a long time yet, the way to go. Your scans on Flickr are nice, I think. I had never seen scans from the 8100. It's great that you post them in the highest resolution, too. That helps all those analogue nerds who do like to pixel peep once in a while. MP next for you... Why? (sorry) Cheers Philip Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ansel_Adams Posted February 12, 2014 Share #27 Posted February 12, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Why? (sorry) Because the OP has already shown a keenness to upgrade.... and because it is the ultimate metered film M. Was just toying with him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bideford Posted February 12, 2014 Author Share #28 Posted February 12, 2014 Because the OP has already shown a keenness to upgrade....and because it is the ultimate metered film M. Was just toying with him. Antonio, I need no encouragement! James Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
too old to care Posted February 12, 2014 Share #29 Posted February 12, 2014 It would be nice to see the Plustek scans. I have an old Plustek, but it doesn't seem to do justice to my negatives, they look undersaturated and grainy. I would like to know if it's just a problem with my particular scanner. I have a Plustek too, and I get the same results. The scanner makes the grain stand out more when compared to a wet print. The resolution is good, but I also notice less contrast with the scanner. Because of that I only scan for the internet, I wet print all my keepers. Wayne Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted February 12, 2014 Share #30 Posted February 12, 2014 Have an 8100 as well, and not really sure to what point the scan matters if it goes into C1 or LR for further work. I have found no real need to make the scan perfect in terms of color balance etc. If I was going from scan to print or post then I get it, but it seems to me a lot of the work silverfast is just as easily done in C1 or LR once negative has been scanned. Happy to be disabused of my notion. BTW, I have an M9, love it, then got an M4 followed by M6 classic. Find myself with the M4 (bw) and M6 (color) more often than the M9. Perhaps it is just how I grew up with film -- and that I am not a professional photographer where time turnaround etc is of the essence. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bideford Posted February 12, 2014 Author Share #31 Posted February 12, 2014 Have an 8100 as well, and not really sure to what point the scan matters if it goes into C1 or LR for further work. I have found no real need to make the scan perfect in terms of color balance etc. If I was going from scan to print or post then I get it, but it seems to me a lot of the work silverfast is just as easily done in C1 or LR once negative has been scanned. Happy to be disabused of my notion. BTW, I have an M9, love it, then got an M4 followed by M6 classic. Find myself with the M4 (bw) and M6 (color) more often than the M9. Perhaps it is just how I grew up with film -- and that I am not a professional photographer where time turnaround etc is of the essence. Steve I would agree - the Plustek simply serves as a means to get the negative into a high resolution digital format, in order to process in Lightroom. Maybe as I am from digital this is a natural progression. What can then be recovered from a (not too) over exposed negative is frankly a revelation compared to blown highlights in a digital capture. Not wishing to decry the professional use of dark room processes (of which I do have some past experience of working with) - the digital lightroom is a phenomenal tool in experienced hands. Obviously digital cannot replicate actual chemical action (or reaction?) on paper but hopefully this comment is taken in the spirit it is intended! Maybe I'm a hybrid... James Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted February 12, 2014 Share #32 Posted February 12, 2014 Count me the same. a hi res scan seems at least the equal to an m9 dng in terms of recovery and malleability if not more. In any event it is fun to so and that is the point since this is hobby not profession for me Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
semi-ambivalent Posted February 13, 2014 Share #33 Posted February 13, 2014 Obviously digital cannot replicate actual chemical action (or reaction?) Reduction. s-a Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted February 13, 2014 Share #34 Posted February 13, 2014 It would be nice to see the Plustek scans. I have an old Plustek, but it doesn't seem to do justice to my negatives, they look undersaturated and grainy. I would like to know if it's just a problem with my particular scanner. Just as you do test strips in the darkroom for exposure time and contrast you need to make some more choices about the image by post processing a scanned image. It is wrong to think it should come out of the scanner fully formed. If they are under saturated go to Lightroom or Photoshop and do something about it, similarly if they are grainy try inkjet printing them, concerns about grain often go away with printing just like concerns about digital resolution. And concerning grain it is often exaggerated by having 'Sharpening' turn on in the scanner software, it is much better to leave it for the more subtle control of Lightroom etc. As for having an old Plustek scanner, it would need to be very old to make a difference because all the 'latest' models (for the past few years at least) have all shared the same components, only the software bundled with them has changed, so a 7600 is the same machine as an 8100. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted February 13, 2014 Share #35 Posted February 13, 2014 and the latest $2000 version is different by being able to hand 120 negatives. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
imsilly Posted February 14, 2014 Share #36 Posted February 14, 2014 Just as you do test strips in the darkroom for exposure time and contrast you need to make some more choices about the image by post processing a scanned image. It is wrong to think it should come out of the scanner fully formed. If they are under saturated go to Lightroom or Photoshop and do something about it, similarly if they are grainy try inkjet printing them, concerns about grain often go away with printing just like concerns about digital resolution. And concerning grain it is often exaggerated by having 'Sharpening' turn on in the scanner software, it is much better to leave it for the more subtle control of Lightroom etc. As for having an old Plustek scanner, it would need to be very old to make a difference because all the 'latest' models (for the past few years at least) have all shared the same components, only the software bundled with them has changed, so a 7600 is the same machine as an 8100. Steve I have one just older then the 7600 (a 7500) and use Vuescan software to scan. I have made literally hundreds of scans. I have tried all the options and suggested workflows, but I still can't get my Portra to look like Portra or my Velvia to look like Velvia. What I find most frustrating is that even when I use exposure and colour locks each frame looks different. I can't for the life of me work this out. Even when I adjust colours until I like them the RAW, or TIFF produced doesn't look anything like the preview. The only film that comes out how I expect it seems to be £1 Fuji C200, but that is probably because I don't expect it to be that great. I was just wondering if it was an issue with just my particular scanner, software or workflow, but no matter what I try it always has the same issue. Here is an example of Fuji C200 shoot on an Olympus XA I scanned that seemed to ignore the white balance and exposure I had locked on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted February 15, 2014 Share #37 Posted February 15, 2014 Philipus gave an excellent example of 'before and after' in this thread http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m7-mp-film-m/318969-mp-histogram-question.html#post2626263 although it is in B&W, but colour is essentially the same. It's impossible at a distance to say what the problem could be because there are a lot of permutations of the settings in Vuescan. That said try the white point and black point both at zero which will give a very low contrast scan. Then in Lightroom or Photoshop just to get a ballpark jumping off point simply hit 'Auto Contrast' and see if your flat boring scan springs to life. If it's not close or you don't like it use the manual controls for contrast and brightness, then refine the colour, but all you want from the scanner is the raw (with a small 'r') information. If you have no clipping in the shadows and highlights whatever data that is represented in between those points should be the basis of your picture, it just needs organising in post processing. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
imsilly Posted February 15, 2014 Share #38 Posted February 15, 2014 Philipus gave an excellent example of 'before and after' in this thread http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m7-mp-film-m/318969-mp-histogram-question.html#post2626263 although it is in B&W, but colour is essentially the same. It's impossible at a distance to say what the problem could be because there are a lot of permutations of the settings in Vuescan. That said try the white point and black point both at zero which will give a very low contrast scan. Then in Lightroom or Photoshop just to get a ballpark jumping off point simply hit 'Auto Contrast' and see if your flat boring scan springs to life. If it's not close or you don't like it use the manual controls for contrast and brightness, then refine the colour, but all you want from the scanner is the raw (with a small 'r') information. If you have no clipping in the shadows and highlights whatever data that is represented in between those points should be the basis of your picture, it just needs organising in post processing. Steve Thanks, I'll try that method. I'm not expecting my Plustek to produce great images. I actually bought it as a way to make digital contact sheets, but it would be nice to get scans internet worthy. I find it handles B&W better, my real issue is getting film to look how it would if printed in terms of character. I just hate shooting Portra and seeing it look like cheap drugstore film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted February 15, 2014 Share #39 Posted February 15, 2014 It took me a long time to get acceptable colour scans. Lots of different techniques. After about 2 years bringing it all together I found a video of someone doing, basically, what I settled on, although he doesn't use ColorPerfect properly. Here's the video Your results seem very good, particularly considering the lighting you're subjecting the film to. Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted February 15, 2014 Share #40 Posted February 15, 2014 A sun-scorched Trinidad, Cuba holiday snap: Portra 160, Plustek 8100, raw, ColorPerfect, Photoshop. Pete 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! 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/220707-took-me-a-while-but/?do=findComment&comment=2532746'>More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.