ramarren Posted September 8, 2016 Share #41 Posted September 8, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Though it hasn't stopped you from sticking your oar in. I guess we all should just ignore it, eh? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 8, 2016 Posted September 8, 2016 Hi ramarren, Take a look here Film Photography Makes A "Stunning" Comeback. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
A miller Posted September 8, 2016 Share #42 Posted September 8, 2016 Well chosen depth of field - the sunglasses are sharp (you can even see the background reflected nicely in them). Great portrait shot with wonderful colors! Sincere thanks, Martin. I think it was f2. I think that the modern 50mm lux asph kept detail in the OOF area (which is most of the image), and that this may have the illusion that I botched the intended focus (at least on the computer screen). If, instead, I used my dual range summicron at f2 I think I would have achieved more creamy OOF areas and drawn the eyes to the focus point b/n the eyes. That's the double-edged sword with the modern Leica lenses. They manage to keep good detail in the OOF areas at wide open apertures. Sometimes it comes in handy. Other times it leaves you wishing for a little more dreaminess... But I am not complaining as I really love the image. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted September 8, 2016 Share #43 Posted September 8, 2016 Sincere thanks, Martin. I think it was f2. At the risk of being banned, I respectfully ask you to be more critical. Nothing is in focus. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A miller Posted September 8, 2016 Share #44 Posted September 8, 2016 . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yorbard Posted September 8, 2016 Share #45 Posted September 8, 2016 There has been something of a resurgence of interest in colour film, here in UK, among photography students and professionals, who have realised that the range of colour frequencies is vastly greater with more subtle gradations of colour in film, than can ever be achieved by sRGB. Yes, digital is great for momochrome, with its vast range of greyscale and shadow detail, but is clearly outclassed by film Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotohuis Posted September 9, 2016 Share #46 Posted September 9, 2016 At the risk of being banned, I respectfully ask you to be more critical. Nothing is in focus. Indeed, it is blurred. Not the problem of the film but a technical "problem" at the photographer (or scanner). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 9, 2016 Share #47 Posted September 9, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) There has been something of a resurgence of interest in colour film, here in UK, among photography students and professionals, who have realised that the range of colour frequencies is vastly greater with more subtle gradations of colour in film, than can ever be achieved by sRGB. Yes, digital is great for momochrome, with its vast range of greyscale and shadow detail, but is clearly outclassed by film Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Who uses sRGB any more, except for the internet and fast-and-dirty? Editing is done in Prophoto RGB, which covers a colour space wider than our eyes can see, and most serious current printers can use Adobe RGB with multiple colour cartridges, which exceeds film as well. Remains the look of film, and the depth of a chemical print. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 9, 2016 Share #48 Posted September 9, 2016 At the risk of being banned, I respectfully ask you to be more critical. Nothing is in focus. You're not being banned, and it is blurred. But that has nothing to do with the point it is meant to illustrate. This is a technical forum, not one of our photoforums Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A miller Posted September 9, 2016 Share #49 Posted September 9, 2016 You're not being banned, and it is blurred. But that has nothing to do with the point it is meant to illustrate. This is a technical forum, not one of our photoforums You are half right, Jaap. Pico's erroneous point has nothing to do with this particular CINESTILL film stock. For the Cinestill 50 is undoubtedly a wonderful film stock if used within the narrow 1 yr freshness period, exposed correctly and used in the appropriate settings. With respect to the "focus point" and the "blurriness" of the photo, this issue is actually relevant to the subject of film v digital. I never said that my photo was spot on in 100% focus. But I do still maintain that it is within an acceptable range of focus - thanks to this being a FILM shot. If this were a digital shot, the imperfection of the focus point would be much more pronounced and would very likely make the shot unconvincing. This point has some relevance to this thread as it is about film making a comeback and why people would desire to come back to film. This is a link to the full 130MB version of the photo. If you look at the glasses, you can quite clearly see me in the reflection in the pool taking the photo. You can also see the palm trees in good sharpness in the reflection. Again, perhaps not 100% spot on, but within where the "tits" would be on an M3 VF and plenty acceptable for the purpose of a nice print and enjoyment (even if she weren't my wife). So https://www.flickr.com/photos/streetphotography_nyc/29270266210/in/dateposted-public/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 9, 2016 Share #50 Posted September 9, 2016 Quite apart from the sharpness discussion (and I agree it would make an adequate, even nice print), I find the precision of the skin tones a far more convincing argument. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted September 9, 2016 Share #51 Posted September 9, 2016 [...] who have realised that the range of colour frequencies is vastly greater with more subtle gradations of colour in film, than can ever be achieved by sRGB. Yes, digital is great for momochrome, with its vast range of greyscale and shadow detail, but is clearly outclassed by film In what medium are the alleged more subtle color gradations evinced? Monitor? Inkjet prints? Or are they claiming that a direct (made in camera) film transparency shows superior gradations, and if it is about transparencies how do customers or even appreciators use them? On a lightbox? I would not mind a large exhibit of transparencies on lightboxes. I just don't want to see a loupe dangling from them on a string. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin B Posted September 9, 2016 Share #52 Posted September 9, 2016 In what medium are the alleged more subtle color gradations evinced? Monitor? Inkjet prints? Or are they claiming that a direct (made in camera) film transparency shows superior gradations, and if it is about transparencies how do customers or even appreciators use them? On a lightbox? I would not mind a large exhibit of transparencies on lightboxes. I just don't want to see a loupe dangling from them on a string. RA-4 processed color silver gelatin prints directly from the negative. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbealnz Posted September 10, 2016 Share #53 Posted September 10, 2016 You are half right, Jaap. Pico's erroneous point has nothing to do with this particular CINESTILL film stock. For the Cinestill 50 is undoubtedly a wonderful film stock if used within the narrow 1 yr freshness period, exposed correctly and used in the appropriate settings. With respect to the "focus point" and the "blurriness" of the photo, this issue is actually relevant to the subject of film v digital. I never said that my photo was spot on in 100% focus. But I do still maintain that it is within an acceptable range of focus - thanks to this being a FILM shot. If this were a digital shot, the imperfection of the focus point would be much more pronounced and would very likely make the shot unconvincing. This point has some relevance to this thread as it is about film making a comeback and why people would desire to come back to film. This is a link to the full 130MB version of the photo. If you look at the glasses, you can quite clearly see me in the reflection in the pool taking the photo. You can also see the palm trees in good sharpness in the reflection. Again, perhaps not 100% spot on, but within where the "tits" would be on an M3 VF and plenty acceptable for the purpose of a nice print and enjoyment (even if she weren't my wife). So https://www.flickr.com/photos/streetphotography_nyc/29270266210/in/dateposted-public/ Minor point, apart from the hilarity of reading this "discussion" from start to finish. The description of the M3 V/F assistance might be better as something else, given your subject matter. Gary Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A miller Posted September 11, 2016 Share #54 Posted September 11, 2016 Minor point, apart from the hilarity of reading this "discussion" from start to finish. The description of the M3 V/F assistance might be better as something else, given your subject matter. Gary Good one, Gary. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted September 11, 2016 Share #55 Posted September 11, 2016 I never said that my photo was spot on in 100% focus. But I do still maintain that it is within an acceptable range of focus - thanks to this being a FILM shot. If this were a digital shot, the imperfection of the focus point would be much more pronounced and would very likely make the shot unconvincing. So, pictures made on film should be considered convincing when they are out-of-focus? Oh my gosh, what of the photographs made for a hundred years on film that are in-focus? Not convincing? I suppose we can expect a new silver effect plug-in that defocuses photos. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotohuis Posted September 11, 2016 Share #56 Posted September 11, 2016 I suppose we can expect a new silver effect plug-in that defocuses photos. Just use a few Lomography films. Apart from some fancy colors ..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrism Posted September 13, 2016 Share #57 Posted September 13, 2016 pico, I took a picture of my cat and I'm hoping I can have the benefit of your insight: (Now stop laughing; it wasn't easy to do that. It took me half a second, and I had to use Tri-X as I've heard ciné film is no good.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted September 14, 2016 Share #58 Posted September 14, 2016 pico, I took a picture of my cat and I'm hoping I can have the benefit of your insight: (Now stop laughing; it wasn't easy to do that. It took me half a second, and I had to use Tri-X as I've heard ciné film is no good.) You should have used a smart phone camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A miller Posted September 14, 2016 Share #59 Posted September 14, 2016 pico, I took a picture of my cat and I'm hoping I can have the benefit of your insight: (Now stop laughing; it wasn't easy to do that. It took me half a second, and I had to use Tri-X as I've heard ciné film is no good.) Perhaps my most favorite cat photo. Just look at those tones! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted September 14, 2016 Share #60 Posted September 14, 2016 another example of a rubbish picture, out of focus, for discussion purposes only ... © Robert Capa/Magnum Photos/ICP Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.