filmtwit
Desperate but not serious
Overcast - a little too common here in Oregon. Try increasing your contrast a wee bit, but more importantly you can get good results by crushing the details on the blacks. Also beyond summer, I tend to shoot 400/800 asa most of the time.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
T
tedwhite
Guest
When the rare overcast day comes here in the desert, we photographers in these parts run joyously into the streets with our cameras. Like Chris's photos - no blown out highlights.
papa
Newbie
To Chriscrawforphoto:
To Chriscrawforphoto:
Hello Chris,
Love your images above. Would like to know how you got that nice contrast for these. If you don't mind me asking the film and development used? Any pp in Photoshop perhaps?
Thanks in advance!
Just pre-planning for the next 6 months...
-papa
To Chriscrawforphoto:
Hello Chris,
Love your images above. Would like to know how you got that nice contrast for these. If you don't mind me asking the film and development used? Any pp in Photoshop perhaps?
Thanks in advance!
Just pre-planning for the next 6 months...
-papa
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Papa,
They're scans from the negatives, done with a Nikon LS-8000ED. ALL film scans have to be post processed in Photoshop (or whatever software you like), that's not optional. I think a lot of people think the scans should be used direct from the scanner and that editing them is somehow cheating....and it shows because a big percent of the film scans I see online are flat and ugly with horrid tonality. The scan just brings the neg into the computer. Just like printing a negative in the darkroom, where you have to select the right paper grade, exposure time, and print developer (and toner if you tone prints), you must do all this to a scan too. That's done in Photoshop. Check the examples below:
The scan, unedited.
Inverted so its not 'negative' anymore. Look how awful it looks! Flat and muddy.
Final image, with contrast adjusted using curves layers. Much better! This film was the now discontinued and much cried over Fuji Neopan 1600, exposed at EI-640 and developed in D-76 1+1
Here's another example
The scan inverted, but with no other editing. As with the house above, this is flat and muddy and this one s also too light.
Contrast adjusted and image darkened in Photoshop using curves layers. This is Tmax 3200 at EI-1600 developed in Tmax Developer.
Neither example above had any dodging and burning, but nearly all images require some to make them perfect. I do that in photoshop too using curves layers after selecting the area to burn or dodge.
Aside from editing scans, I am a perfectionist about exposure and developing. You see guys here on RFF trying to say that being precise in your exposure and other working methods is a waste of time or gets in the way of creativity. Bull****! To me I find sloppy working methods gets in the way of my creativity because it makes it harder for me to get the image I want.
I have on my website a list of my tested developing times and film speeds for a lot of films I have used with different developers. Assuming your light meters are accurate and you're careful in your developing they should give good starting points. Individual results can vary, since no one's agitation method is the same and water quality can vary (I used distilled to mix all chemicals). But they should get you close.
Developing times and other tech stuff
papa
Newbie
Hi!
Thanks for the fast answer.
Agree about the point of "ALL film scans have to be post processed in Photoshop". Your examples are clear and agree that the post process is a must for that kind of scan. I like your results.
Have to say that those scans look VERY flat. Do you develop your film scanning in mind? As to have "thin" negative to work with?
I use Epson 4890 (lowend flatbed) scanner and the results have been ok for small prints. I try to expose and develop the negatives the best i can so usually i've done only some slight work with curves, contrast, brightness.
My raw scan files looks totally different usually then in your examples.
Usually they dont need much work at all but sometimes they are hard to work with in pp, this variation in quality of scanned files is wondering me (propably caused by inaccurant work flow with exposing and developing..)
Hope this makes any sense at all. I guess im still trying to find a stabilized work routine that would bring satisfying results...control of each step towards the wanted end product in a way.
Anyway i will go through your technical page with interest.
Thanks for the fast answer.
Agree about the point of "ALL film scans have to be post processed in Photoshop". Your examples are clear and agree that the post process is a must for that kind of scan. I like your results.
Have to say that those scans look VERY flat. Do you develop your film scanning in mind? As to have "thin" negative to work with?
I use Epson 4890 (lowend flatbed) scanner and the results have been ok for small prints. I try to expose and develop the negatives the best i can so usually i've done only some slight work with curves, contrast, brightness.
My raw scan files looks totally different usually then in your examples.
Usually they dont need much work at all but sometimes they are hard to work with in pp, this variation in quality of scanned files is wondering me (propably caused by inaccurant work flow with exposing and developing..)
Hope this makes any sense at all. I guess im still trying to find a stabilized work routine that would bring satisfying results...control of each step towards the wanted end product in a way.
Anyway i will go through your technical page with interest.
LKeithR
Improving daily--I think.
I think one's perception of gray/overcast weather depends on the situation. Here in the Lower Mainland of B.C. if we could only shoot on sunny days there'd be a lot of cameras sitting on shelves most of the time. I find that the dull weather can make for beautiful, soft lighting conditions with much better opportunities for good exposures. A lot of sky in the frame can be problematic but you just have to frame carefully. A lot of times I will use a tripod and get closer to my subjects, taking advantage of the even light. I also like the soft pastel colours you can get in this light and if things aren't going right I just switch to B&W.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I'm nocturnal, I should be in bed since its 4am, but I'm not, lol. I have to 'get up' in a couple hours to take my son to school so I guess I will go sleep after I type this
I scan mine using the scan software's 'slide film' mode rather than its 'black and white negative' mode. This gives much flatter scans, but has advantages. The BW Neg mode on my scanner gives scans that are less flat, but annoyingly, it often clips the darkest tones and lightest tones (loses detail in them) while still having a file that is too flat overall. Increasing the contrast of such a file gives good contrasty midtones but makes the dark tones too dark and the light tones too light. I get better results with the much lower contrast scans I get using the Slide film mode. I scan in greyscale, not color, but using the slide or transparency mode.
If you're setting your scanner for BW negs, that would explain your scans being less flat. It may explain why you have trouble with some scans too. Try scanning as a slide or transparency, then invert the file in photoshop (control-I in wondows, Command-I in Mac). Then do curves to increase contrast. It may take two or three curves adjustments to get it perfect.
My negs are processed so that they'll print on grade 2 paper using a diffusion colorhead enlarger, which is how I printed in the darkroom before health problems made me switch to scanning. I developed (pun!) severe allergies to the chemicals used in printing, despite having a very good ventilation system in my darkroom. Developing negs doesn't bother my allergies because the dev. tanks keep me from breathing fumes as I did with open trays of print developing chemicals. So, basically a neg properly exposed and developed for darkroom printing should scan fine....no special exposure or developing needed (aside from being precise with your work).
papa
Newbie
Thanks again Chris,
I will try to scan the negatives as positive film. Lets see how it turns out. Maybe i will put up some results here later on.
Despite you losing sleep your posts have been helpful.
(I'm at work at the moment [it's 12pm over here] so should also be doing something else then thinking about scanning negatives...)
.
.
Sorry for OP for the slightly off topic jabbering, for defence it's really dull and grey weather here!
I will try to scan the negatives as positive film. Lets see how it turns out. Maybe i will put up some results here later on.
Despite you losing sleep your posts have been helpful.
(I'm at work at the moment [it's 12pm over here] so should also be doing something else then thinking about scanning negatives...)
.
.
Sorry for OP for the slightly off topic jabbering, for defence it's really dull and grey weather here!
Matus
Well-known
My experience with dark overcast weather is that one should try to avoid too distant subjects and go for films with stronger contrast and colors. It is just a rule of thumb, but often on overcast weather the air is rather humid and the additional diffraction of light on this humidity washes out images. I have shot on heavy over-cast and humid day in Hamburg and got some very nice images - but only from close subjects. Longer views were life-less and contrast-less even though I was shooting Velvia. Imges from low contrast neg. films turned to grey mud and even though they saved a bit from the sky (continuos grey instead of continuos white ) they had much less appeal and even PS could not bring them to life.
Here are a few examples from that day:
Velvia 50:
Velvia 50:
and here is one taken on Delta 100 - needed a bit of boost in PS:
) they had much less appeal and even PS could not bring them to life.Here are a few examples from that day:
Velvia 50:
Velvia 50:
and here is one taken on Delta 100 - needed a bit of boost in PS:
Requin
Established
To Steve M.
I like your top photo - great tones, every zone is there where it belongs to be!
I like your top photo - great tones, every zone is there where it belongs to be!
wgerrard
Veteran
Nice photos, Chris. I needed and wanted to shoot color. How would you have handled C41 under those conditions?
I prefer the sun because it transforms the mundane into magic, but I shoot in all weather and conditions... because you just never know what you'll get.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I never shoot C-41 color, it is hard to get good scans from. At least with my scanner, I have a hard time getting the color right from color neg film. I shoot E-6 for color, and back when I still had my Kodak 14n, I shot a lot of color digital.
Kodak 14n digital
E-6, can't remember the film brand but it was 35mm
E-6, can't remember the film brand but it was 35mm
Kodak 14n digital
Kodak 14n digital
Kodak 14n digital
Kodak 14n digital
E-6, can't remember the film brand but it was 35mm
E-6 Kodak Ektachrome E100S in 120 size (645).
For color, both digital and film, I use a handheld incident light meter and follow its readings. I shoot RAW only for digital and used Photoshop's RAW converter to adjust white balance then used Photoshop to fine tune overall contrast and color. Slide film is scanned and usually needs some fine tuning but nothing like what I have to do to black & white negatives; transparency film scans in pretty close to the right contrast.
Last edited:
ebino
Well-known
Chris in your pictures you've captured the 'feeling' of the places where you've photographed. That is impressive.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Thanks
The places I photograph are mostly places very close to where I lived at the time. I think that makes it easier to capture the spirit of the place compared to traveling to some far-off place that you do not know or fit in to well. Being part of the local culture and having the time to spend months or years exploring the same places is, to me, essential.
ebino
Well-known
Thanks
That's the way it should be. Sometimes i dream about other places but in the end of the day I'm confined to my own "territory" and i have to make the best of it. Good luck man.
wgerrard
Veteran
Thanks, Chris. Your skies look much like my skies on this trip, particularly the silo shot. I considered taking an incident meter, but didn't because I've so little experience with it at this point. Maybe next trip. The shots from the Sigma digital are RAW. I tweak them -- very little or not at all -- in Sigma's software.
I scan on an LS-50. Oddly, the Ektar scans seem to be happier output as RAW files and massaged in Adobe Camera Raw and Photoshop, while I've had more luck scanning the Portra to TIFF and tweaking in PS.
When I got back into photography, I jumped right into shooting slides but stopped because (A) my exposures weren't good enough, and, (B) no local shop could process them. Now, one local shop says they'll do E6 (but don't post prices). I've tried shipping E6 off for processing to a few of the shops people have recommended here, but shipping costs almost double the cost. And, I'm impatient.
When I get more experience with the incident meter, I'll try E6 again.
I scan on an LS-50. Oddly, the Ektar scans seem to be happier output as RAW files and massaged in Adobe Camera Raw and Photoshop, while I've had more luck scanning the Portra to TIFF and tweaking in PS.
When I got back into photography, I jumped right into shooting slides but stopped because (A) my exposures weren't good enough, and, (B) no local shop could process them. Now, one local shop says they'll do E6 (but don't post prices). I've tried shipping E6 off for processing to a few of the shops people have recommended here, but shipping costs almost double the cost. And, I'm impatient.
When I get more experience with the incident meter, I'll try E6 again.
wgerrard
Veteran
Travel and living someplace different are also very good. No one is keeping score. I lived in the UK and have since visited more than a dozen times. I think I have a reasonable notion of the feel and flavor of the place, but capturing that was not my purpose this trip. I was shooting vacation snaps for friends and family who asked for that and who, very likely, will never be able to visit the place.
We all have our likes and dislikes. I grew up not very far from where Chris is now. His photos do, in fact, handsomely convey the character of the place. But, for me, it's a character I'd rather forget. So much so that when I return for my annual visit, I don't carry a camera.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I can't afford to travel either, though I did a lot of travel when I lived in New Mexico. Back then my son, who is now 13, lived with his mother here in Fort Wayne, Indiana, so I made the trip back to Indiana a number of times to see him and once to take him to spend the summer with me in Santa Fe. During those trips, which I made in my car, I did a lot of photography and found some cool stuff and interesting people.
I find that my travel photos stand well as individual images but don't fit into a story the way my photos from the places I have actually lived do. In the places I lived I have built large bodies of work that go together as a whole to tell a story or to document the history of the ordinary lives that academic history ignores. I'm working on my Masters degree in history now, and my work in photography over the last 15 years fits in well with my intellectual interests in history and culture.