JChrome
Street Worker
I don't normally save the negatives from the FP3000B shots but today I wanted to. What's the difference in contrast? In sharpness? I figured I would run a test.
Full Negative:
Full Positive:
Detail of Leaf on Negative:
Detail on Positive:
Detail of Adidas Leaf on Negative:
Detail on Positive:
There's marked difference between the two. The Negative has much less contrast than the positive but is much sharper.
I scanned them both with my Epson 4990 at 3200 DPI.
Full Negative:
Full Positive:
Detail of Leaf on Negative:
Detail on Positive:
Detail of Adidas Leaf on Negative:
Detail on Positive:
There's marked difference between the two. The Negative has much less contrast than the positive but is much sharper.
I scanned them both with my Epson 4990 at 3200 DPI.
robert blu
quiet photographer
Interesting, I sometimes Scan the neg which I later adjust with PS
robert
robert
JChrome
Street Worker
FP3000B Negative vs Positive
Of note: the FP3000 negative is extremely delicate, especially when wet. I washed a negative tonight and hung it to dry. While hanging, it rubbed up against an adjacent clothes pin. This put a big splotch on the negative.
I can remove it in post but it's too bad!
www.stillthrill.com
Of note: the FP3000 negative is extremely delicate, especially when wet. I washed a negative tonight and hung it to dry. While hanging, it rubbed up against an adjacent clothes pin. This put a big splotch on the negative.
I can remove it in post but it's too bad!
www.stillthrill.com
Ezzie
E. D. Russell Roberts
The negative is possibly as much as a stop more sensitive and has more dynamic range, which may account for the lower contrast.
This negative reveals a lot more shadow detail than the positive. The rims on the VW are hardly visible on the print, and separation between the sky and the tree is close to negligible.
Office space to let by Eirik Russell Roberts, on Flickr
This negative reveals a lot more shadow detail than the positive. The rims on the VW are hardly visible on the print, and separation between the sky and the tree is close to negligible.
Office space to let by Eirik Russell Roberts, on Flickr
newsgrunt
Well-known
quick question. because it has a white backing, are you scanning the neg as reflective then inverting in PS ?
marko.oja
Established
I don't even bother with the positive - I usually give those to the model I'm shooting. Much happier with the results I get from scanning the negative.
Ezzie
E. D. Russell Roberts
Correct you are.
JChrome
Street Worker
FP3000B Negative vs Positive
I was checking out a print that was significantly overexposed and looked at the negative and saw much more detail there. So I think there's more detail in both directions and possibly the correct exposure for the negative is not the correct exposure for the print.
www.stillthrill.com
I was checking out a print that was significantly overexposed and looked at the negative and saw much more detail there. So I think there's more detail in both directions and possibly the correct exposure for the negative is not the correct exposure for the print.
www.stillthrill.com
robert blu
quiet photographer
Really good results, an interesting technique...worthwhile to try...
robert
robert
robert blu
quiet photographer
This is a pinhole picture taken on FP-3000B scanned on the negative and inverted the interior photo in PS. For what I remember exposure time was a couple of minutes.
Scanning the neg. is a good technique unfortunately the problem is to find a way to preserve it when going outside because it's wet!
robert
Scanning the neg. is a good technique unfortunately the problem is to find a way to preserve it when going outside because it's wet!
robert
newsgrunt
Well-known
the scans of the neg look impressive.
JChrome
Street Worker
Ezzie
E. D. Russell Roberts
Again, correct. Rather like old Type 55 Polaroid film (proper neg), you had to choose one or the other. I find with FP3000B, that if correctly exposed, both print and neg can be used, but you may have blocked out shadows in the print, or highlights in the negative.
JChrome
Street Worker
Indeed. Properly exposing the positive is under-exposing the negative.
At first I thought that shooting Fuji100 type was tough because the positive is unforgiving with exposure mistakes (almost like an E6). But now... I realize that I've got two chances to expose correctly (the positive and the negative
.Ezzie, you seem to have lots of experience in the FP3000b negative department. Might you weigh in on what happened below? Do you have any suggested ways of storing the negative while it dries?
This was the last shot I took of last night and I was wondering how to store the negative while it was drying. I took out the empty plastic cassette of the camera (remember it was finished) and realized it might make a good place to store the negative.
I placed the cassette with negative standing vertically in my backpack. After 3 hours, below is what happened.
I am surprised that the excess developer would ruin the negative like this when standing up but not when laying flat. It looks like it pooled together and then kept developing the neg (hence the overexposed parts). It seems the negative still has plenty of active developer on it even when lying flat.
Here's one that dried lying flat:
Ezzie
E. D. Russell Roberts
The FP3000B negs are fickle. They do not like sunlight at all, so drying in the shade is imperative. Otherwise you get solarisation. Exactly what happened to your first neg is a bit of a mystery. Had it been developer pooling it would have turned the neg black, and consequently the inverted scan white. To be honest I think the very (and I mean very) thin emulsion layer itself is damaged due to contact with something or other.
Eugen Mezei
Well-known
Wait... did you find a solution to remove the black from the back like it is possible with FP-100C? I thought it is not possible with the 3000B.
JChrome
Street Worker
Never found that solution. If you give it a whirl, let me know!
JChrome
Street Worker
Great point about the solarisation and the pooling of the dev making the neg white. With the pooling of the dev, I believe there was something that ate through the negative itself and is just revealing the white backing (which turned black because it's a negative).
Do you have any idea why the guy's leg in the lower left had this odd exposure? It's in the perfect outline of his leg...
I'd really like to be able to save some negatives that I like and have a consistent exposure but it seems they are too temperamental.