Huss
Veteran
Hard to tell. This images present hard contrast with almost no gradation of tones. The only part with half tones is mans skin. Blue clipped in shadows unfortunately. Artificial objects in the bottom part don't leave clues of what color they are actually. Basically the only other detail leaving clues are sunny lit tree leaves. Those are somewhat reddish to my taste. The image is ok overall. If I was working on it I would make leaves greener and use red channel as a mask to recover blues in mans shadow skin tones.
blah blah blah blah....
first no reds. even though the image had no reds. then no contrast. even though contrast was correct. then, with the same lens, on the same roll of film, too much contrast.
Betin
Member
Conversation is over. Adios amigo.
drgvond
Newbie
Probably not. Unsurprisingly, Nikon Japan's page has the most information compared to the US or the couple European pages I've looked at.
http://www.nikon-image.com/products/accessory/lens_closeup/es-2/
I've got an ES-1 and a crappy/fake slide mount I made out of cardboard. Both the film holder and the locking screw at the top make it a no-brainer for me to upgrade.
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
This thread emphasizes something for me - how spoiled we've gotten with digital. When film was all we had, we accepted the limitations of grain and color reproduction. Now, the tiniest perceived flaw causes people to point and cast shame...
Huss
Veteran
The thing that many are forgetting is that film natively has its own look. Some are a little colder than others, some warmer, some more pink etc. It is why photographers selected specific films.
Now some are comparing those attributes to a pure digital image, where you can make everything 'perfect'. Doing that misses the whole point of using film. If you want colours, grain, sharpness, contrast, tone etc that looks perfect like digital, shoot digital.
Betin
Member
The task is to recover real film character. And not some other character resulted in an error of reproduction. Also, if the end result are digital pixels, shooting film diminishes it's purpose imho. Digital with film simulation is more rational in this case. Shooting film makes sense only when the entire process is analog end-to-end imho.
Huss
Veteran
I see them.
Scan image is very yellow giving the skin tones a jaundiced look.
DSLR version looks better but too pink.
Traditional print has a sepia tone and lacking detail in highlights and shadows, looks the worst by far. The letters PR on the girl's stomach are brown while in the others they are red.
Looking at them with a colour calibrated monitor, that I use for my gallery.
Corran
Well-known
Agree with Huss. I see the exact same thing on my monitor.
What is important here, in relation to the product in question, is the comparison between traditional scanners and a DSLR scan. In this respect, the (poor) analog print shown is irrelevant. I do really want to print color in the darkroom (hopefully soon I'll be adding another one or two Beseler 45s to my darkroom, including one with a color head) but ultimately scanning + digital C print is certainly a legitimate option for those wanting "real" prints.
BTW, the scanned image was hard to color correct, the DSLR "scan" was much closer. It's subjective, but this is what I would edit it to:
What is important here, in relation to the product in question, is the comparison between traditional scanners and a DSLR scan. In this respect, the (poor) analog print shown is irrelevant. I do really want to print color in the darkroom (hopefully soon I'll be adding another one or two Beseler 45s to my darkroom, including one with a color head) but ultimately scanning + digital C print is certainly a legitimate option for those wanting "real" prints.
BTW, the scanned image was hard to color correct, the DSLR "scan" was much closer. It's subjective, but this is what I would edit it to:
Attachments
Dwig
Well-known
Pretty much the same here on both of my monitors.
Both the Scanner (cyan cast) and DSLR (magenta cast) are far from "good". These errors show clearly in the highlights.
The scanned C-print is also poor, exhibiting distinct "cross-over" error, which is not uncommon in poorly printed C-prints. The highlights are very close to correct, better than other two, but the shadows show a distinct color shift and there is no clean black. Most of this error is likely the C-print's fault and not that of the scan made from the print.
SaveKodak
Well-known
So many hilariously bad DSLR scans being thrown around. C41 does not dupe well 90% of the time guys. Use a scanner, or better yet use E6 films if you *must* do DSLR scanning. Huss has been claiming that he gets this outrageously good scans because they're detailed, yet the color is never even close. This is very different from processing to taste, they're just wrong.
The D850 has some kind of negative scanning mode, that's really all we know. Whether this means a straight inversion, or some kind of compensation for the orange mask remains to be seen. I think some people here are thinking that they'll get one click results, or close to it. My guess is that the files will still need a lot of tweaking from C41, as do all scans. I'd love to try it for E6 & B&W. For C41 I doubt I'll be throwing out my Fuji SP-3000.
The D850 has some kind of negative scanning mode, that's really all we know. Whether this means a straight inversion, or some kind of compensation for the orange mask remains to be seen. I think some people here are thinking that they'll get one click results, or close to it. My guess is that the files will still need a lot of tweaking from C41, as do all scans. I'd love to try it for E6 & B&W. For C41 I doubt I'll be throwing out my Fuji SP-3000.
Corran
Well-known
Wrong? Compared to what? And please be specific on what you think is "wrong" that couldn't be fixed with some post-processing to your taste??
Seems to me you have an axe to grind.
Huss
Veteran
Welcome back buddy!
Ted Striker
Well-known
back-lit isn't necessary, but it *is* a feature/buzzword that Nikon wants to mention at every turn.
Back lit sensors are a Sony technology, not Nikon.
Ted Striker
Well-known
Yes, it is quite strange. Yet somehow, 99.9% of the world's most iconic and unforgettable photos have been made on film. Many with clearly visible defects.
Ted Striker
Well-known
I dont think this is true. All my cameras are useless without film. I shoot film because that's what goes in my cameras.
Huss
Veteran
Nikon uses Sony sensors.
edge100
Well-known
Or, if you simply enjoy it. There's that, too.
Corran
Well-known
The scuttlebutt lately is that the D850 has a Nikon "designed" sensor. Not sure on the manufacturer, but that is an interesting little distinction.
The Sony sensor in my D800 was, in my opinion, a step down in terms of color from the Nikon manufactured sensor in my old D700. Too yellow in the midtones and a lot of trouble to edit out. Of course the internal camera software/hardware and subsequent editing software/finishing makes a big difference (SOOC jpegs from the D800 look great).
edge100
Well-known
I'm sorry, but have you been paying attention? Colour negative is not difficult, DSLR or otherwise.
thanks for adding nothing to the thread.
edge100
Well-known
This thread proves, once and for all, that no matter what medium you work in, there will always be someone ready to tell you that you're doing it wrong.