CSG123
Established
Eric, those photos have an almost 3D pop to them. Can you provide more details (film, lens, scanner, post)?
Like at least one other here, I also have the V700. It's terrific for the scans I do (I don't feel the need to scan everything) and I'd guess the time to scan a roll of negs is not a lot longer than going into the lab, mixing up the chemicals, exposing a couple proof sheets, developing and drying them. Then you have to go and pick what you want to enlarge. With the scanner, once they're in, you're good to go to run through whatever program you use to create a larger digital image and print it off if desired.
As I said earlier in this thread, I do like shooting film but mostly so I can use my old cameras not because there's anything magical about it other than enjoying the tradition and having the physical results in the form of negatives. I like negatives.
Like at least one other here, I also have the V700. It's terrific for the scans I do (I don't feel the need to scan everything) and I'd guess the time to scan a roll of negs is not a lot longer than going into the lab, mixing up the chemicals, exposing a couple proof sheets, developing and drying them. Then you have to go and pick what you want to enlarge. With the scanner, once they're in, you're good to go to run through whatever program you use to create a larger digital image and print it off if desired.
As I said earlier in this thread, I do like shooting film but mostly so I can use my old cameras not because there's anything magical about it other than enjoying the tradition and having the physical results in the form of negatives. I like negatives.
emasterphoto
Established
Sure thing. They were taken with a Nikon F4s w/ Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D on Ilford XP2 Super. Don't remember the exposure details, but it was at box speed (400), 200mm, maybe f/4 or so and suitable shutter speed.
Developed at home in XTOL 1:1 for 10 mins @ 68F. Yup, you can develop XP2 as std. B&W, but it's somewhat sub-par. I had the film laying around and had to use it up, and didn't feel like mailing it out for proper processing, so DIY. 10 mins gave pretty thin negs, and later tries eventually ended up somewhere around 25 mins or so if I recall. I had to wing it b/c there was no data anywhere for XTOL; there is for D76 though, and it gives much better results.
Anyway, scanned on an Epson V500 using the stock Epson software. I turn off all of the auto-correct options and auto-exposure as well. No dust reduction either, but I do leave the stock sharpening setting. Scan to 48-bit color 16-bit .tif @ 4800 dpi, then pp in LR to adjust tone, etc. to get it to look like what I want. Do the final dust removal in PS5.1 for the keepers.
Dayrell bishop
Well-known
Eric, great pictures
Eric, great pictures
They certainly prop up the film side very well.
Eric, great pictures
They certainly prop up the film side very well.
mdarnton
Well-known
I don't think there's any shortage of good equipment out there at reasonable prices. For large format I currently use an HP G4050. I think it cost me around $150 on sale. I haven't shot much 35mm in the last year or two, but I threw a couple of negs on it a few weeks ago, and it did a great job, very close to what I was getting by camera scanning with my Nikon D300 (which was "cheap" because I already needed and had it for other uses). It's certainly good enough considering that in the last 50 years I've only made one single 16x20 print, otherwise 11x14 and under, and for that it's fine. The disconnect for many people is that they work honing their skills in the darkroom for 20 years, and then when they can't replicate the results of that 20 years of learning in 20 minutes on the computer, they complain that digital is no good. :-(
The other issue is when new filmers send their stuff out to a mass-production lab that's using equipment that's "commercial" mass-market quality as measured in 2004, but maybe not as good as any current office scanner that does film. Then they figure if the results from the lab is bad, the whole concept of film to digital is bad. I tried a couple of recommended labs of the Ken Rockwell type, and was massively unimpressed; they're about as good as the mini-labs of yore, because that's exactly what they are, and that's hardly professional quality. So again, don't judge film by mass processing.
Anyway, the reasons I still shoot film are many. I prefer the small size and high tactile quality of my old film equipment, and appreciate that I've been able to build complete Nikon and Leica kits for pennies compared to what things cost new in 1990. I like the way film looks; I prefer the way the old lenses render, I like the gigantic dynamic range of film that digital cameras still don't match, though my new D7200 is pretty good ( range which has been made manifest by digital scanning in a way that never could be done easily enough in the darkroom).
The other issue is when new filmers send their stuff out to a mass-production lab that's using equipment that's "commercial" mass-market quality as measured in 2004, but maybe not as good as any current office scanner that does film. Then they figure if the results from the lab is bad, the whole concept of film to digital is bad. I tried a couple of recommended labs of the Ken Rockwell type, and was massively unimpressed; they're about as good as the mini-labs of yore, because that's exactly what they are, and that's hardly professional quality. So again, don't judge film by mass processing.
Anyway, the reasons I still shoot film are many. I prefer the small size and high tactile quality of my old film equipment, and appreciate that I've been able to build complete Nikon and Leica kits for pennies compared to what things cost new in 1990. I like the way film looks; I prefer the way the old lenses render, I like the gigantic dynamic range of film that digital cameras still don't match, though my new D7200 is pretty good ( range which has been made manifest by digital scanning in a way that never could be done easily enough in the darkroom).
Russ
Well-known
I have very little experience with digital. The few times I borrowed my buddy's Canon 5D Mark II body and L lenses, I was quite satisfied with the results. Other than that, all of my snaps are shot on film and scanned by the lab. The film results have been very good. I'm in no hurry to adopt digital or to abandon film. I have noticed that when I burn B/W film with the proper filter on the lens, that I get an image that I really like. I'll have to convert a couple of digital snaps to B/W, to see if I can duplicate the results from the B/W film. And the few slides that I have had drum scanned, look awesome!
Kodak 400UC film
35mm Velvia 50, Drum scanned.
35mm Ilford Delta. Polarizing and orange filter.
Ilford XP-2 (35mm) with orange filter.
Kodak 400UC film
35mm Velvia 50, Drum scanned.
35mm Ilford Delta. Polarizing and orange filter.
Ilford XP-2 (35mm) with orange filter.