Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: eriktorpolsen on July 05, 2010, 12:39:39 pm
-
OK,-I know old folks often become nostalgic. Even hangover felt better before the war and so on . . . but I do seem to remember that a 6X6 Velvia slide looked so much better than the images I get from my Nikon D50 and D3000 DSLR's. I used to own a Yashica MAT 124G and a Lubitel 66 that barely could be called a decent camera, but even slides from the Lubitel looked stunning compared to todays consumer digital SLR's.
So, am I being a victim of nostalgy, or does indeed film still have something to offer that nothing but the most expensive digital systems can match?
Anyways,-I've ordered a second hand Bronica ETRSI and loads of Fujichrome Velvia film, and plan to get a decent filmscanner also.
And I'm wondering,-what can I expect from such gear compared to what I already have? (Nikon D50/D3000).
I live in a wonderful place that deserves the best equipment I can presently afford, so I'm wondering,-what can I expect from a medium format camera/filmscanner compared to what I already have? (Nikon D50/D3000).
Below are a few HDR- images from where I live. HDR seems to be the only solution in order to capture the drama found in sceneries in this place.
http://www.sapmigovva.net/galleri/index.ph...icture&id=1 (http://www.sapmigovva.net/galleri/index.php?level=picture&id=1)
http://www.sapmigovva.net/galleri/index.ph...icture&id=2 (http://www.sapmigovva.net/galleri/index.php?level=picture&id=2)
http://www.sapmigovva.net/galleri/index.ph...icture&id=4 (http://www.sapmigovva.net/galleri/index.php?level=picture&id=4)
http://www.sapmigovva.net/galleri/index.ph...cture&id=11 (http://www.sapmigovva.net/galleri/index.php?level=picture&id=11)
-
You can easily tweak a digital image to look like Velvia in Photoshop/Lightroom. It won't have the saturation and contrast right out of the camera, which is actually a good thing.
Velvia is the opposite of an HDR image. It is high contrast, rather than extended dynamic range.
-
You can easily tweak a digital image to look like Velvia in Photoshop/Lightroom. It won't have the saturation and contrast right out of the camera, which is actually a good thing.
Velvia is the opposite of an HDR image. It is high contrast, rather than extended dynamic range.
Yes,
but are you really convinced about those digital emulations?
I'm not honestly.
Folks are also trying to emulate the kodachrome look and spray the internet with the settings.
A digital image right-out-the-box is the boriest thing I've seen exept a Fidel Castro 5 hours discourse.
So we have to do post prod, like it or not.
Taking the old film as bases is not a bad idea at all. Then playing with our new and powerfull toys.
-
A digital image right-out-the-box is the boriest thing I've seen exept a Fidel Castro 5 hours discourse.
So we have to do post prod, like it or not.
Taking the old film as bases is not a bad idea at all. Then playing with our new and powerfull toys.
That was my intention. Combining old technology with the possibilites of todays computing power.
Hehe,-even more boring than a Fidel Castro discourse . . . you're right, I almost cried after trying out the D50 for the first time.
What I saw when shooting the images were very different from what was stored on that memory card. And the scenery here is extremely dramatic and deserves better.
-
That was my intention. Combining old technology with the possibilites of todays computing power.
Hehe,-even more boring than a Fidel Castro discourse . . . you're right, I almost cried after trying out the D50 for the first time.
What I saw when shooting the images were very different from what was stored on that memory card. And the scenery here is extremely dramatic and deserves better.
What you see is rarely what you get regardless of the camera. There are countless variables that need to be controlled in order to capture what you are intending.
In my opinion, HDR and over saturation are today's primary causes of ruined photographs. over use of photoshop.
-
What you see is rarely what you get regardless of the camera. There are countless variables that need to be controlled in order to capture what you are intending.
In my opinion, HDR and over saturation are today's primary causes of ruined photographs. over use of photoshop.
It is like everything.
All these fashionable things that you just mentionned are suddenly being manipulating by everybody with the predictable results.
Like medecine, the over use of pills for any purpose, a cold, stress or whatever, makes people completly undefensed.
Photoshop is a great tool, although I'm tempted to say that it is always better to try to reach the image from the capture first.
-
HDR and tonemapping could be done in a modest manner,-or even partially by using masks in photoshop. I've been experimenting lately with creating layers and masks to put some HDR-effect into the skies while leaving stuff like grass and trees alone.
But . . . let's put HDR or not HDR aside for a moment, and discuss wether medium format film/scanner-technology still has something to offer compared with purely digital . . .
-
HDR and tonemapping could be done in a modest manner,-or even partially by using masks in photoshop. I've been experimenting lately with creating layers and masks to put some HDR-effect into the skies while leaving stuff like grass and trees alone.
But . . . let's put HDR or not HDR aside for a moment, and discuss wether medium format film/scanner-technology still has something to offer compared with purely digital . . .
Yes it does, but it's much much slower and more memory hungry.
I shoot Mamiya 7ii and scan on a Nikon 9000. Films are Kodak Ektar 100, Portra 160NC , Tmax 100 and 400 and Ilford FP4.
My digital comparator is a 1Ds3, which offers different strengths.
Mike
-
Yes it does, but it's much much slower and more memory hungry.
I shoot Mamiya 7ii and scan on a Nikon 9000. Films are Kodak Ektar 100, Portra 160NC , Tmax 100 and 400 and Ilford FP4.
My digital comparator is a 1Ds3, which offers different strengths.
Mike
For landscape images the lack of speed is of no concern at all. My DSLR is fast. You just point and shoot which is fine in some situations.
The problem with a relatively cheap D3000 is the lack of detail when shooting from a long distance. Close-ups always have great detail, but far away hills and such more often than not lack detail. I intend to use M/F-gear and film and the scanner for landscape and perhaps for portraits. The D3000 will be used for stuff were I don't demand lots of detail. Besides, in this land of the midnightsun the sun is totally gone for three months around x-mas, so I'll just be happy to fill the long nights with something slow. After all, this is a hobby and not something I make a living out of.
-
I believe combining film and a scanner is a very strong combo.
I got myself a Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED and after scanning my 6x9 negatives
from 20 years ago I was stunned when using some very simple postprod on them,
like levels, a minimum sharpening and such.
The negatives were made with a Mamiya Press and a simple 100 mm f 3.5 lens.
I do not regret this decision and have completed my system since then.
I don't yet have much new work, but I believe the hybrid working is not to be underestimated in the right hands.
-
I believe combining film and a scanner is a very strong combo.
I got myself a Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED and after scanning my 6x9 negatives
from 20 years ago I was stunned when using some very simple postprod on them,
like levels, a minimum sharpening and such.
The negatives were made with a Mamiya Press and a simple 100 mm f 3.5 lens.
I do not regret this decision and have completed my system since then.
I don't yet have much new work, but I believe the hybrid working is not to be underestimated in the right hands.
In fact you're pointing out one of the things I do not like with DSLR's when you say only a minimum amount of sharpening were required when scanning negatives.
I'm not an expert, but the sharpness that can be obtained with film is what I would call "natural sharpness". The moire-filter used in DSLR's softens the image deliberatly, and the natural sharpness that could have been there can never be restored digitally. There is a difference I believe, between the sharpness present in film and the "sharpness" you get when digitally sharpening a softened image. Darkening the dark side of edges and lightening up the light side of the same edge has nothing to do with sharpness at all, it just gives an impression of sharpness.
The M/F-camera I ordered is on it's way and will arrive one of these days, and I just can't wait start using it . . .
-
whatever film you choose you won't be getting the best out of it unless you drum / virtual drum scan...it makes a big difference over most consumer scanners.
If your ultimate aim is to show all details of your scene then don't lose the detail you shoot in lower quality scanning.
Marc
-
I believe combining film and a scanner is a very strong combo.
I got myself a Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED and after scanning my 6x9 negatives
from 20 years ago I was stunned when using some very simple postprod on them,
like levels, a minimum sharpening and such.
The negatives were made with a Mamiya Press and a simple 100 mm f 3.5 lens.
I do not regret this decision and have completed my system since then.
I don't yet have much new work, but I believe the hybrid working is not to be underestimated in the right hands.
you mean 9000 ed? the 5000 doesn't scan 6x9.
-
I shoot Mamiya 7ii and scan on a Nikon 9000. Films are Kodak Ektar 100, Portra 160NC , Tmax 100 and 400 and Ilford FP4.
I'm still trying to fight with the 9000 to get the consistent results I want out of it.
re: newton rings, dust like crazy, and the issues I posted in that other thread.
-
In fact you're pointing out one of the things I do not like with DSLR's when you say only a minimum amount of sharpening were required when scanning negatives.
I'm not an expert, but the sharpness that can be obtained with film is what I would call "natural sharpness". The moire-filter used in DSLR's softens the image deliberatly, and the natural sharpness that could have been there can never be restored digitally.
If anything new comes out of future DSLR's...I would opt to have a Optional or removable AA filter. Are you listening CANON ( highly doubt it)
I have had the Kodak dSrlC 14mp without a AA, and it is a good chunk sharper than my 1Ds I had used. The Kodak had other MAJOR issues with handling highlights and everything looking magenta, and so that was a short life for it, as soon after I got a Phase25 back. Have not looked back.
I did some tests awhile back that I had posted in LL somewhere. And it was the time I purchased the 5D mk2, so I don't remeber much after that, as my test for sharpness was overkill in the 35mm format for my needs. If I am looking for ult sharpness, and it is critical, I don't bother with 35. All my subjects in 35mm... the difference of AA or not, is pretty much a non issue...and the new ISO range is where 35 shines for me.
Now if a DSLR that was 22mpix or more had an optional AA...thats when MF would need to scramble a bit more...As my Kodak dslr (using either L glass or Leica) files had the same "feel" and 3D charactoristics of my Phase back. BUT I think pixel size comes into play as I know there are services that will remove the filter. Maybe I should do it the 5Dmk2?
Back to your OG Post...
I do think the overall process of exposing film has the chemical and direct transfer that I remember felt so good, to see the emultion come to life....even Polaroid tests where this way...and that fact that this was on a SURFACE I think is what made me appreciate it more. When most of the time our work is on a digital format, you only see it in print when you print, and the capture to final is kinda lost in the transition phase, and maybe that is whats lacking....just a thought.
-
I have had the Kodak dSrlC 14mp without a AA, and it is a good chunk sharper than my 1Ds I had used. The Kodak had other MAJOR issues with handling highlights and everything looking magenta, and so that was a short life for it, as soon after I got a Phase25 back. Have not looked back.
I have the SLR/n and love it. When I'm not shooting film, I love shooting landscapes and stuff with that. almost nothing touches it for fall shots.
-
I have the SLR/n and love it. When I'm not shooting film, I love shooting landscapes and stuff with that. almost nothing touches it for fall shots.
One other thing that camera was locked in was the ISO to exposure time. What is up with that?! You can shoot down to ISO 6!!! no, its not a typo, "6" not 60. But it wouold expose at its locked in time that you have a couple options ion. I bet if that was open, it might have helped my blown out magenta highlights.
-
I see why i was a dump idiot guy when i met a photographer in Scotland and he was just a dedicated film shooter, was shooting all his landscapes with his Pentax 67II and Contax 35mm cameras, and Velvia is his most used film, and his results are truly amazing, he is using Nikon 9000, i was shooting with 5D that time before i go with 1DsIII [i had 1DsII with 5D but i didn't take my 1Ds2 with me that time], i wish to have this scanner over my V750, i feel i didn't give my film any justice scanning with a flatbed scanner and not a drum scanner or at least film dedicated scanner.
I also love my velvia, it is my favorite slide film, Ektar 100 is my best color neg [and still in the search of another fav color neg], B&W is something else.
-
I'm still trying to fight with the 9000 to get the consistent results I want out of it.
re: newton rings, dust like crazy, and the issues I posted in that other thread.
I tend not to use ice unless it's really necessary and my black & white comes out of the closet (yes!) clean. The stndard holder is better than it's given redit for if you keep the rubber rails clean and free of grease, load it carefully and tension the film a bit. Nice flat scans in focus from edge to edge. You can also modify them to take a piece of etched glass on top of the film only, which reduces Newton rings etc and holds the glass flat (you might check that your glass carrier has the glass loaded witht he etched side to the emulsion surface - I've heard of it being put in the wrong way round). If all that fails then you can wet mount -either make it work yourself, or go to scan science. I've not done that yet, but people say it adds another level to the results in exchange for being slower and messy.
Good luck, it's great when it works.
Mike
-
One other thing that camera was locked in was the ISO to exposure time. What is up with that?! You can shoot down to ISO 6!!! no, its not a typo, "6" not 60. But it wouold expose at its locked in time that you have a couple options ion. I bet if that was open, it might have helped my blown out magenta highlights.
I rarely shoot ISO 6,12,25, or 50. I always plan-to, but never do.
by "magenta highlights", you aren't talking italian flag, are you?
-
I tend not to use ice unless it's really necessary and my black & white comes out of the closet (yes!) clean. The stndard holder is better than it's given redit for if you keep the rubber rails clean and free of grease, load it carefully and tension the film a bit. Nice flat scans in focus from edge to edge. You can also modify them to take a piece of etched glass on top of the film only, which reduces Newton rings etc and holds the glass flat (you might check that your glass carrier has the glass loaded witht he etched side to the emulsion surface - I've heard of it being put in the wrong way round). If all that fails then you can wet mount -either make it work yourself, or go to scan science. I've not done that yet, but people say it adds another level to the results in exchange for being slower and messy.
Good luck, it's great when it works.
Mike
my film always curls too much on the regular holder.. and every single thing I scan with the glass holder has newton rings. I will check the position of the glass tonight. I'm not impressed by ICE either on the MF I've done. It seems to do an awesome job with dirty 35, but I put in a negative with dust on it not paying attention and it's hard to see, but it looks like it's snowing there are so many white spots.
(http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/hs559.ash1/32553_10150192080765367_695765366_12914036_572546_n.jpg)
-
Concerning that unorderly behaving film:
1. Iron it
2. Scan it in the regular holder
ad 1.: When I put film (120) in the glass holder and wait a bit it becomes so flat, I can easily scan it in the standard holder.
-
I'm really not that keen on ironing. plus, I don't have an iron.
I wish that the film was 100% flat since I'm scanning a crap load of 35mm negatives now and they look SOOO good.
-
I'm really not that keen on ironing. plus, I don't have an iron.
I wish that the film was 100% flat since I'm scanning a crap load of 35mm negatives now and they look SOOO good.
Hell, no !
With "ironing" I meant the squeezing of the film between two flat surfaces and wait a bit.
I thought I had made that clear.
You could just take a bunch of negatives and store them between some big heavy books for some time.
I came to that idea, because I had problems with Newton rings on the glass mount, since I mounted dry,
and when I removed the film (tried with both: 35 mm and 120 MF film) it was very flat, at least for some time before curling up again.
-
Or wash the film again and add a wetting agent if necessary and then hang it with clips up and one at bottom to keep the film roll straight and flat, keep to be dry and here you go.
-
Or wash the film again and add a wetting agent if necessary and then hang it with clips up and one at bottom to keep the film roll straight and flat, keep to be dry and here you go.
Yeah, I did the same when I was young and crazy in Paris. My bathroom was full of those hanged fimls with the clips as a weight. The wetting stuff works very well.
-
I'm flattening all my film in a book with a weight on it, but when I pull them out, they curl a bit again. The regular holder seems to have lost it's hold on the film too. so the film slips out when you try to tighten it.
I scanned a ton of negatives today that worked very well (35mm)
-
I'm flattening all my film in a book with a weight on it, but when I pull them out, they curl a bit again. The regular holder seems to have lost it's hold on the film too. so the film slips out when you try to tighten it.
I scanned a ton of negatives today that worked very well (35mm)
A couple of thoughts - clean the rubber strips along the edges of the roll film holder with alcohol - this should remove the grease that lets the film slip - and check the film is also clean. See Dante Stella's website for some more information on this approach (google will find him!)
I've also seen a modification to the standard holder where someone removed the film holder bits - they said the hinges unclipped without damage, but I'd be tempted to get a new holder - and then laid a piece of etched glass on top of the film (etched side down) only. The glass needs to be cut accurately to fit the holder and is supposed to be effective in holding the film flat. This works as film tends to curl around the emulsion, so glass can flatten it from the other side. You cold go the whole hog and make a wet mount holder like this, but that's a whole other topic.
Hope that helps.
Mike
-
you mean 9000 ed? the 5000 doesn't scan 6x9.
Erm .. right - its the 9000 .. sorry I messed it up like usually...