Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,760   Posts: 1,516,051   Online: 892
      
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 38 of 38
  1. #31
    rossawilson1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    salisbury, UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    154
    Great shots Ted! So you were using this film to get the grain or just a faster shutter were you? I only ask because I'd never though about using it in normal daylight.

    Can't you just increase the contrast now they're digital? I know if I scan a B&W neg and look at the image I have to play around a lot to make it look like my optical prints of the same image, increasing contrast being one of the parameters that needs attention.

  2. #32
    MikeSeb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Prospect (Louisville), KY, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,062
    Quote Originally Posted by ted_smith View Post
    I think I would have been better rating it at 1600 or 3200 as the images don't quite have enough contrast for my liking.
    Ted, the shots look fine as is. But decreasing exposure (by increasing your EI to 1600) won't help you increase contrast, if that's what you want to do.

    You'll get less shadow detail than you currently have, and if anything the negatives will be thinner overall.

    If you want more contrast, increase development; but that carries the risk of blowing highlights.
    Michael Sebastian
    Website | Blog

  3. #33

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,834
    Ted Always difficult to tell with scans but I'd say the shadow detail in the dark dogs is spot on, Maybe the highlight detail is a little burned out on the dogs with "white fur" but not so as it spoils the shot. Did the processor know that it was shot at EI1000? If not, it might just be that the development time was a little too long for an EI of 1000.

    Contrast looks just right for me but that's just me. What does the customer think? He's the one that counts.


    pentaxuser

  4. #34
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,580
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Ted,

    I like shot #6 especially.

    Just a thought here, since the labs that I use always adjust the scan or proof, I checked the website of your lab http://www.the-darkroom.co.uk/frames/

    Have a look under "scan to CD", your lab claims to make the same adjustments as my labs do.

    The only thing that this means is that the contrast in the scans you have doesn't necessarily mean much about your negatives other than it's the way some software or person at the lab adjusted it.

    The film and development might be perfectly fine and your negatives perfectly printable or the scans might have a significant correction and be reaching a limit. I'm betting on the former.

    Talking with the lab a bit more would be in order here. They may be able to shed more light on their process and even adjust to your preferences.

    Once you've had that conversation and have an understanding with the lab then experimenting with Neopan 1600 or whatever else you might try will have more meaning.

    Right now I'm betting their automation is masking reality some.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  5. #35
    Harry Lime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    465
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Mekeel View Post
    Fuji Neopan 1600 is a good Ilford Delta 3200 or Tmax 3200 alternative, and it works well at 1600EI, and it is cheaper.
    I have never been able to retain good shadow detail with Neopan 1600, unless there is a minimal amount of ambient light. I like it on a heavily overcast day, because the grain is quite tight. Clocking in around 640 asa Neopan 1600 is the slowest film of the three. It is being pushed between 1 -1 1/2 stops more to reach 1600, than Delta3200 or Tmax P3200.

  6. #36
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,580
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Lime View Post
    I have never been able to retain good shadow detail with Neopan 1600, unless there is a minimal amount of ambient light. I like it on a heavily overcast day, because the grain is quite tight. Clocking in around 640 asa Neopan 1600 is the slowest film of the three. It is being pushed between 1 -1 1/2 stops more to reach 1600, than Delta3200 or Tmax P3200.
    I had heard that Neopan was really about 640 and believe that but have not been able to find a reference.

    Actually a slight correction on the push math. T-MAX P3200 is ISO rated at either 800 or 1000 per Kodak (depending on the developer) and Ilford says Delta 3200 is an ISO 1000 film. That puts the "extra push" for Neopan at about 1/3 to 2/3 of a stop more than the others.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  7. #37
    ted_smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    uk
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    396
    Images
    1
    Ross :
    Great shots Ted! So you were using this film to get the grain or just a faster shutter were you? I only ask because I'd never though about using it in normal daylight.
    - Thanks Ross. Yes, I was using the film for fast shutters. I thought it was going to be cloudier than it actually was and I needed 1/500th of a sec, or so, shutters. I didn't realise, at the time, that Delta 3200 is not really a daylight film - lesson learned. However, it did achieve my aim of fast shutters ;-)

    Can't you just increase the contrast now they're digital?
    - I could, but the reason I shoot film is to avoid time sat at a PC, so I want to get it right on film.

    PentaxUsers :
    Did the processor know that it was shot at EI1000? If not, it might just be that the development time was a little too long for an EI of 1000. Contrast looks just right for me but that's just me. What does the customer think? He's the one that counts.
    Yes - I told them that I shot it at that ISO on the form. The shots are not 'paying' shots as such - it was more of a 'profile building' exercise and getting practice at action shots.

    I will get any shots that the police like printed properly from the negs, so hopefully the finished prints will look much better. To be fair, I quite like the shots - I just always aim for the best shots I can get - as we all do :-)
    Ted Smith Photography
    Hasselblad 501CM...my 2nd love.

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Westport, MA.
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,047
    Nice shots! Makes me want to go out and take a few pictures.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin