Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 73,076   Posts: 1,612,130   Online: 993
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 42
  1. #21
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,796
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Athiril please drop it.

    You have been around long enough to know that discussing scans/scanning at APUG is a dead horse and bringing it up just breeds hate and discontent.

    DPUG is not anti analog, hybrid stuff belongs there. It is part of why it was started.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

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

  2. #22
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Athiril View Post
    I disagree, this is Analog Photography User's Group, not Analog Printing User's Group. A scanner is a tool, it can tell me about the density range, colour and other properties of a film. It can tell you properties about the film, which is useful to us, it doesn't need to say jack about analog printing to be relevant here.

    Making recommendations to people on APUG that is based on doing analog printing (when they've asked about film, not paper and it's clear they don't do analog printing (same as vast majority)) is unethical, especially when some of the people asking have incorporated the film into their workflow in a commercial sense and the advice ends up bad when analog printing is assumed when the vast majority of cases analog printing isn't done. I have seen many people make recommendations on how to treat someone's film that are based on analog printing as their default response to someone who obviously isn't doing analog printing but using film without making that clear to them - even when this person was using film in a commercial and critical scenario - that is really dodgy and unethical and it is an ignorant attitude to take. It is more likely to drive film users away to digital.

    Almost all film is scanned before display including printing. You would therefore end up seeing all discussions end up on DPUG even though majority of the questions and things being discussed by people are analog issues.


    DPUG is not for any kind of analog discussion.

    Things like colour correction belong on APUG, I can tell someone an image needs to be corrected towards magenta more because it is green.

    Things like how to colour correct a scan belong on DPUG. However every member of APUG, is an ambassador of APUG. Make it a better place. We want to see more people on here trying film for the first time. Without making it too hard on them and telling them printing is the only way or to go away, etc. You want these people to be enthusiastic about it and tell all their friends and other budding photography peers.


    Anything that relates to the film side belongs on APUG, not DPUG. DPUG isn't a place for it, it merely has a niche scanning subsection (which isn't for stuff relating to film, but scanner/scanning talk, not film developer talk with an aside about scanning that wouldn't be enough to make it relevant to a digital forum) under a site that caters for digital photographer's needs - unnecessary the site should be closed down, there is a million and one other digital photography forums.



    Being helpful is a virtue. On the other hand telling people to go elsewhere to a place that doesn't meet their needs is just *effed* in the head. That's harming the community at large and going to be bad for film user population and film usage at large. Because I am certain one reason APUG is here is to provide a commuity of peers to support analog photography users (and not just analog photography users that are financially well off enough to afford the time, space, and equipment to also be analog printing users), so that growth can be achieved in the uptake of any analog photographic tools and materials. I'd prefer my favoured materials for photography to stick around rather than be an elitist p***k (I'm not pointing this at you btw) about how they're supposed to be used.
    Agree. All Athiril did was ID the elephant in the room. I shoot film, as much and as often as I can. My lab uses a hi-end scan/print line. They're experienced custom printers, whether optical or digital, and their work is superb.I'm reasonably certain I'm not the only one here who uses such a service. Likewise, I don't get the dismissive snub about digital printing when the post was about film.
    Film shooters hereabouts can't have too many friends.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,006
    Images
    4
    Where did the idea that discussion of film is off limits at DPUG come from? That is just not true, and one can see that if they visit DPUG.

    It's really much more simple than this: 1) Almost everything discussed here can be discussed at DPUG (though for certain things, APUG will generally give better information). DPUG is simply for those using anything from 99% to 0% analog methods and materials. 2) But not everything discussed on DPUG can be discussed here. This site is only for 100% analog methods and materials.

    Kind of like, "All insects are bugs, but not all bugs are insects." And we have all known that since pre-school.

    My point was simply that if a scanner is being used to judge ones film, then the discussion is more suited to DPUG, as that site covers both digital and hybrid methods. Talking about scanning here, and using scanners and computers to make general statements about films muddies too many threads on this site and runs the risk of breeding misconceptions about analog materials.

    If this means that 90 percent of APUGers really should be posting on DPUG, so be it. Both sites would be improved IMO. But habits and routines die hard. Good luck getting that to happen.

    At any rate, we've said our pieces, and let's just move back to helping the OP.
    Last edited by 2F/2F; 03-14-2011 at 07:22 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  4. #24
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,796
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by CGW View Post
    Agree. All Athiril did was ID the elephant in the room. I shoot film, as much and as often as I can. My lab uses a hi-end scan/print line. They're experienced custom printers, whether optical or digital, and their work is superb.I'm reasonably certain I'm not the only one here who uses such a service. Likewise, I don't get the dismissive snub about digital printing when the post was about film.
    Film shooters hereabouts can't have too many friends.
    CGW,

    I use a lab too. That's not the issue, because I don't need to know anything about scanning to get good work from a lab.

    APUG.ORG is an international community of like minded individuals devoted to traditional (non-digital) photographic processes. We are an active photographic community; our forums contain a highly detailed archive of traditional and historic photographic processes.
    Scanners are nothing more than "specialized digital cameras" and they require a different set of skills outside APUG's scope.

    DPUG is perfect for film scanning questions.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

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

  5. #25
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,797
    "At any rate, we've said our pieces, and let's just move back to helping the OP."

    You first!

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,006
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by CGW View Post
    "At any rate, we've said our pieces, and let's just move back to helping the OP."

    You first!
    I answered the OP before making any sort of point along these lines. Then, I wrote six paragraphs about the area in a non-inflammatory fashion, split between two posts on two separate days. This information does not support your opinion that I am pressing the issue to the point of uselessness and distraction. You, on the other hand, are just trying to cause trouble with that statement.
    Last edited by 2F/2F; 03-14-2011 at 08:23 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  7. #27
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,797
    Quote Originally Posted by 2F/2F View Post
    I answered the OP before making any sort of point along these lines. Then, I wrote six paragraphs about the area in a non-inflammatory fashion, split between two posts on two separate days. This information does not support your opinion that I am pressing the issue to the point of uselessness and distraction. You, on the other hand, are just trying to cause trouble with that statement.
    Right. Disagreement/criticism=causing trouble. OK...

  8. #28
    Markster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Denver area
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    307
    Quote Originally Posted by hrst View Post
    I have no problems in underexposing or overexposing Ektar. It's a bit more contrasty than the Portra family, but still remarkably high in latitude. "Bleeding out" and "losing number of colors" is typical internet nonsense. What does those words mean anyway? First define the problems. Then check your workflow first if you have such problems. With today's color neg films, including Ektar, the film most probably has recorded the scene perfectly.

    I'm trying not to take your comments personally, but frankly it's hard because you're criticising my exact words. I find it unpleasant to be discarded out of hand so readily.

    All you need to do is do some bracketing tests for yourself. Don't just shoot a shot, look at the print, and say "that's fine" -- compare the box speed vs over exposures up to 2 to 3 stops of overexposure. You will see there is a very specific effect whereby the colors bleed out, aka leach out, aka fade out aka whatever the hell you want to call it. The color goes bye bye. It's not just desaturation.. it's rapid desaturation.

    I'm overall impressed with it as a film, but this is not something to ignore. If you want to say "I disagree" that's fine, but please refrain from calling me "internet nonsense" please. I've actually done some testing and the results match up with some other online bracketing results you can find and compare.

    As a matter of fact I'll find it for you. Here:
    http://darktopography.blogspot.com/2...film-test.html
    Edit: And another here that also concurs with loss of color and contrast:
    http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/p...2-2-stops.html
    /Edit

    So, with all due respect, the film is nice and I like the way it works, but it's not as perfect and forgiving as you suggest, and it's NOT a processing error. It's just one of the quirks of the film.

    At half the price of Portra, I'm willing to work around such flaws. Even manipulate such flaws to my advantage (intentional desaturation, etc).
    Last edited by Markster; 03-15-2011 at 02:30 AM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: added second link
    -Markster

    Canon AE-1P 35mm | 50mm/f1.8 FDn | 28mm/2.8 FD | 70-200mm/f4-5 FD | 35-70mm/F2.8-3.5 Sigma FD

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,006
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by CGW View Post
    Right. Disagreement/criticism=causing trouble. OK...
    You did not even bother to disagree or criticize. You made a two-word sarcastic comment with no basis in reality. I had already done what you apparently thought I should be doing.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  10. #30
    hrst's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Finland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,300
    Images
    1
    Markster; I didn't mean anything personal. Sorry. More likely, I hope I could be of some help.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markster View Post
    As a matter of fact I'll find it for you. Here:
    http://darktopography.blogspot.com/2...film-test.html
    Edit: And another here that also concurs with loss of color and contrast:
    http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/p...2-2-stops.html
    /Edit
    I'm sorry, but your test shows some VERY peculiar problem I've never seen with Ektar. It certainly isn't normal for Ektar, or any color neg film for years. I haven't seen it by myself, and I haven't seen it in another examples. For example, see the examples with car, color patches and step wedge that have been linked somewhere here. They went up to +5 stops and differ very much from your results. They start showing some shouldering or washing out at +5 stops, not at +2 stops, but still nothing serious.

    I still suspect something in your workflow.

    BTW, that is usually called "washed out" look. In fact, all of your scans of the hand grenade scene look somewhat washed out and the colors are odd. I've seen this when using severely expired film or faulty developer. But due to complexity of the scanning process, it may be the cause as well, even with perfect negatives! I have seen that as well. It may simply be something with level adjustments, but this is something to be discussed at DPUG.

    Generally I found with Coolscan V that Nikon Scan did usually better with color negs than VueScan. Actually, you are talking about "scanner calibration" with one frame. This is already where you may go wrong. I don't know what you mean by "scanner calibration", but if it is the black point, or Dmin calibration, it's the same as settling with one exposure time in optical printing - a completely wrong action if you have frames exposed differently. You HAVE to adjust for every frame unless they are close in lighting and exposure.

    As for Pentaxforum example, some color crossover can be seen. This looks like a problem in digital image processing. The author of the test claims he has "adjusted exposure for equivalent values of white highlights", which clearly wasn't successful, because highlights go from blue to white to green. So, judging the results, the "adjustment" has gone somehow wrong, and thus we cannot know what the initial state was, since the adjustments may have messed up anything or everything! Then just imagine that these kind of adjustments are also done automatically, hidden from user.

    Now, I hope this also shows the benefits of optical printing. No hidden state in software, no hidden "calibration", no hidden levels, no hidden curves, no hidden auto exposure, no hidden auto focus. No "color balancing" tools that would simultaneously do something else than just affect color balancing. For example, AFAIK, even today, Adobe Photoshop curves and levels tool mess up color integrity (causing color crossover) because of misunderstanding of gamma correction by the programmer. In fact, I haven't found one single tool in Adobe Photoshop that could be used to adjust color balance, like Magenta/Yellow knobs in enlarger when you print optically!

    But when you print optically, you have: fixed contrast (designed to look "good"), fixed curves (designed to look "good"), adjustments for "brightness" (exposure time) to adjust for differently exposed negs, magenta & yellow knobs to get any color balance you want, but no other color adjustments - you can only adjust color BALANCE, but you cannot mess up color purity or cause crossover. Then, these may sound like restrictions, as they are, but in fact you can do 99% of your images even with these restrictions just perfectly. Then, there are many tricks you CAN use if you need to to overcome these restrictions; you can control contrast if you WANT to, but you don't do it accidentally like in scanning. Dodge, burn, preflash, ferricyanide (SLIMT), sulfite, H2O2, pH, dev time, bleach bypass, partial BW dev, etc.

    It seems to me that there are people who can easily scan and get easily very good results. I'm a bit jealous of them . I can get good results in scanning too, but I find it tedious. Then there are people who cannot get good results from scanning at all.

    But I have yet to see anyone who cannot get good results from optical printing!
    Last edited by hrst; 03-15-2011 at 04:29 AM. Click to view previous post history.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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