Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,821   Posts: 1,581,655   Online: 893
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 30
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Oxfordshire, UK.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,221
    Surprisingly punchy colours from 160S on the beach hut & Bug shots. Nice photos all round but what an expense! Is home C41 and a scanner/darkroom not an option?
    Steve.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    235
    Thanks for the posts!

    Quote Originally Posted by Athiril View Post
    Scanning has gotta have colour balance applied. Regardless of the colour filters over the sensor in the Fuji scanner, I don't think 160S would have that much colour separation on the neg to be that saturated, so I still think it's being pumped up.

    In any case. The 645 can get the 80mm f/1.9 right?

    6x7cm costs me, 50 cents/exposure, plus maybe 50 cents/roll to develop in raw chemistry + my time, about 15-25 cents/roll in developer, 3.5-5 cents/roll in fixer, not sure on bleach, a bit more probably 50 cents/roll, but I've eliminated bleach cost.
    The Frontier applies a tone curve, no doubt. It's not designed to create files for tweaking, and if I wanted to tweak files, i'd shoot digital anyway. The frontier is designed to have a general tone curve and bump in saturation so prints and scans look as close to finished as possible. I guarantee the tech didn't apply any boost in saturation, simply because there is no option on an SP2000 (or any frontier i can think of). Just highlight/shadow recovery, C/M R/G Y/B, and density. Also, I had "All Soft" on, which bumps up the shadows, and tones down the highlights to reduce contrast.

    Now I can get the 80mm f/1.9 if I wanted shallower DOF or smoother rendition, but the bokeh on the 80mm f/1.9 is iffy alot of times and my scanning costs would still be there. I've thought about developing myself, but if i develop myself than take the negs to get scanned, I introduce opportunities for dust to collect and the negs to get scratched up from handling.

    It's a catch 22.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jedidiah Smith View Post
    I like the beach shots. Coming down to Santa Barbara? That's quite a trip from Portland - you will have a beautiful coast to look at! I'm in Ventura these days, so just a bit further South than where you're headed. If you like your 160S souped up like that...have you tried some Ektar recently? Will be quite a bit finer grain than the 160S, and colors like that pretty easily achieved as well.
    Have a great time with that gear; I know some will say otherwise, but you can get a very nice 16x20 out of properly shot and processed 35mm...I have even had a few (granted, my very best) 35mm transparencies enlarged to 20x30 and they hold up well enough. Although, everyone has their threshold of quality. For me, it would be if I wanted a final print larger than 16x20, pony up for shooting the Mamiya if you have it.
    Or, if you don't mind shooting B&W, try some Adox CMS20 in that Nikon. I made a 16x20 true B&W optical print from a 35mm CMS20 neg my wife shot of the coast up HWY 1 with a Minolta XD-11, and most who are into photography think it's 6x7 MF when they first see it. I don't mean to ramble, but if cost is keeping you from shooting your MF gear, and you want super fine enlargement from your Nikon gear, a little of that film may help.
    Have a great trip down the coast!
    Jed
    It's going to be a drive, no doubt. probably in the ballpark of 18-20 hours, and my car has no cruise control

    I've shot Ektar, and I don't like it. Sure it's fine grained and you can enlarge to whatever you want, but for my tastes it's way too contrasty, and always seems to have this weird brown tone to it. And i've scanned off the Frontier, Noritsu, and a Nikon, it was orange/brown in all three. I much prefer Portra 160 over Ektar for the highlight headroom, better skin tones, and lower contrast.

    Yeah the new Nikkor primes are truly out of this world amazing. The bokeh rendition on the 24 and 35 are almost perfect for being wide-angles. On digital they're brutally sharp, and on 35mm I can get 25MP scans easy and still be able to pull out detail.

    I don't usually print, most of my work goes up on the web, so 35mm is more than adequate for that. The only time I really print is when I'm in the darkroom, so I'll have to give that Adox a shot. I have yet to print any real B&W off the Mamiya, so I still have to see how that does in a Darkroom compared to my 35mm system.


    Quote Originally Posted by perkeleellinen View Post
    Surprisingly punchy colours from 160S on the beach hut & Bug shots. Nice photos all round but what an expense! Is home C41 and a scanner/darkroom not an option?
    I also shot the 160S at ISO 80 to bring up the shadows, which bumps up saturation. That could have affected things.

  3. #13
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,918
    Images
    60
    I understand the desire to minimize costs, but while historically the cost of purchasing and having a pro lab develop and proof 4 rolls of film was lower than $125.00, it was not lower by any large order of magnitude.

    $60.00 certainly wasn't out of order 15 years ago.

    Maybe the apparent "economy" of digital has skewed our perception of price vs. value.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  4. #14
    DanielStone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,025
    Images
    1
    the OP mentioned that he used Richard Photo Lab for his developing on an order.

    For one, they ARE NOT CHEAP. They cater to a lot of high-end wedding, portrait, and people photographers, generally, who have clients with lots of budget. People the likes of Jose Villa go to RPL for their processing(and I believe scanning as well) needs. But he's worked his way into a niche, that a lot of other photographers are trying to mimic.

    $30/roll for good quality, large-file scans, quality processing(they use a dip-n-dunk processor for all their film btw, at least the last time I was there 6mo ago) isn't all THAT bad. Well, when you consider overhead(they have a lot of full-time employees behind the scenes), you run your costs up quite a bit, and still have to make profit.

    160S and 400H are great films, and render skintones(of all ethnicities) beautifully, IMO. I have assisted a number of wedding photographers who have shot, are still shooting, or are returning to using film, and LOVE the 400H emulsion. I've exposed it at iso 25 before(just for kicks), and it still held detail! IMO, its probably the best CN film for people photography(other than the late 160VC, my favorite) still available regularly on store shelves. Shoot it while you can kids, fine detail, creamy contrast range, and will help you make better looking photographs!

    I like that shot of the VW bug btw, nice push in saturation, not over the top, but just enough. I've been shooting 160S in 35mm lately(taking a break from my normal 8x10/LF work), and its great to be able to take spontaneous photographs that only 35mm can allow.

    -Dan

  5. #15
    Athiril's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, Vic, Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,658
    Images
    28
    OP - the scanning is the problem/cause here, Ektar isn't brown toned and has a lot of 'headroom for highlights'. Same with the too contrasty bit about Ektar, it is not suprising you say that since 160S is way too contrasty and saturated for 160S. 160S is a low contrast+low saturation film. I've never seen an RA-4 of 160S look that heavy.

    +1 doesn't increase saturation like that.You admitted the scanner is applying a curve to the film. This fixed curve is causing all of this.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Ventura, California
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    421
    Images
    1
    I have to agree - the OP's 160S looked great to me - which is to say, it doesn't look anything like 160S that I shot before!
    What I meant in my earlier post, is that the couple rolls of Ektar I've seen now, look similar to what the OP likes; in fact, maybe not even that over the top.

  7. #17
    White Rose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    4
    Some nice photos there. I've just bought a couple of rolls of 160S to try out so I was interested to see your shots. I particularly liked the VW bug and the low down shot of the sand.

    I've been trying to do some contre jour stuff with my Olympus OM lenses but can't ever seem to get them flare free. I think that the lens coatings aren't up to it. What camera/lens combination did you use for the contre jour shots?

    Cheers

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    12
    Great photos! I never realized how pro film can do the difference...

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    156
    Amazing Colours! Fuji all the way is always a good combination.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    235
    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    I understand the desire to minimize costs, but while historically the cost of purchasing and having a pro lab develop and proof 4 rolls of film was lower than $125.00, it was not lower by any large order of magnitude.

    $60.00 certainly wasn't out of order 15 years ago.

    Maybe the apparent "economy" of digital has skewed our perception of price vs. value.
    I think the economy of digital has absolutely skewed at least my perception of price/value. Cheap DSLR's have incredible performance for their price, and after you have a camera, lens, and memory card, you can re use and reshoot as much as you want. It's like reusable film. I started out shooting digital, like most younger folk nowadays, and the bills from RPL were a big slap in the face.
    Quote Originally Posted by White Rose View Post
    Some nice photos there. I've just bought a couple of rolls of 160S to try out so I was interested to see your shots. I particularly liked the VW bug and the low down shot of the sand.

    I've been trying to do some contre jour stuff with my Olympus OM lenses but can't ever seem to get them flare free. I think that the lens coatings aren't up to it. What camera/lens combination did you use for the contre jour shots?

    Cheers
    I shot all of these on a Nikon F100+50mm f/1.4G. The 50G flares real nice, even with a filter on it (which i had because I was at the beach and sand/salt...uber destructive). Now you may have different results in your scanning depending on where you take it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jedidiah Smith View Post
    I have to agree - the OP's 160S looked great to me - which is to say, it doesn't look anything like 160S that I shot before!
    What I meant in my earlier post, is that the couple rolls of Ektar I've seen now, look similar to what the OP likes; in fact, maybe not even that over the top.
    When I shoot film, I actually like more pastel colors, which Ektar doesn't do, I think the color saturation in these has much to do with the Frontier.
    Quote Originally Posted by Athiril View Post
    OP - the scanning is the problem/cause here, Ektar isn't brown toned and has a lot of 'headroom for highlights'. Same with the too contrasty bit about Ektar, it is not suprising you say that since 160S is way too contrasty and saturated for 160S. 160S is a low contrast+low saturation film. I've never seen an RA-4 of 160S look that heavy.

    +1 doesn't increase saturation like that.You admitted the scanner is applying a curve to the film. This fixed curve is causing all of this.
    Exactly.
    Quote Originally Posted by DanielStone View Post
    the OP mentioned that he used Richard Photo Lab for his developing on an order.

    For one, they ARE NOT CHEAP. They cater to a lot of high-end wedding, portrait, and people photographers, generally, who have clients with lots of budget. People the likes of Jose Villa go to RPL for their processing(and I believe scanning as well) needs. But he's worked his way into a niche, that a lot of other photographers are trying to mimic.

    $30/roll for good quality, large-file scans, quality processing(they use a dip-n-dunk processor for all their film btw, at least the last time I was there 6mo ago) isn't all THAT bad. Well, when you consider overhead(they have a lot of full-time employees behind the scenes), you run your costs up quite a bit, and still have to make profit.

    160S and 400H are great films, and render skintones(of all ethnicities) beautifully, IMO. I have assisted a number of wedding photographers who have shot, are still shooting, or are returning to using film, and LOVE the 400H emulsion. I've exposed it at iso 25 before(just for kicks), and it still held detail! IMO, its probably the best CN film for people photography(other than the late 160VC, my favorite) still available regularly on store shelves. Shoot it while you can kids, fine detail, creamy contrast range, and will help you make better looking photographs!

    I like that shot of the VW bug btw, nice push in saturation, not over the top, but just enough. I've been shooting 160S in 35mm lately(taking a break from my normal 8x10/LF work), and its great to be able to take spontaneous photographs that only 35mm can allow.

    -Dan
    400H has been temperamental with me in the past, but I'm going to keep tweaking it and see if I can get something at least consistent, like what Jose Villa does. In fact, the pastels he gets, is one of the reasons I've started shooting film. I've wanted to get color like that digitally, but just couldn't so I said screw it, I have a perfectly good F100 in the basement, I'm going to try it out! That was 4 months ago and I think i've used my D700 3 times since then. Everything has been done on film since, even paid work. Funny thing is using the D700 has been... disappointing since Highlights just have zero headroom on digital.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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