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?
Thanks for the posts!
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.
Originally Posted by Athiril
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.
It's going to be a drive, no doubt. probably in the ballpark of 18-20 hours, and my car has no cruise control
Originally Posted by Jedidiah Smith
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.
I also shot the 160S at ISO 80 to bring up the shadows, which bumps up saturation. That could have affected things.
Originally Posted by perkeleellinen
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.
“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
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.
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.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
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.
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?
Great photos! I never realized how pro film can do the difference...
Amazing Colours! Fuji all the way is always a good combination.
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.
Originally Posted by MattKing
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.
Originally Posted by White Rose
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.
Originally Posted by Jedidiah Smith
Originally Posted by Athiril
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.
Originally Posted by DanielStone