Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,920   Posts: 1,522,069   Online: 796
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Film Comparison

  1. #1
    polyglot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,095
    Images
    12

    Film Comparison

    I have here two photos taken with different films of the same scene (same camera, lens and CPL too - all I did was swap backs while it was on the tripod) about 1 minute apart:


    One is a chrome, the other is negative. Negative colours adjusted "to taste" and according to my memory, so there are some hue differences.

    What films do you think they each are? Which do you prefer and why?

  2. #2
    tomalophicon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Canberra, ACT.
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    1,562
    Images
    24
    Top is Velvia 100 and bottom is Ektar...

    I prefer the top because the water looks nicer.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,531
    Is there a prize?

  4. #4
    L Gebhardt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NH - Live Free or Die
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,674
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    18
    The loss of shadow detail in both bothers me. The colors in the bottom one are nicer in my opinion. My guess is that the bottom is negative because of the lower contrast in the sky.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Live Free or Die
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,348
    Images
    87
    I'm also guessing the bottom one is negative, and I do like the color better, especially the rendering of the statue. But both could stand some more exposure, IMHO.

  6. #6
    polyglot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,095
    Images
    12
    eh, you're onto me... top one is RVP50 and the bottom one is Ektar. Clouds edges are blown in the chrome so I don't agree about more exposure despite the black-hole rock (it's really black and slimy and shaded; needs about 4-5 more stops before coming to Zone III).

    I have another Ektar frame that's +1/2 and a little better, shows a little more shadow detail. I picked this one for comparison because it was shot at Sunny-16 box speed just like the RVP.

    railwayman: merely your edification at having Beaten The Internets.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    73
    Not my photograph and it's already been taken, but here's my take on it:

    I like the contrast from the chrome better, but why did you only tweak colors on the negative? If you're scanning then tweak colors as much as you want on both! Second, everything but the clouds is underexposed because you're on the shadow side. If you want the rest to be properly exposed, you have to let the highlights go. It needs at least 2 more stops to get it there. Everything that's not directly lit in these is a big black blob. Blown highlights are only a bad thing when they're in the wrong place. I've learned to let my highlights go when using rim lighting or back lighting on portraits.

  8. #8
    Hatchetman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    564
    Images
    6
    I prefer the first, as the second one has an overall blue cast to it. Of course that could have been introduced in the scanning process.

  9. #9
    tomalophicon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Canberra, ACT.
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    1,562
    Images
    24
    What the... the Fuji looks loads better.

  10. #10
    L Gebhardt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NH - Live Free or Die
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,674
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by cramej View Post
    Not my photograph and it's already been taken, but here's my take on it:

    I like the contrast from the chrome better, but why did you only tweak colors on the negative? If you're scanning then tweak colors as much as you want on both! Second, everything but the clouds is underexposed because you're on the shadow side. If you want the rest to be properly exposed, you have to let the highlights go. It needs at least 2 more stops to get it there. Everything that's not directly lit in these is a big black blob. Blown highlights are only a bad thing when they're in the wrong place. I've learned to let my highlights go when using rim lighting or back lighting on portraits.
    I don't care for blown highlights, or blocked up shadows. I would just avoid the RVP or Ektar for this type of shot, and go straight to a low contrast negative film, like Pro160S or Portra 160. Then expose for the shadows.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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