Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,540   Posts: 1,544,353   Online: 1055
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 35
  1. #21

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lake, Michigan
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    508
    Thegman is right and I would think 2000+ dpi would be about the lowest to go with 35mm. I also have a hard time going back to 35mm when it comes to scanning. I can take a good medium format shot and make it look much better than an excellent 35mm one. Size does matter! That said, I do use 35mm from time to time for "not-so-serious" stuff and it works. I also agree that your shot might be just a little "over sharpened" by the halo/dot look, but I don't know what your settings were.

  2. #22
    dodphotography's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by thegman View Post
    The photos looks OK to me, however I do think 1200dpi is pretty low to scan 35mm film at, my ancient old Canoscan did 4000dpi. For showing on the web, though, 1200dpi is fine fine.

    Bokeh is not an area of interest for me, but it looks fine to me.

    I do think though, that if you normally shoot medium format, I can't see 35mm ever really being good enough for you, unless you change your views on what's an acceptable level of technical quality. I went from 35mm to medium format, I've tried to get back into 35mm, but just can't seem to do it.
    Appreciate the advice, I'm used to 1200 to 2400 being enough with MF.

    It's a combination of portability and access that brought me to 35mm. The leica is subtle, light, and is always with me. I can't compare a negative from the RB67 but I just can't toss that in my bag real quick when leaving the door. 35 is more of an every day life format, if that makes sense.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Daniel-Duarte.com

  3. #23

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lake, Michigan
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    508
    Quote Originally Posted by dodphotography View Post
    Appreciate the advice, I'm used to 1200 to 2400 being enough with MF.

    It's a combination of portability and access that brought me to 35mm. The leica is subtle, light, and is always with me. I can't compare a negative from the RB67 but I just can't toss that in my bag real quick when leaving the door. 35 is more of an every day life format, if that makes sense.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I know what you mean about portability and camera size. I've owned many excellent 35mm cameras and some were/are very small, while others were almost as big as medium format (weight and size). I still have a couple of Leica cameras and other odds and ends, but the ones I use the most are my Minox and Rollei 35's. I don't smoke anymore and the Minox fits the pocket where the smokes used to be. Truth is that for color work a Samsung NX100 has replaced my 35mm cameras and the little Minox holds B&W film. If I need different lenses I then see a real reason just to grab my Hasselblad 500C with waste level finder since it doesn't weigh much more than some better 35's and its size isn't bad either. Now, if I were to travel and want to take some serious pictures I'd take my Pentax 67 and army of lenses, but the little Minox 35mm would still be with me. So, I guess I'm like you in a way - serious is bigger format and casual is 35 pocket stuff. JohnW

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    70
    Can you guys just tell him the truth? Yes, people do scan their negatives. We just have accept it. Then, we can move forward in the discussion. For one thing, your v600 is very limited in terms of the scan quality. Optically, the native ppi resolution is about 1500??? At this resolution, at 800 pixels, that's probably the most acceptable quality you will get. You can get good scan quality if scanning your negatives with a 35mm dedicated scanner. I used the Plustek 8100 with an optical native resolution of 3800 ppi.
    Last edited by TooManyShots; 02-08-2014 at 07:12 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  5. #25
    lns
    lns is offline

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Illinois
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    435
    I think it's a great film, and a great lens. I use both myself. One might say that a 35mm lens is not ideal in general as a portrait lens for adult women, like myself, but it's nice if you want to show the environment. You probably only need to pay more attention to lighting and framing. If you had rotated her so the light illuminated her face, and so the background was less distracting, that same photo would be much more striking.

    If you look at this thread, the first photo is fantastic. While not taken with a 35mm camera, it is a great example of what one can do with a slightly more posed photo in a home environment, with careful framing and attention to natural light on the face. It's also not that much different in concept than the one you took.

  6. #26
    L Gebhardt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NH - Live Free or Die
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,678
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    18
    It's impossible to tell how good of a job the scanner did when the image is presented so small. I see a bit of dust, but that's not the scanner's fault (and it's fixable in photoshop). The issue I have with the picture is it's too busy, and the framing isn't pleasing to my eye. I would have tried to position the subject so there isn't the hard line of a book case protruding from her head. Cropping off the top of the image would help a lot (eliminating the distracting hole in the ceiling). A plain background might help a bit, but so could a more interesting one. It looks like there was some nice light in the other rooms of the house. Maybe a shot near one of the windows visible in the background. In other words it may not be the film or the equipment that cause you to not like the image. Sorry to a bit blunt.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    620
    Quote Originally Posted by dodphotography View Post
    Appreciate the advice, I'm used to 1200 to 2400 being enough with MF.

    It's a combination of portability and access that brought me to 35mm. The leica is subtle, light, and is always with me. I can't compare a negative from the RB67 but I just can't toss that in my bag real quick when leaving the door. 35 is more of an every day life format, if that makes sense.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    I get that, and I've tried a few times to get back into 35mm, for the smaller cameras. The fact is though, unless we're talking Rollei 35 or something, 35mm cameras aren't enough smaller than medium format for me. My 6x6 Zeiss Super Ikonta III was a fair bit smaller and lighter than any Leica kit I've owned.

    I've seen comparisons which show Ektar 100 showing more detail than a EOS 5D MkII, so the resolution is there for the taking, but does require a decent scanner.

    I think I'll probably end up ditching 35mm, except for a little autofocus compact.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Castle Rock, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,373
    Images
    64
    I think you're just not used to the lower quality of 35mm. It's not a great pic, but it's not real bad, either. I don't know enough to say anything about the quality of the scan.
    “You seek escape from pain. We seek the achievement of happiness. You exist for the sake of avoiding punishment. We exist for the sake of earning rewards. Threats will not make us function; fear is not our incentive. It is not death that we wish to avoid, but life that we wish to live.” - John Galt

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    543
    Quote Originally Posted by TooManyShots View Post
    For one thing, your v600 is very limited in terms of the scan quality.
    Exactly. Working with a V600 will be very demanding. And slow. But it can be done. You'll need to search out scanning techniques; best on other sites (hint: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...hp?forumid=148). I've used it for 12x18 inch prints that have been well received.

  10. #30
    jd callow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Milan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,002
    Images
    117
    Guys this really isn't Apug material. If you think the issues with the image has to do with scanning and you wish to continue that line of discussion you really should not do it here. Apug' sister site Dpug would be a better location.

    Thanx.

    *

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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