ksargent Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 Following are few shots taken on Kodak BW400CN. Regards, Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksargent Posted August 13, 2007 Author Share Posted August 13, 2007 A street scene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksargent Posted August 13, 2007 Author Share Posted August 13, 2007 another street scene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksargent Posted August 13, 2007 Author Share Posted August 13, 2007 and an historic building here in Pensacola Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luis triguez Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 Ken, Good pictures, only a question: It was the FISON hood on the Elmar in the third picture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronald_moravec1 Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 Now you understand why I will never sell mine. All the early 50`s were similar. The little 3/4" deep clamp shade works ok and fits the 3.5 Summaron with no vignetting and the 50/90/135 provides even better shading, but it is bulky. It will vignette the 35 though. If you ever go to the Navy station I would like to see some pics. I am into WW 2 aircraft and the early jets, Phamtoms, Panthers, and Banshees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksargent Posted August 13, 2007 Author Share Posted August 13, 2007 Luis: Thanks. I wasn't using the hood on any of these pictures as I hadn't received it yet. It was late afternoon and I was facing west; it may have been a bit of flare which gives that picture its glow - if so, I'm glad I didn't use the hood. Ronald: I assume you mean the Naval Museum here. I haven't been in 5-6 years, but they have a great display of early aircraft there. When I go next time, I'm sure I'll have a camera with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
summitar Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 That old time lens hasn't lost a step! Thanks for posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_baker6 Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 Really like the Street scene w/trees shot--very nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul_neuthaler Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 Nice shots, 50 Elmar, red-scale or earlier -- as long as it's coated -- is a great lens. Mine's never flared & I've yet to use a shade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_harris10 Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 Nice tone. How did you expose the film? I've just shot a couple of rolls of BW400CN, rated at about ISO250, but I've not looked at the results yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksargent Posted August 13, 2007 Author Share Posted August 13, 2007 I mentally rated it around 200-250, but I wasn't using a light meter - so it's hard to say what the exact ISO of any given shot was. I adjusted the exposure slightly in Lightroom and the contrast in most cases. The aperture for all of the shots was F/8 - I adjusted using the shutter speed. I'm also shooting XP-2 Super - I'm interested in how the two films compare. These films are very flexible with respect to post-processing exposure adjustments. Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksargent Posted August 13, 2007 Author Share Posted August 13, 2007 I should add that I scanned with a Nikon CoolScan V and cropped in Lightroom. I'm an incurable cropper; I'm not one of those who likes to leave an image "as shot" if I think cropping will make it better. Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_harris10 Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 Thanks, very useful. I've also been using XP-2S a bit too, but I rated it at what it said on the box, and wasn't that impressed with the results, then I saw shots here where people had said they were underrating it, which looked more like what I was after, and makes it easier to use wide apertures to boot. I also use Lightroom to process my scans. I've been getting my local photo labs to scan the negatives as I don't own a negative scanner. I'm not sure what differences to expect, but the resolution from the lab seems to be lower than the film, and I'm not too impressed with the dynamic range of the scans either. - Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksargent Posted August 13, 2007 Author Share Posted August 13, 2007 I originally bought my film scanner when I was thinking that digital was going to do the trick for me. I bought it to digitize my old negatives; I assumed that I would use it, finish, and sell it. SO much for thta plan - at least the "selling it" part. At any rate, it worked out to be cost effective for me because I had the cache of old negatives which would have cost a lot more to scan than I paid for the scanner. Of course you have to factor in your time (and it does take a while even using batch methods which I do), but I think you get better results. I've settled on a group of settings which output 35-42 MB files and I like the results. If I maxed out the scanner, they would 100+ MB - haven't seen the need for that. I am getting better results at home than I ever got from standard lab scans. But - you do have to allow for the time to do it. I do very little correction at scan time - I try to get the image and then do my work in Lightroom or Photoshop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_harris10 Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 OK, that's pretty much what I guessed. I just picked up my scans from the underrated BW400CN, and it looks nicer than the ISO400 rated shots, plus I used "Snappy Snaps" this time and their scan quality is a bit better than Jessops' by the look of it. I think I'll keep using the labs scanning for a bit, and maybe buy a scanner if I ever become any good :) I gather it takes something like 40 seconds per negative to scan, and the scanners can be quite a pain to work with (on Intel Macs at least). Thanks, Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksargent Posted August 13, 2007 Author Share Posted August 13, 2007 I can understand the time factor - however, I have to say that film scanning is no trouble on my Intel Mac. It may be that the Nikons are more Mac-friendly than some of the others, but I've had no problems at all. I've used both the Nikon software and Hamrick's VueScan with good results. But - if you can get acceptable quality by having the lab do it, it will save you a good bit of time. Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_harris10 Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 It was the Nikons I was considering, but I'd seen people moaning online that it was unreliable on Intel, and didn't see many comments on VueScan - though maybe that's a good thing, people seem quick to moan and slow to praise. According to Nikon's website the drivers certainly haven't been updated in some time. Thanks for the info though, that's one less thing to worry about if I decide I want a scanner. - Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtk Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 Nikonscan's fine with XP, totally "reliable". C41 and E6 strips are automatically and precisely positioned by Nikonscan...it's more hassle with Vuescan, but I prefer Vuescan workflow with silver film (FH-3 optional carrier) and mounted slides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksargent Posted August 13, 2007 Author Share Posted August 13, 2007 John, I agree VueScan is a hassle with respect to film positioning while NikonScan seems to handle it automatically. I'm actually thinking of revisiting using NikonScan for C41 film strips. As I said, both work perfectly with OS10 as well; I'm more worried about the CoolScan hardware failing. But it's going on 2 years with no problems at all, so I'm probably just being paranoid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carbon_dragon Posted August 14, 2007 Share Posted August 14, 2007 I like the last one the best, very nice sharp rendition of the wood with very nice midtones. But the BMW in the corner is a little distracting because without it the picture is pretty timeless. Definitely a good performance by an older classic lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pensacolaphoto Posted August 18, 2007 Share Posted August 18, 2007 These images were taken in my hometown Pensacola! It shows Seville Square and the Old Christ Church. Nice shots,by the way. I also like using such a lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksargent Posted August 18, 2007 Author Share Posted August 18, 2007 Thanks, Raid. You are correct of course - the shots were from the Seville Square area. Pensacola is my home as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pensacolaphoto Posted August 19, 2007 Share Posted August 19, 2007 Ken, I did not know that you live in Pensacola. We should meet one day. I know of a RFF member (Robin)who lives in the Milton area. Greetings, Raid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksargent Posted August 19, 2007 Author Share Posted August 19, 2007 Raid, Actually I not only live in Pensacola - I work for UWF in ITS. Hopefully we will get a chance to meet and chat sometime soon. Regards, Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now