zoltan_arva_toth Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 <p>...is that I can use cheap ultrawide lenses on my M42 screwmount SLRs. While there are absolutely fantastic ultrawides available for my DSLR, they cost too much for me. On the other hand I have a Chinon 21mm f/3.5 M42 lens that I bought for the equivalent of about €100, and it works very well. I'm still a learner as regards ultrawide photography, but please allow me to post a sample I shot recently on Fuji Superia 200.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoltan_arva_toth Posted August 13, 2009 Author Share Posted August 13, 2009 <p>And another example from the same roll:</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterbcarter Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 <p>Used lens is where you want to go. Make friends with ebay!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_littleboy__tokyo__ja Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 <p>I like film for the dust: <a href="http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/116007767/original">http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/116007767/original</a></p> <p>(I need to start a new thread on cleaning old B&W negatives. Sigh.)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henrik_lauridsen Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 <p>Looks like Fuji Superia can give Ektar a run for the money in terms of blue skyes :-)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoltan_arva_toth Posted August 13, 2009 Author Share Posted August 13, 2009 <p>This thread was never meant to be a film VERSUS digital thing - as I stated in my original post, I <em>have</em> a DSLR, and use film for very specific reasons. One of these is that certain types of lens - ultrawides are what I mentioned - are available much cheaper for my film bodies. The situation would be slightly different if I had a full-framer, but for <em>my</em> DSLR, ultrawides cost anywhere between $500 and $1500 (and more where I live). That is beyond my budget, so whenever I fancy some ultrawide shooting, I reach for a 35mm camera and a roll of film.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthew_newton Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 <p>That is one of the biggest reasons why I stick with film, used lenses for discontinued mounts are generally quite cheap. Olympus OM is my homeboy :-D<br> Today or tomorrow my Sigma 21-35mm f/3.5-4.2 ($40) should be showing up. Still having problems tracking down a Sigma 14mm f/3.5 in OM mount though.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Luttmann Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 <p>And one of the reasons I don't like film is evident in the first photo.....a nice scratch across the frame.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpo3136b Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 <p>Nice view. I like the sky and the clouds.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mt4x4 Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 <p>This is one FILM vs DIGITAL post that I <em>agree </em> with.<br /> <br /> Personally, I can't afford a full frame camera and most of the time like the crop factor anyways.<br /> <br /> But I do find myself picking up my F100 quite a bit when I want to go wider. My F100 that I got like new, with a kirk L bracket, for $230.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DWScott Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 <p>I totally agree with the OP. Sure, I'd love to have a 12-24 for my Pentax K10D -- but that's serious money and I have that range covered by using my FAJ 18-35 on a film body. It's as wide as I would ever want to go, the shots look great, and IIRC it cost me $70.<br> Dave, re: scratches on the film -- it used to really bug me too. Then I got a DSLR, and I spend as much time cloning out dust on the sensor as I spend cloning out scratches on film. At least scratches on film can usually be controlled by carefully choosing your lab and keeping your gear modestly clean. My DSLR attracts dust after one lens change.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zamazal Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 <p>Other reasons to love film: You can get very shallow depth of field very cheap. If you like manual focus, there is plenty of excellent old cheap manual lenses that perfectly work with your camera body and viewfinder. You can change your lenses on the camera frequently without worrying about dust.<br> But scratches are really annoying. I develop films myself, it's better than from any lab I've tried but I still can't avoid scratches completely and it's very tedious and time consuming to retouch them.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny_spinoza Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 <p>Do you scan with digital ICE? I almost never have trouble with scratches when scanning with ICE.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zamazal Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 <p>I use infrared cleaning, using my own techniques to identify garbage (I couldn't find any free software for this). It works well for dust but scratches are harder to identify without risking false positives.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo_smith Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 <p>The dust and scratches filter is good in PSCS I could pretty much fix David's cat shot linked above in 10-15 seconds.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_littleboy__tokyo__ja Posted August 15, 2009 Share Posted August 15, 2009 <p>Thanks for the suggestion: I hadn't gotten around to trying that yet. But I couldn't persuade the CS3 dust and scratches filter to clean up the dust (on another image, actually) without making mush out of the image. (IR cleaning works great with color and C41 B&W films, but not with real silver-based B&W films, sigh.)</p> <p>I need to figure out how to actually get the dust off these negatives. Could be hard, though: the dust is thoroughly baked in. They spent every summer for the last 40 years in the attic of a slate-roofed house in Boston.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zamazal Posted August 15, 2009 Share Posted August 15, 2009 <p>Mark, could you post the cleaned cat picture? I'd be interested in the result.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heinz_anderle Posted August 15, 2009 Share Posted August 15, 2009 Which version of Superia 200 - four or three layers? Where - in Hungary? Scanned from a (Frontier?) print, or from the negative using either the manufacturer's software or a generic one, such as VueScan or Silverfast? Post-processed? I agree with the easy analog use of (ultra-)wides - stopped down, they work well with slide film too. I would recommend the latter, as the consumer versions such as Elite Chrome 100 or Sensia 100 both show a high color saturation with a neutral balance - and what you see is what you get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo_smith Posted August 16, 2009 Share Posted August 16, 2009 <p>Milan sorry I haven't responded and I hope David doesn't mind:<br /> here is a screen-shot of part of Davids cat shot: <br /> <img src="http://www.pbase.com/mark_antony/image/116139127.jpg" alt="" /><br /> I realise that dust and scratches can sometimes destroy high frequency detail, but the troublesome B/G in the shot was out of focus which is where the filter works best. In order to leave the cat untouched you can mask it off or do your adjustments on a layer and blend with opacity or use eraser/history bush and all manner of other tactics. The following is really just a 10 second attempt where the cat was quickly masked with a 12 pixel feather. Here is the link to the largish file:<br /> http://www.pbase.com/mark_antony/image/11613913<br /> Mark</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo_smith Posted August 16, 2009 Share Posted August 16, 2009 <p>Here's the link again:<br> http://www.pbase.com/mark_antony/image/116139136</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_littleboy__tokyo__ja Posted August 16, 2009 Share Posted August 16, 2009 <p>"I hope David doesn't mind"<br> Not at all. That's a big improvement. Thanks for taking the time. It looks as though the scratch will require painting the pixels in one at a time, though. Still, that's pretty easy once the worst of the dust is gone.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zamazal Posted August 16, 2009 Share Posted August 16, 2009 <p>Thanks, Mark. One interesting thing is that the long scratch coming through the cat's left eye and the tail root remained unidentified. I think even infrared channel from a C-41 film wouldn't help much here. It doesn't matter on old pictures where such relatively small defects are well tolerable, but it's disturbing on clean pictures. Anyway I still love film for the reasons given above. :-)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo_smith Posted August 16, 2009 Share Posted August 16, 2009 <p>Milan<br> The reason for the cat remaining 'untouched' is that I masked it out completely as dust and scratches would soften the cats fur in other words I only did the background-this is a 10 second edit.<br> I would do any small local areas with clone tools<br> Where it works best is on large out of focus areas like sky, where you can select the sky and apply the filter- much quicker than spotting.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zamazal Posted August 16, 2009 Share Posted August 16, 2009 <p>Mark, the scratch is present in the cleaned image (although not much visible) even above the cat. Hand correction of scratches by cloning in non-uniform areas is very tedious for me and I'm often not satisfied with the result -- although the scratch itself is masked, the cloned area may remain somewhat highlighted due to small changes in tonality or so. Perhaps a better approach might be to paint a mask over the scratch by hand and to tune inpainting to do the rest of the work well enough, I'll have to experiment.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo_smith Posted August 16, 2009 Share Posted August 16, 2009 <p><em><strong>Mark, the scratch is present in the cleaned image (although not much visible) even above the cat.</strong></em><br /> Milan just to reiterate:<br> the scratch was NOT touched the whole right hand side of the image including the cat was totally masked off in a VERY rough hand drawn lasso, what you refer to as a 'cleaned image' was just a demonstration of how the background could be cleaned. This is a 10 second 'play' as a demonstration, NOT a cleaned image!!!!</p> 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