What proces was taken here... ?

[Mile]

check This picture

I do get Medium frame make it sharp, however i am so doubtful what proces was it ? 

I dont get that it is sharp from the start and all the way to that house in the back (normal focus stack on digital would do it). Next one, shadows under the car are so clear and enlighted. I could not find stars, but saw small "plane line" in bottom, so would guess it took some seconds of exposure. 

My guess was some -2 or -3 pull processing, with some good ISO 100 or 200 film, which could gave more than 150 lp/mm. I saw other shots, but just this one is so sharp.

any comment... he has film shots. But he might did it with digital (focus stack + HDR) ?

Edited November 22, 2022 by Mile
adding

[glen_h]

The actual image is here:

https://live.staticflickr.com/1884/43280753695_abd63154ea_b.jpg

There isn't much in the JFIF data.

It seems to be 1023x683.

Across a 66mm frame, that would be 15.5 pixels/mm or 8 lp/mm.

But otherwise it is pretty sharp!

[Dustin McAmera]

The guy says in the comments that it's a digital camera. Shame he didn't leave the EXIF visible. The original size, downloadable in Flickr is 7523x4841; 36.4 MP. I'm guessing he's cropped or something to arrive at those un-round numbers. My camera is a modest APS-C but still has 6000x4000, so this isn't amazing tech.

I don't really see what the fuss is about. It's dark, and he wanted depth of field, so why wouldn't he just put the camera on a stand and stop down? The car with the leaves on it in the lamplight are nice, but he hasn't achieved anything out of the ordinary technically. The very nearest leaves on the pavement aren't completely sharp.

And the numbers of views and faves are just Flickr mutual-grooming.

[Mile]

True. He wrote back, it was Sony FF a7r. I asked him even before. Yes, i was mislead since he put more film medium format. I even thought it was medium frame digital. I was WOW if would be film, but for instance check this image from him: 

 

 

You can see shadows are far away from 1st (digital) image. I dont know to what size you can have scan, this one above is 5119×5119 px.

I scanned my in Belgrade, max 6×6 from Lubitel2 was 3616×3616. This photo we talk about is 7253×4841 px. @Glen that would be around 55 lp/mm. I would really doubt 8 lp/mm would get such result even in my mind while opening on full resolution.

@Dustin i still think its very very good shot. But if you think you have some similar or you think its even better let me see. Winner of some photo contests is here 😉anyway i use m4/3 and analogue 35 mm, but i started with Lubitel 2 and Zenit from my dad. I still use film since that "surprise" emotion when you see old shots. Best was i developed my old 120 movie after 35 years, almost heart attack... to see my 1st album. 😉

Sorry for mess, should read those comments where he said its digital. Normally if i dont see EXIF or camera there... its like without info, useless for me. 

 

 

 

[mikemorrellNL]

You can download the photo and look at the Exif data in an 'Exif Data tool' (like Opanda Exif) or something like 'Photoshop'.  The Exif data tells you things like the camera model, the lens type and the exposure settings. Photoshop tells you a bit more if you're able to interpret the 'Raw' (=XML) data in the File Info. This is basically a record of any post-processing done.

I don't know much about interpreting XML data. But I do see that the photo has been imported into both Adobe Lightroom and Photoshop. In the Photoshop XML data, some "panorama" tags suggest that multiple images have been combined into one. Photoshop allows multiple images to be blended together either as a 'panorama' (stitched together) or 'stacked'. If multiple versions of the photo are identical, it's possible that both options deliver the same result.

Some other adjustments in Photoshop, include

- customizing the white balance

- increasing both the orange and yellow hues

- using 'split toning' to adjust both the hue and saturation of the shadows (my guess is giving them a bluer/greener tone)

- 'local adjustments' to hue, saturation and contrast

 

[Dustin McAmera]

I didn't mean to dis the photo. My comment was about the technical stuff (with a side-swipe at the mutual-admiration culture in some parts of Flickr). Your praise seemed a bit over-the-top regarding simple depth of field. As far as I could see, it's sharp from about a metre from us, to a hundred metres or so. You can do that with aperture and a tripod. If he's used digital tech, good luck to him. It's a nice, atmospheric picture, but for me it doesn't need that.

The largest I've scanned from film is 4096x3201, from 4x5 inch. Only done a handful of those. I really hate spotting scans for dust, and those took a while.
I don't get fascinated by counting pixels or comparing histograms. Photography for me is about recording the mood of a scene; balance or imbalance in the composition; that stuff. So for what I do I don't need to be NASA; just enough tech for the job.

I have a 1953 Zenit, and a Zenit 3, and a couple of 3Ms that I bought for the lenses they came with. A Lubitel 166B too, that I bought new in 1982 I think; haven't used that in years. Some FEDs as well:  (🟦🟨 - there are no flag emoji here)

Here's something I like from my Zenit. I don't set it up as a competitor to the one you like, or to any picture; I don't come here to compete or invite critique. It's with the Industar-22,  50mm f/3.5, physically the smallest lens I own, and Fuji Superia 400. Not much in the whole picture is sharp; not even sharp enough to judge where the depth of field might be. Impenetrable shadow is everywhere. But it catches the mood of an evening in the city, in the season when we were starting to see spring instead of winter. It does for me anyhow.

 

One other thing - the site rules (which haven't yet been put up on photo.net's new platform - admins?) used to include that we only post pictures we took ourselves.

 

Edited November 23, 2022 by Dustin McAmera

[mikemorrellNL]

Hi @Mile,

Many thanks for for posting (links to) these 2 photos! What I really immediately liked about them (though they are different), is that they somehow had a similar 'photographic style' (colors, shadow toning). I first looked up C A Soukup on Flickr and I saw a similar 'style' in most of his 'night' photos. I also Googled him and he's quite well known. A lot has been written about his 'stills from movies never made' and he's participated in many exhibitions and won some awards. It's well worth visiting his website. I feel a bit stupid about trying to 'decode' his edits! He obviously has long had a photographic 'vision', 'style' and 'process' to achieve these.

What I love about PN is that posts like yours lead me to discover a photographer that I'd never heard of but whose 'cinematic' photography work I really love!

PS. @Dustin McAmera's right that the PN 'convention' is to post links to photos taken by others - as you did for the first photo. I put the 2nd post down to 'enthusiasm' 🙂 No harm done.

[Mile]

@Dustin McAmerathat more dynamic shot. I suppose handshot !? Its not so sharp it could be. I have often problem many cameras dont have my dioptry, +1.75 All those Soviet cameras still work ? I have to refurbish my Lubitel, its not OK. Probably Zenit TTL too, but i use Canon 3000N or Olympus OM-10 when using film. I collected also Smena 6M, from my relatives in Belgrade, they dont use it. But saw many photos from it, my dad bought them, he was photoamateur. He also bought them that camera, in time of Yugoslavia we had more or less Eastern cameras. But that Saturn lens, is still "wanted". I will probably refurbish my Lubitel, i wanted to buy some better, but they want too much money. So i wanted now to buy some small Instax, for quick shot, for some X-mas photos. Then i just write date and location and here you are - the present. Polaroid or something similar. 

 

@mikemorrellNL we then have same taste. How would you call those photos "cars by night" with one word. I saw "stillness" by author. But i am sure you know some flowers painting where they use "stilness" category. But this kind of stilness is so different to those flowers paintings. To me, Edward Hopper with "Nighthawks" is resembling that taste. 

Yeap, next time photo will be on link, i think some copyvio when passed here image straight. 

Otherwise i read EXIF with Jeffrey Frield Exiftool, i just see its now "unavailable". I think it gave all info out. 

 

Can you tell me to what resolution you can have 135 and 120 scan !? In your country of course, or city. 

In Belgrade ; 6×6 HD 3636×3636 and 135 HD 3650×5444 

 

Not sure if drum of flat scan.

 

 

 

 

[Dustin McAmera]

It could have been sharper I guess. I'm pretty sure that will be f/3.5, and quite probably 1/25 second. But 'sharpness is a bourgeois concept'. I used to really enjoy taking out a 35mm camera in the dusk. It's an interesting time of day - some people are on the way home; some are on their way to the pub, or the theatre; the streets fill up with buses and bikes, and there's a mix of street lights, vehicle lamps, and the last daylight. It's satisfying to get hand-held pictures when it's only just possible to take them. My Canon A1 would make it easier than the Zenit: brighter finder and wider lenses.
I got my EOS M50 just in time for the pandemic, and photographing in the evening is much easier now, and those pictures are more likely to be sharp. I think I've been robbed of some of my enjoyment. But I can always go out with the film cameras if I want: there's only my laziness stopping me.

My Zenit 3 has a small fault. The advance lever sometimes loses its grip; it winds freely without doing anything. It connects again if I release it and try again. When it gets worse, I may open it up. I hope it isn't really badly worn inside. The 1953 Zenit had some holes in the shutter blinds. I painted them with fabric paint, and that repair has lasted some years (though I don't use the camera too much).

 

[Dustin McAmera]

I scan my own film with an Epson 4870 flatbed. It's getting old (maybe 2003?) and the belt sometimes slips when it's hot, but at least that fault leads to getting no image, not a bad image, so when it works at all (which is most of the time) it's good. Dust is inevitable if you scan at home though.
It's maximum resolution is 4800 dpi. It will give you an image with higher resolution, but the extra is by interpolation.
So for 35mm, the long side would be 36/25.4*4800 = 6803 pixels; the short side would be near to 4800. The biggest I remember doing for 35mm is 4096 long (I like powers of 2).
My Century Graphic gives me negatives 2¼x3¼ inches; at 4800 dpi that would be 10800x15600. But the work of spotting out dust with the clone tool would increase in proportion to the pixel size. I think I have done up to 8192 on the long side, a few times.

 

[mikemorrellNL]

On 11/24/2022 at 2:13 PM, Mile said:

 

@mikemorrellNL we then have same taste. How would you call those photos "cars by night" with one word. I saw "stillness" by author. But i am sure you know some flowers painting where they use "stilness" category. But this kind of stilness is so different to those flowers paintings. To me, Edward Hopper with "Nighthawks" is resembling that taste. 

Yeap, next time photo will be on link, i think some copyvio when passed here image straight. 

Otherwise i read EXIF with Jeffrey Frield Exiftool, i just see its now "unavailable". I think it gave all info out. 

 

Can you tell me to what resolution you can have 135 and 120 scan !? In your country of course, or city. 

In Belgrade ; 6×6 HD 3636×3636 and 135 HD 3650×5444 

 

Not sure if drum of flat scan.

Hi @Mile, the photo is not a scan. The photo was taken with a digital camera and digitally post-processed to achieve the photographer's trademark ''style'. I don't want to (publicly) share any of his specific EXIF data that you can't find for yourself with the tool I suggested. That's not necessary either. If you browse through the photos on his website, you will (hopefully) notice certain characteristics of his 'style' in terms of subjects, time of day (night time), exposure, (de)saturation, etc.

 

FWIW, I think that:

a) it's very difficult to emulate a photo 'style' that a very good photographer and post-processor has gradually developed over many years

b) it's always better to develop you own personal 'style': content and post-processing

IMHO, there are no real 'shortcuts'. You can be inspired by - and be attracted to- a certain ' photographic style' but you still need to figure out for yourself which subjects interest you and how you create your own (post- processing) style.

 

On 11/24/2022 at 2:13 PM, Mile said:

 

 

 

 

 

[Mile]

@mikemorrellNLi was talking about scaning in general. That pic is of course not scan, if its digital. Also i dont copy, just enjoy. I mean, what to copy, first, i find European cars so unattractive. American old cars have some sympathy for photo. Maybe Route 66, book "On the road" by Jack Kerouac helped to have that impression. I also enjoy "road movies" so... and nothing better than to pack stuff in car with camera and go on the road. 

 

@Dustin McAmeraThats some impressive camera i see. Where do you buy those photo panels ? let me see some in full res if you have. 

[Robin Smith]

The original shot is very nice, but I agree with Dustin. He probably used a small tripod on the sidewalk and stopped down. As a result he could use a slow ISO. He probably pushed the shadows a bit, but no big deal. As with most pleasing shots of this type the light is the thing, uncontrolled by the photographer. People do like cars of this type. I do too, and it is a good shot. The presence of the leaves is also a happy addition.