Dave Luttmann

On 10/18/2023 at 6:45 AM, ben_hutcherson said:

Really?

"Coolscan cultists"

"sucker film shooters"

That's pretty darn inflammatory language in my book. In the past that wouldn't have flown here and in fact it didn't, but I guess times have changed...

Sharing an opinion is one thing. Veiled barbs and insults(which you will find in nearly everything this individual posts) don't exactly make for a pleasant forum atmosphere.

Whatever, delete my post if you want to.

 

 

He has a long history of anti film posts.  

On 12/4/2022 at 12:57 PM, Deon Reynolds said:

 

Deon, did you take the image down?  I don’t see anything.

Looks to be a bit cramped for coating and tray processing.  

Love these results.  Looking flare to some 1600 samples.

My experience with Panatomic-X is that when you got every thin right it was beautiful and fine grained. However it was not as forgiving as films like Tri-X. If you look at the curves for density v. exposure Kodak published you will notice it did not have the range as was not forgiving of mistakes.

Exactly. This is the same for Ilford’s Pan F 50 which is a beautiful film, but still less forgiving than say HP5.

I'm guessing you don't have a business degree and/or any sense of Kodak's travails over the past decade? Kodak needs to make money to stay afloat. Please show me any "buy" recommendations for its stock. This product likely won't change that. Buy all you can--Gold 200 120, that is. Kodak Moments--famous for photo mugs and photo fridge magnets--seems to managing it. Brilliant.

Look, you grump about film constantly. Take your whining elsewhere…it isn’t what this forum is for.

Ed Hurley

General manager of film - Eastman Kodak Company

 

from this video:

 

Vinyl is not "apparently" making a comeback. It is making a comeback. See:

Infographic: The Vinyl Comeback Continues

Very true. Nothing “apparent” about it. The film volume increase has been discussed by Kodak, Fuji and Ilford.

I was the thread starter on that post on Photrio/ APUG. I dropped off some rolls of C41 at Kerrisdale cameras today. They said that they've had such an increase of film coming in, that their 2 day service has turned into a 4 day service.

I use those folks in Victoria.

That 2014 press release is no longer breaking news!

Since then Fujifilm, Pentax, and Leica have joined Hasselblad in introducing new models of medium format CMOS sensor cameras. (None of which I can afford).

His post was from 7 years ago…this is a zombie thread

Another possible explanation is that direct to camera copying is not resolving as much detail, and is simply blurring out the scratches.

There is a lot of truth there. Detail is indeed lost with Bayer interpolation. I find that it takes a much higher rez DSLR scan to equal a lower rez standard scanner. That is based upon my testing anyway.

You might share your secrets with FPapp. I can "push" my Sony A7Riii to ISO 25600 and get newsworthy quality. It goes much higher. In another life, Velvia 50 worked just fine at ISO 50.

Pushing film rating in processing is no secret. Your digicam is irrelevant to the discussion. Pushing film is easy.

The film looks badly underexposed. The probably cause is that you exposed that roll at ISO 400, and the successful roll at ISO 100.

 

Two stops boost would be a lot for B&W film, much less color, especially when each color layer behaves differently once you step outside the normal boundaries.

A two stop boost is easy with both color and b&w. Tri and HP5 at 1600 is easy. I have often pushed Astia 100F to 400 iso with no issues at all. Not a lot at all.

Thanks, I was pleasantly surprised by the results. I'd even be tempted to try it again, but these days there's no financial advantage to shooting C41 over traditional B&W, so it'll only happen if I come across a random roll.

 

I think it's actually my scanning setup that is the limiting factor, when I view these at 100%, I'm seeing a lot of artifacts from the Xtrans demosaic, rather than clean grain, so the digital files do it something of a disservice.

 

I tried reshooting this morning with more magnification, but a 10 second exposure was beyond the capability of my improvised copying rig, too much vibration to get a sharp image.

 

I see a little more detail if I disable the demosaic and just look at the green channel.

 

Conclusion ? 16MP Xtrans is not sufficient to capture grain sharp 35mm frames, I reckon it needs 4-8 pixels per grain to get a true result, which is beyond my means.

 

I'm not saying that there is 50MP of image there, rather that you need, say, 48MP of scan resolution to accurately capture 12MP of film, otherwise the demosaicing algorithm tends to exaggerate the grain. Based on my limited experience.

 

Regardless, for a digital contact sheet and web posting, it works well enough.

Financially, I agree. I buy my b&w in bulk...and it’s cheaper than c41. My Fuji X-Pro 1 at 16mp can’t resolve all the detail and grain from fine grained 35mm film. In most cases, 24mp is sufficient, unless one is using Fuji Astia 100, Velvia, Adox CMS 20, TMax 100...and other fine grain b&w on contrasts subject matter. In real terms, you’ll need more than 24 mp from interpolated Bayer data. Still, film has its own look that cannot be relocated by software...so I’ll stick with it for now.