philip_meadows1

Turn around and run as fast as you can! Otherwise you'll spend all your spare time on this forum with us nice guy's! Welcome to a wonderful discipline.

It's all imported , just depends what country you live in I guess. I don't think I'd be using a low end brand but Fuji or Agfa- why not?

you tell em Al! Tim, I also do it. Scanning negs can be problematic and you need to adopt a scanning dicipline of scanning for information and then tweaking in PS. The other method is scanning for accuracy and is really more suited fo E6. Unlike E6 profiles do not work for negs because thee are too many variables in the orange mask.

Steve, I think it's a great idea although Marc is correct about their policy. I think it would be worthwhile contacting the PR dept and putting the suggestion to them. I think offering use of images might be more appealing to them than you might think. I know a couple of people who sit up in the froth at HQ I'll try and get the scoop for you.

Bruce, it's nothing to do with reflectivity of film but everything to do with correct film speed! Everyone should dicipline themselves to do camera, flash, film tests. Easy to do with a 13% grey card (yep, 13%- never was 18%). Take readings and images as susequent frames and each exposure alter the film speed. Check images (best done through scanning and color pick tool on grey card as taget. Check your info tool and see which one is 128. That frame corresponds to the correct film speed. Even easier with slide film and digital cameras but you are calibrating ISO settings which may not be as accurate as you would expect. Also remember that no two light meters are the same and even these should be calibrated to a given film.

Can't say that I find the same red issue with F-xtra. It's my film of choice for all weddings 400 800 & 1600. I did spend some time creating a profile for it though. As for a film like poloroid, I guess I am always looking for an artistic rendering of my images not just a like life at the time kind of reality. I doubt though that if you shot several rolls of film and took them to a lab with a guy who understands his equipment, that you'd be able to tell what film was used for what image at the bench mark of 4x6 and 5x7 prints. It used to be that way with analogue printing on photo paper but it is not so now IMO.

Frank, I've used a Canonet g3 for yrs. Also have Leicas but that little g3 is hard to put down.

Fellas, I have'nt been on the forum for a few days, been too busy.

Frankly, I find all this film stuff a bit tedious. Truth is, you can use any darn film from $6.00 roll to the cheap bin @ $1.50 and it all ends up the same if you know how to scan the stuff properly. My advice is to talk to your lab guy and ask him... What film can you work with that will give me the best skin tones and colors etc, etc,. When he says #^%&$99! That is the one you use period. If you are going to scan it yourself then you have to do a bit of testing and that takes time. Now go talk to your printer.

The point was that they could'nt here the shutter going off as the plane flew over therefore giving the game away! Stealth is everything.

Like this?<div></div>

DOF Preview with ME Super... release the lens and turn as if to take lens off body but onlty about 10mm. If you are using a small aperture you can look thru lens and watch it stop down. The camera and lens interface remains fully functional and you can close and open the aperture ring at your leisure. A workaround I know, but I've I've been doing it for years.

have you got several layers? If so... you can only save a PSD file. If you are in multy layer, do a document copy and Layer>Flatten layers then save as Jpeg. Save the layered file as a master file in a diferent folder as a PSD.

Comparing film scanned images and digital capture images on a computer is a bit of a nonsense in my opinion. They all look the same if the scan was done right. I can make any ISO equivalent film scan look like any digital image on screen. In physical print, well... thats a different story. I'm not sure if we should even be trying to match one to the other (film to digital). Photograpy's not a perfect medium and should not be treated as such. We have so much freedom to be creative, why not exploit that. One of my favourite looks is BIG prints from 35mm with lots of nice grain, totally beautiful when viewd for what they are and from the correct distance. I've shot so many B&W bridal albums with Neopan 1600 rated at 4000 ISO. No flash required ever and the clients just love it. Sometimes it's just nice to establish a different look from the crowd and one should try to embrace that as an artist. On the other hand you can choose to be a picture factory offering a service for a fair price and save your art for someone else. Just a personal view.

Marc, I suppose I'm really referring to preping a high qulity exhibition print as opposed to quick proofs. I always end up frustrated because I try too hard to make my images exhibit quality even for 4x6's and thats just dumb. I have files that are 15 layers deep and have taken me weeks to get perfect for printing. I doubt digital capture and output really suits my purposes for the wedding business as too much control for me causes me to hyperventilate at times LOL. I'm glad to say that I only shoot 5-6 weddings per yr and I doubt I'll do that many next year. Glad to hear that the Dll is working for you.

sorry Mike, I did'nt mean to infer that he was. Yes you're right about uploading jpegs.

I'll have to get together with you for a beer and take you through it. How long have you had your scanner?

Mike, I agree that the methodology is different but photographic principles are not. I shoot film personally (by choice) and teach digital capture and output to others. People have been shooting chromes for how long? Shoot digital but think chrome, it's not so hard really. The problems definitely arise when shooting jpegs though because one throws away so much data in the conversion. If you're off by a jot you've had it. Funny thing though... a lot of blown highlight images in wedding magazines are now sold as FASHIONABLE! Techno BS don't think and an excuse for bad technique.

No Colleen, you're not missing anything. Unfortunately there are a lot of photogs out there that have never handled a manual camera or even film for that matter and are relying on technology to get them through. How hard is it to shoot good exposues with a digital camera and not blow the highlights? Well... pretty easy and without the need of histograms and instant feedback. Metering is metering afterall, yes? I think many folks would do a lot better if they calibrated their meters to true ISO speed and put black tape over their LCD's. Turn on the camera, take a meter reading of the highlight, one for the shadow and start shootin, adjust up or down on the fly wherever the tones may lay. Now some people will blast me for this by saying, ah well it's ok if you are experienced. That experience comes from doing the same darn thing with film and until you start to trust your senses and use your brain (which happens to be the best light meter you've got), you will not elevate your skills beyond that of a snapshot shooter with a big bucks autowhizzbang computer with a lens on it. Rant over and sorry for latching onto your thread. Cup o tes time for this tired Englishman!!

Steve, if you are shooting digi it is a big mistake to shoot jpeg period! I know it's a small er file etc., but you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater when you have the camera do the conversion from raw to jpeg. Anyone that tells you different is flat wrong. To shoot in Jpeg you better be absolutely bang on with your exposure and you have to choose what is important in your exposure at the time of shooting. Jpegs do not have enopugh dynamic range to give you a long spread unlike raw or film. When you scan you should do so in 16 bit tiff for the very same reason. There is no shortcut and no free lunch in this digital game. One of my personal arguments about the so called speed and efficiency of digital capture as opposed to scanning is that I can scan a 16 bit file and adjust levels etc,. just as fast as it takes most people to open a raw file and make all those adjustments needed. Give me a call 425 xxx xxxx I'm at home this evening. Phil.

Steve, chance are your images are under exposed from what I see on the snapshot. If your shadows are gray and your highlights are blown then you are trying to get too much out of the shadow. Alternatively you may need to scan for the shadow. Try an auto scan which is a good benchmark with Vuescan. Use the info tool to check your white and black points. What do your negs look like? If you got good prints with lots of detail from the lab you are doing something wrong because the lab is scanning the neg to begin with.

Collectively it is. Camera sales reached a peak with the advent of autofocus. Once Nikon released the F5 and Canon with its counterpart, technology for film cameras was all used up and there was nothing left to create feature benefit sales. Film was and still is beyond the resolution capture abilities of any camera lens and that put film makers firmly in the driving seat which is not what K & C would like. Production lines still have to run and bills have to be paid so this was the next logical step. I guess my comment about not having it so good is more about choices rather than a business benefit which I agree totally stinks. I am constantly assessing my business and looking to different forms of revenue building.

Marc, the big camera manufacturers have taken a big gamble in running with digital technology. Either it will continue to grow and they will be justifiably jubilant or the whole thing will plateau early and that may be the death nell for a couple of well known names. Who knows? Although I think it is a wondeful medium with all kinds of applications, I for one doubt that film photography will be marginalised. What is interesting though is the number of pro's who are in contract with manufacturers to advertise digital capture in the wedding industry and who have actually reverted back to film. Bambi Cantrell is one of them for example. I got into a heated debate over on the Leica forum about this stuff and I'm not remotely attempting to take a position here because I think I'm open minded enough to see it for what it is. We are truly in a wonderful era as photographers and the truth is WE'VE NEVER HAD IT SO GOOD! Great post by the way with intelligent thought behind it.

Folks, thanks for your input. I do like the effects of grain too in my images and often expoloit this by making 30x40" prints from 35mm.

I've often used Neopan 1600 as I like the crisp look that this film gives but it is too fast as a general film. I think I will try HP5, Tri-x and Neopan 400 with the developer combo's you have suggested for each. I'll let you know what I'm doing in a week or so. Can someone explain the increase, decrease of dev time to control contrast for a given emulsion. Thankds again.

Harvey, now I'm getting the kind of answers I'm looking for! Yep it will be 35mm thru Leica glass. I would want to push it when needed too. Also, could you tell me dev time and temp at 400 ISO. Is there a good reference for increasing & decreasing dev time to control contrast? I know I can buy books but I want some old boy network info here. Thanks.

Mike, I guess I'm looking for advice on the best all round deal. It's not so much an exercise as I "work" my cameras for a living. I don't know much about the nuances of develpoers and film combo's. Just as I can talk to people up the gazzoo about PS and digital printing I want to develop my skills with B&W film emulsion. I definitely think the best way forward is to stick to one. What do you think?