plasma181

<p>Most of my portfolio was shot with a Nikon FM3a and scanned into digital files. </p>

<p>A 50mm lens works very well. I have used it on film and digital. This shot was taken with a 35-105 zoom at roughly 50mm, and it shows how people can be grouped together so you don't have to back up too far.</p><div></div>

<p>Bill: You had me going there for a while. <br>

No, a light leak would produce a dark streak on the negative, which would become a light streak when converted into a positive. </p>

<p>As a first step, I would try the lens on a different camera, and the camera with a different lens. This will isolate the problem. Then you can work from there. </p>

<p>I have a Nikon Coolscan LS-2000 dedicated film scanner. I use VueScan because it has some nice features. If I have several shots taken under the same light, I just correct one and they are all corrected. I wouldn't use a flatbed for film. <br>

Most of my portfolio was scanned with the Coolscan. </p>

<p>Let me try again. </p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3606590-md.jpg" alt="" /></p>

 

 

<p>It can be done.</p>

<p><center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3606590-md.jpg"></center></p>

<p>Here is a shot from a D-70 with a 50-135 mm f3.5 Nikkor.</p><div></div>

<p>If the sky is not an importent part of the shot, it might be best to just take a field of blown out white with no detail, and process it into a field of blue with no detail. At least it will look more natural. </p>

<p>One big problem I have experienced is overcast skys. These come out blown out white, and no polarizer on earth will help you. You only option here is post processing, which will still give very little detail, or merging 2 differently exposed shots. </p>

<p>The other option is low contrast color film, but let's not get into that now.</p>

<p>There is a feature in PhotoShop Elements 7.0 that allows you to click on a patch of skin, and it will adjust the picture to make the skin correct. It has saved me on a few occasions. </p><div></div>

<p>I have had to do this on many occasions. Use a fairly long lens and stay back. Keep the aperture tight to moderate. A tripod helps. </p><div></div>

<div></div>

<p>I never thought it as which better. When I shoot film, I scan it to a TIF file, then work with it in PS Elements. When I shoot my D-70, I usually shoot RAW, convert it to TIF, then work with it in PS Elements. Either way, when all the work is done, I then convert to JPG for emailing, posting or printing. There is no "better", it's just what stage of your workflow you are in. </p>

<p>I use my Nikon FM3A and my FM-10. </p>

<p>One thing I have noticed is that pictures of me look better when somebody else takes them. I have a theory about why that is so. There is just no interaction with a tripod and a flashing light. </p>

<p>I have had good luck with the Portra films. <br>

As for people surrounded by green grass, that can be a problem, but there are several solutions. With VueScan, you can take one shot with a grey card, click on it, then all scans under the same light will be corrected. In Photoshop Elements, you can click on patch of skin and the program will correct the color. Of course, you will have to adjust for different ethnic groups. <br>

If you don't have either one of those programs, there is a trick that usually works. You can use the white of somebody's eye as a grey card. </p>

<p>Thank you for the effort gentlemen. I will try to write a script.</p>

<p>I understand and agree, but I'm not talking about text. I am referring to date, city, street, country, lens, camera, film .... strictly technical data that is the same from picture to picture in the same shoot. </p>

<p>Previously, text and descriptions were NOT carried over from one shot to the next, and I would not want them to be. </p>

<p>I searched the forums, and while the topic has been discussed, I haven't seen a solution. </p>

<p>Back in the old days, when we uploaded a photo, we would input data like camera, film, lens, location, date, that sort of thing. If we uploaded another photo right after, the data from the previous photo would already be in the correct fields unless we changed it. This was handy if we uploaded multiple images from the same shoot. </p>

<p>Now it looks like we have to type in the data for each image separately. I would like to upload a group of images with the exact same data. Is there anyway to avoid having to type in the same data over and over? Thanks. </p>

<p>I took 3 rolls of pictures in Aruba a few weeks ago. I just finished scanning them, so they are not in my portfolio yet. I forgot to bring my polarizer to darken the sky. But even so, my scanner was able to scrape some cloud detail out of the bright skys in my pictures. This would be very tough with a digital, even a high end one. </p>

<p>Film will be dieing for a thousand years. </p>

<p>These are impressive results. I would still have to recommend a dedicated film scanner however. This allows you to remove dirt and scratches automatically. </p>

<p>My late grandmother seldom liked having her picture taken.<br>

<a href="../photo/3413102">http://www.photo.net/photo/3413102</a> </p>

<p>Kodak used to sell a consumer film they called "Royal Gold". That was some GOOD stuff. The last time I saw it was on a trip to the Caribbean.</p>