jlemire

THanks all for the suggestions and the advice. I think I'll get my hands on some Astia and give that a test before I go. I will likely also bring some 400UC print film with me too.

 

Les, thanks for the words about my photos here. I'm a natural light shooter and usually only shoot when the light is good, so I stick with Velvia (and Tri-X for my B&W). I'm venturing outside my photographic "safe zone" with this trip, so your help is greatly appreciated.

I like Karl's desaturate idea. Here's the same as above with a desatauration of -25 before the sharpening...<div></div>

How's this for a start:

 

in PS:

1) add ajustment layer

2) use the white dropper and click on the bride's dress

3) use the black dropper and click on the groom's tux

4) use the grey dropper and click on the guy's sportcoat behind the bride

5) unsharp mask (90%, 0.3 radius, 1 threshold)<div></div>

I am trying to decide on what types of slide film to take with me on a

trip to South America. (a little ways back I posted about print film,

but have come full circle back to transparencies).<br>

<br>

I normally use Velvia 50 for natural/landscapes, however I'm concerned

about the harsh light I'll be experiencing, especially in the

Galapagos when I won't have the luxury of picking the time of day to

go shooting and will most likely be shooting during those lovely hours

of 9am to 6pm.<br>

<br>

Specifically, I guess my questions are:<br>

1) Which slide films work best in contrasty situations?<br>

2) Which slide films push the best? (I' won't be bringing a tripod ,

though perhaps a monopod)<br>

3) Which slide films for non-landscape pictures (more "travel" style I

guess - people, places)?<br>

<br>

And if you have any other advice, please share it!<br>

<br>

(P.S. Anyone know of an updated "film recommendation" web page - the

one <a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/film">here on PN</a> by

Philip Greenspun is now several years old)

How much of an upgrade is the Super Coolscan from the "non-super"

Coolscan?

 

What can the super version do that the regular version can't?

 

I'm not a professional, but like to have 8x12, 11x14, and

(occassionally) 12x18 prints made up. Will the considerably cheaper

Coolscan V be sufficient or will I be wanting more?

 

On another note, any other film scanners compete with Nikon?

I've done a bit of this so here is my 2 cents:

 

1) The shorter the lens the more sky and more stars you get - I think 50mm or less is the way to go.

 

2) I use Fuji Reala print film. Fine grain, excellent prints - though color (over)correction by the printer can be an issue.

 

3) Make sure there is something in the foreground to add interest.

 

4) Make sure it is completely dark - no moon in the sky during the exposure. Even the smallest moon can throw a lot of light, especially over hours of film exposure.

 

5) Stop down. I usually shoot at one to two stops above wide open.

 

Picture below: Moonless night, 50mm lens, f2 (or f2.8), Fuji Reala, 8 hours.<div></div>

I agree with getting between the windows and the couple - the natural light streaming in would be beautiful - of course you wouldn't have the amazing scene outside (BTW, where is this place? - it looks amazing).<br>

<br>

The last two pictures you attached look nicely exposed. I think trying to go wider will give you problems.<br>

<br>

Good Luck!

Pablo (or whomever wants to answer)-<br>

<br>

Won't a double/multiple exposure still result in overexposing the outdoor scene since without using a flash anything that gets the inside exposure "right" necessarily will blow out the outside?

Same here - Northern Arizona - usually crystal clear night skies - not this week as serious thunderstorms roll on through. :(

I had no idea that there was anything left to discover! :)

 

Finding out that there are still areas of "wilderness" not truly discovered makes me very happy.

Very nice pics - I especially like the Beacon Hill shots.

Hate to be negative on the first comment, but, for me the picture is "unfocused". By that I not only mean that it is out of focus, but that I have no idea what the picture is about.<br>

<br><br>

Out of focus + poorly defined subject = poor image (for me at least!)

Plenty to see around there - as long as the above issues are taken into consideration. SOmething that is really nice and probably much less crowded is Wire Pass/Buckskin Gulch and the Paria Canyon.<br>

<br>

 

check out:

<a href="http://www.onedayhikes.com/Hikes.asp?Hikesid=107">http://www.onedayhikes.com/Hikes.asp?Hikesid=107</a><br>

<br>

As for camping - there's a lot of BLM land around there which is free to camp on. As for actual campgrounds (with toilets and firepits), there's one down the road a bit from the Wire Pass trailhead.

couldn't see much - I guess I lack some plugin.

 

Also, your "main" images on each location are huge - it took forever to load up the "Japan" section. Only then did I realize that it wasn't even the portfolio. I left after that.

 

I think it *looks* good (from what I saw), but it isn't that functional. You need both for a good website.

Just to reiterate comments from above - don't shoot macro handheld! It won't work. I have the 105mm and love it - both for macro and as a "portrait" lens. I have no experience with the 150mm, but if you want to maximize reach, go for it and forget about ability to handhold it. Put it on a tripod unless you're shooting non-macro.

John - how was the trip to Navajo? As for the heat - I'm outside only when the sun is down!<br>

<br>

I get most of my processing and printing done at a lab in Phoenix (5 Star Image). There is one pro lab in Flagstaff, but I find their prices high. There's a Target in Flagstaff (I prefer them too), but have never had anything done there. Frankly I am tired of sending film to be developed, waiting for it to return, sending it out again to be scanned, waiting for it to return, "fixing" the scans in PhotoShop and resaving the files, sending the files down to be printed, waiting for the prints to return. Add the shipping costs in and I usually try to accumulate a bunch of stuff to send them at once, but that usually means that I have film/scans sitting around for a while. I'm not at the point yet where it would be cost-effective to buy my own scanner and printer (besides I am only here another few months and then I will be back in civilization).<br>

<br>

And, on top of all that, I am also trying to move away from slides since I am interested mostly in having prints made and am tired of the extra PhotoShop work ("Should I use unsharp mask at 90% with a radius of 0.4 or at 100% with a radius of 0.3?", "Should I bump up saturation to 5 or maybe 7, or dare I try 10?", etc.)<br>

<br>

cheers-

Thanks for the input so far.<br>

<br>

I have shot some buildings-at-twilight shots with Velvia and they look really great - excellent colors (no suprise). However, my desired result is a 8x12 or 11x14 print. I have to ship *everything* out (I live on the Hopi Reservation in northern AZ) and at this time I would save quite a lot of time/money by skipping the scan and tweak in Photoshop part of converting my slides into prints - especially for this project that will probably result in only a single final print for my "client".<br>

<br>

Sounds like Reala has gotten the most votes here, so I think I will go ahead and try it, especially since it was what I was thinking of using in the first place.<br>

<br>

Next step...getting up before sunrise!

sorry...

 

Tripod: absolutely (cable release too!)

Format: 35mm

forgot to add:

 

I was thinking of trying either Reala or Kodak 100UC...

Any suggestions for a NEGATIVE film to use taking some pictures of

buildings at twilight?

I understand that prints made from negative film vary from lab to lab

given the amount of control the person has in the printing process.

 

But is there much variation in the processing of the film? How

different can labs develop negative film?

how about a full frame sensor...that way my 24mm lens will be a useful wide angle again!

Thanks for the posts so far.

 

I knew that "best" was a poor word choice and should have left it out. Let me ask my question again a bit more succinctly.

 

Is there a noticable difference in print quality between the following two methods:

 

1) Scanning Velvia slides as 3600x2400 pixels, 25MB files, PhotoShopping the scans to correct color and sharpness, sending the files out to a lab to be printed as 8x12 prints on a Fuji Frontier using Fuji Crystal Archive paper.

 

2) Shooting Reala (or Kodak 100UC) and having 8x12 enlargements made from the negatives at a "reputable, pro lab" (i.e., not Walmart or Target)

 

I know that the films will change the way a scene will record, which is a big question when it comes down to choosing which film to use, but given that I accept the print film as a fine replacement for the slide film, do the above two methods yield comparable prints.

 

(as for prints straight from slides, I have yet to have a good experience with that)

Chris -

when on a longish trip and not returning home (either camping or staying in a motel/hotel) there's no access to a freezer to re-freeze the ice packs. Therefore buy a bag of ice locally, wherever you are.

I tend to shoot a lot of Fuji Velvia (for static nature shots). I

choose some to get scanned (3600x2400, 25MB). I then fix these scans

in Photoshop (color correction, sharpening) and then reformat them for

various size prints. The largest I have printed are generally 8x12

(though I've had an 11x14 and a 16x20 done as well).

 

Quite frankly, this is a pain in the a$$. WOuld I get as good a

quality print (8x12) from switching to say Fuji Reala or Kodak 100UC

print film and having my lab make an enlargment?

 

What yields the "best" 35mm print up to 8x12?