robert goldstein

Many of the examples of so-called Leica glow look like washed out or blurred highlights to me.

The main reason that I continue to shoot slide film is that I love the results that I get and I love the camera that I use to get those results (a Contax G2 with assorted lenses). I have never used a digital camera, but I doubt that anything that I could afford would allow me to do better than my Contax/Astia combination. However, I'm certainly not ruling out the possiblity that I will test the digital camera waters one of these days.

So, Les, for the record, what ISO was the 20D photo shot at?

"I use such a setup (Olympus E500) and also do a lot of slide scanning for various clients (Nikon Coolscan 5000), and while the scanner can yield more pixels, the outcome is not as clean and sharp."

 

Yup, and this is why so many viewers prefer digitally captured photos, even when they contain less detail than film captured photos. The signal to noise ratio is higher with digital capture.

The correct answer is that it all depends on the film and the scanner in question. I have read estimates that 35mm Velvia has resolution approximately equal to that of a 14 megapixel digital sensor, which means that a high resolution scan should provide that much information. It is also said that scanning at 4000ppi extracts all of the useful information from a piece of film (although personally, I scan at 5400ppi.)

 

For small prints, it is doubtful that you would be able to see any difference in resolution. At 12x18, a difference might be perceptible.

Les, I just checked out the "Luminous Landscape" article you cited. What a laugh! Based on the images posted, the D30 could only be considered superior to Provia, as Michael Reichman claims, if loss of surface features and texture is regarded as a good thing. Granted, digital cameras have come a long way since the D30, but Reichman's credibility on the subject is nil.

 

I am with Scott, however, in hoping that Provia 400x has lower contrast than 400f. High contrast and a tendency for shadows to go blue are the only problems that I have had with that film, which I otherwise like very much.

Robert, I am using a Mac.

John, I re-installed the software. Problem solved. Thanks.

 

Regarding scanning as a positive and inverting in Photoshop, this is actually very attractive

to me, as scanning in 16bit linear is much faster and gets more information than 16bit.

When I have tried this in the past, I have never been able to get the colors right. Just for

fun, I will try the method Eugene recommends.

I have been using this scanner quite successfully for over two years. Most of my recent work has been

with color transparencies. Yesterday, I tried scanning some color negative film (Reala) that I had

previously scanned without any problems. This time, I got a strong cyan color cast in the pre-scan

that was carried through to the final scan. Also, the pre-scan histogram showed major clipping at both

ends.

 

I have checked the settings to be sure that they are set for color neg and 16bit. I am using the Dimage

Scan Utility v1.1.6.

 

What am I missing?

 

Rob

Just asking. It was supposed to make its debut in August, 2006, as I recall.

What does the pre-scan histogram show.? If the highlights are off the right end of the scale, then you can expect them to be blown. Try reducing brightness so that there is no clipping at the high end.

Mark L, I presume that you shoot LF or MF, whereas I shoot only 35mm, so we are comparing apples and oranges. And you are obviously a professional, while I am an amatuer. Nonetheless, the examples that you have shown, while impressive, do not knock my socks off. I'm sure they look great as large prints, but at this size--well what can I say? Moreover, I do not feel that they show markedly better tonality than these:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/4220105

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/4264620

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/3574248

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/3541748

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/4131238

 

I'm sure that you will disagree, which is your prerogative, but on my monitor, there is detail in all the highlights and shadows (except where I wanted black.)

 

I admit to having no B&W darkroom experience, but that has little bearing on my ability as a serious viewer of photographs to judge the quality of the finished product. I have seen B&W conversions that are absolutely stunning and could not be distinguished from true B&W by anyone not in the know, possibly excluding you, of course.

 

And as an aside, you might be more polite towards your inferiors, even when they express what you consider to be a wrong opinion. Save for one faintly snide remark, I never attacked you personally, yet you have unleashed a barrage upon me. Are you always so sensitive and belligerent? If so, get help.

Oh, what the heck, I will make one more comment. If you think that my B&W folder is

notable for "burned out highlights, empty shadows and flat midtones," then I suggest you

get a better monitor and calibrate it properly. Also, let me remind you that blackened

shadows are sometimes used for artistic effect, as in this photo:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/3587936

 

You may not like it, but it was a deliberate aesthetic choice.

Now, Mark, you're getting personal. We aren't discussing my photographic abilities. I

never claimed that I was a B&W superstar, although I do think that some of my work is

above average. You are the one who was boasting about your ability to get superior

tonality using traditional B&W techniques and the zone system. I've seen no proof to that

effect, nor do I expect any. BTW, trying to judge detail and tonality from crappy jpegs over

the web is, to put it politely, less than optimal.

 

I will say no more, as you are obviously easily riled.

"of course, and I do, that's the reason I've been using the zone system for 20+ years."

 

So being familiar with the zone system tells you how various colors in a scene will separate

tonally on B&W film with or without color filters, even the colors that you don't know are

there? You really are good. By all means, keep doing what you know.

"you have max control over tonality using bw film, then scanning. You can only apply tonality controls to color film scans AFTER the photograph has been taken. With bw you have control during exposure, during development and during scanning and photoshop sessions."

 

Perhaps, but the unspoken assumption here is that you know in advance of exposure and development what the tonal separation will be. Of course, this is often not the case. With color film capture, such foreknowledge is not required, as the color filters are applied after development and scanning. If you've ever tried the Russell Brown method of B&W conversion, you would know how much more control it offers than standard B&W processing.

 

http://studio.adobe.com/us/tips/tip.jsp?p=1&id=519&xml=phs8colorbw

 

True B&W film may be able to capture a wider tonal range, but this often exceeds the range of the paper on which the image is printed. Also, Astia 100f, for slide film, does quite well with regard to tonal range.

Many people use the Channel Mixer, but I have found the Russell Brown method of

converting color to B&W to be amazingly simple and powerful. It's like having 360 color

filters to pass in front of B&W film and being able to see the tonal separation change as

you do it. Here is the link:

 

http://studio.adobe.com/us/tips/tip.jsp?p=1&id=519&xml=phs8colorbw

As long as you are scanning, why not shoot good color transparency film and convert to B&W in Photoshop? This gives you much more control over tonality than you can get with chromogenic or true B&W film.

"Yaron Kidron , aug 07, 2006; 05:48 p.m. "Wow. I wish people would protest like that to

keep terror groups out of ruining entire countries."

But then if they did, the communists on this forum would not post!"

 

And neither would the psychotics.

Shoot Astia 100f. It should satisfy all of your requirements, and then some. How best to

scan it is up to you. Since I shoot only 35mm, I can offer no advce.

I use a Minolta 5400 scanner and have not seen much benefit from multi-sampling. Noiseware Professional does a better job and is faster. Also, since I routinely use NP, there is no need for the Grain Dissolver function on the 5400, which slows the process considerably.

I often read comments about Astia being a low saturation film. It is low contrast (which is a good thing, as far as I am concerned), but very well saturated. On overcast days, it may appear a bit flat, but this is easily corrected in Photoshop if you scan your film.

 

The attached photo has had only levels and curves adjustments.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/3940411

Here's another vote for West Coast Imaging. Their Chromira turns out exceptionally fine B&W prints on true color photographic paper. Because the Chromira is a color printer, it sometimes imparts a slight color cast to the print. For this reason, it is smart to include digital toning in the prep stage so as to minimize this effect. I would suggest that you send them a few files to print on 8x12 paper just to see the quality that you can get. If you don't like it, you haven't spent a lot of money to find that out.

Do you scan your film for digital editing? If so, you may want to consider a color transparency film, such as Astia 100f. In my experience, it has finer grain than Reala and can handle almost as wide a range of brightness.

The Nega Input profile is indeed provided with the Mac version. Minolta, in its infinite wisdom, chose to place it in some obscure folder.

 

Have you tried searching with the finder? Once you find the Nega Input file, just move it to the same folder as all the other profiles. Having done this long ago and having a rather poor memory for technical things, I cannot remember how or where I found it. Don't give up, because it really helps with color negatives, IMO.