anthony johns

<p>Yeah, there's defiantly something unique about the film stock. It just has this almost eerie spirit at times. What I've scene too is that there seems to be a few different key looks to it from the photos come across. Almost as if it is adaptive to the contrast within the frame. You can defiantly tell when it's a bit under; has a ghostly look, but also very nice sometimes. It seems to hold the extreme highlights very well. And there seems to be an upper mid range boost in the tonality under a normal contrast range. Almost reminds me of how ilford hp plus 400 responds, only in color.</p>

<p>i'd have to say gimp. it's an extremely powerfull tool. and it's free.<br>

for editing mass photos, i'd say adobe lightroom. but it's a bit expensive.</p>

 

<p>good point guys.<br>

probably the best answer i can ask for. </p>

 

<p>so this is gonna be a right out direct question? <br>

who's got the best quality images or image tests to post using your best lenses, film, drum scanners, etc.<br>

after seeing some post on film vs digital recently, the stuff there using is a joke compared to some of the stuff i've scene come around this site. <br>

i want to see some extraordinary film shots. maybe even a few digital, who knows.<br>

who's got them?</p>

<p><br /></p>

<p>this is one of the worst threads i've looked over in a while. compared to some of the other discussions i've scene on either film or digital, these discussions and examples are just low quality. i'm not being negative, but i've scene some great stuff on film and some great stuff on digital come up be some real pros that was to notch. i've even scene much more theoretical and scientific stuff come up. </p>

<p>again, as others have said<br>

just the thought of destroying the negatives is absolutely crazy.<br>

not much more to say than that really. </p>

<p>You can't go wrong with ilford hp5 plus 400 iso or kodak tri-x 400 iso. The ilford has a really thick and classic look with lots of spatial depth while the tri-x has a very crisp look and classic look. </p>

 

thanks for the test

there are so many factors to weigh in though

though i'm sure your aware of that

Well, they both seem to have depth and an almost erie tonal representation, especially hp5 plus 400. I believe they both

belong have the classic grain approach.

Has anyone done a comparison of the two films? I like them both and I tend to see similar tonal gradations in the

films. Any comments or comparisons?

 

Anthony

I've seen these before on scans and I think it's caused by a computer performance error.

a bit of tone and color adjustment

It seems that the scan was poor. May also be that the chemicals were not up to proper quality control specs.

mpix does great work

The second option is best if you can do it. Cds are ok but the size of 1800x1228 is on the small size. Scanning prints made from all ready

small digital scans of the negs(that's how they do it) isn't the best. If it's a purely optical print then you can get away with scanning prints.

<div></div>

yeah for b&w i've had some scratches and dust

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

yeah something's wrong somewhere with your system for sure. must be a lemon.

I'd say reala or portra nc or even vc. Personally, I think uc lacks a kind of warmth.

Here's something I posted 3-22-08 as a response in another thread:

 

"It's very theoretical. But here's my understanding of the term. In a scene there are

different degrees of light intensity. What the film maps these objects like in film is what

determines the dynamic range. If a grey object is mapped as pure white(255) then

anything brighter in the scene will loose detail, blow out, and merge with the grey

object. If a dark grey object is mapped as black(0) anything in the scene darker than

that will be crushed or loss. So if a film records objects that are beyond the range of

the film it will be considered to have a relative narrow dynamic range. Now, also

consider that certain films' absolute whites may be physically brighter than others,

same goes for the blacks. I'm guessing that would be called the density range. Now

consider that if a film is high contrast and has a narrow dynamic range, that all the

gradiant tones in between are going to progress at different rates. So a narrow dynamic

range film not only will max out but will have it's midtones more definitely distinguished.

That something I think alot of people forget about. If you take a shot of scene that the

film was able record easily and then set the brightest objects to just peak at 255 and

the darkest objects to just reach down to 0 then you've created an image with reference

points of white and black in the scene and smooth midtone progression. This may look

different than if the film was originally a narrow range film because the midtones might

have not been as subtle. Also, it's interesting to take note that just because a film is

low contrast, that doesn't make it have a wide dynamic range. The film may just never

project physically bright scenes or richly dark scenes. The range is reduced here too

because the bright objects mush into bright grey and the blacks mush into dark grey.

It's important to have a film that's just right for the scene. Also film compresses, and

distorts in a pleasing way in the extreme ends of the film, unlike digital. Certain layers

of the film may also max out at different rates. Choose whatever film that looks good

and don't always worry about every detail."

Keep in mind too that, although you may be able to control the absolute white and

black ends in digital, you may or may not be able to have the gradient tonal range

respond accordingly. Also, some films produce either visually brighter whites or more

dense blacks analogly; this may add to the complexity of the image.

hmm don't know if the links worked