gregory_imler

Ah, forgot about the RBL setting. I think that worked in combination with the body set to the multi-exposure M...the mirror flipped up. Might introduce some shake, but then using the advance lever to lower the mirror will stop the exposure.

Thanks, Joe. I have the manual and was looking through it and couldn't really see this issue come up. I believe it could be because the control between the body and shutter (in the lens) is electronic and not mechanical like the RB, and with no electrical contact with the pinhole cap, can't figure out what the body needs to be set to for the mirror to flip up. I'm pressing the shutter release and nothing happens. And the electrical override setting for the shutter is fixed to 1/400, which is too fast for pinhole work.

Hello, I recently picked up a Mamiya RZ pinhole cap and have hit a problem trying to use and want to know if anyone has any experience using one on an RZ body. I guessed that attaching the cap to the body and setting the shutter to B would at least make the mirror flip up and then advancing the lever would lower it when the time for exposure had elapsed. When I tried this nothing happened, so wondering if I'm doing this operation correctly or if something else needs to be set on the body in some way. If anyone has any insights greatly appreciated. Also wondering if it's a situation where the mirror is locked up and the dark slide is removed and replaced to control exposure. Thanks!

Thanks for the replies. Apologies for not being more clear that there were links attached and that they were going to examples in color. +1 Was mostly curious seeing as how I'd also read that he does his own printing. Thought it would be something interesting to try as my printing is limited to black and white film and not color. Have tried out a few things on scans that involve putting a color fill over the image and adjusting the blend mode and masking it in/out in different areas of the file -- but was wondering if there was a printing process for tones like this as I've always found that extremely rewarding. Thanks!

Hello! I was wondering if anyone here can shed some insight on how a particular color toning in a print is achieved. I've been noticing the work of a British photographer named Jamie Hawkesworth and in researching him have found that he shoots almost exclusively film, from what I can find. Many of his images have a warm, orange/brownish tone to them. I feel like something like this is easy to achieve in PS with a color overlay and a blend mode, but seeing as he seems to work primarily with film, is this the result of a printing process or a filter when exposing? Wondering if it could be something like an 85c filter or perhaps an orange filter that could be stronger than the 85 but less pronounced than an orange 16. Thanks! https://theredlist.com/media/.cache/database/photography/women/mode-mode-mode/jamie-hawkesworth/1468679918-016-jamie-hawkesworth-theredlist.jpg Rianne van Rompaey by Jamie Hawkesworth for Alexander McQueen F/W 17/18 | The Fashionography Jamie Hawkesworth for T Magazine Natalie Westling by Jamie Hawkesworth for T Magazine October 2016 | The Fashionography

Used a small key chain light last night that I was able to put just inside the camera body with the bellows extended out fully. After a few minutes to adjust to the darkness, I did end up seeing at least three pinhole leaks at some of the corner points in the bellows. Something about how crisp the circle was made me think it was something else other than a light leak. Thanks for the insight!

Thanks, John. I'll try some shots with sun or direct reflection in them and see if that aggravates the issue. Looking back at the rest of this pack, no other shots dealt with that sitaution so I'll experimen.

Hi all, was curious if anyone has ever seen a similar occurrence as the one in these images taken with FP100c on a Polaroid Land Camera. It's a modification that removed the original 114mm lens with a Tominon 127 f4.7 with the Copal press shutter. This circle of light only occurs in the last couple of images in the pack, and I don't see any light leaks otherwise. Is this possibly an issue with how the film was loaded? Thanks in advance!

<p>Thanks for responses. Based on others' assessments agreeing with Steven it looks like it's a combination of underexposing on her face as well as a poor scan ... although maybe not "poor" as much as just limited. And thanks, Tim, very helpful to see the closeup of another backlit image. Ivo, thanks for your input as well. I had been operating under what you stated about the Portra line being tolerant toward under/over exposure and having low grain. I realize my own errors caused situations that exacerbated the grain, so was mostly posting to get an idea of how much my own error and the scan quality were impacting things. I currently have an Epson 4490 that I had some success with a few years ago scanning medium format negatives. Haven't tried it with 135, but seeing as incorporating film into our workflow will become more regular, investing in a newer scanner will be something to look into.</p>

<p>Thanks, John. That was one image I showed the lab as an example, and when we zoomed in they told me was film grain. I realize the film will have some just as a natural quality, but I wasn't buying their assessment.</p>

<p>It was metered using the G1's center-weighted metering for the model's face (filling most of the frame) and then locking that exposure. I used a Peak Loupe on a Pro Slim light panel to look at the negatives, which is where it seemed that the actual processing of the negatives was OK, i.e., shots in focus and with a decent amount of detail. I realize there are limitations in what I can and can't present here for everyone's analysis, so I apologize if this thread was a bit futile. I was simply expecting a bit more from what was advertised as a "high res" scan with a professional color negative film. I'll be the first to admit that some shots were not in focus due to my own error and inexperience with the G1 and that whole system. That said, I posted because I was curious to see if there were initial reactions from others who had experience both with this film and having it scanned. If not or if it all is error on my part, I would absolutely accept that and use it as a consideration on how to improve in the future. I'm not sure if it is helpful, but I can post a few images of a roll of Kodak Gold 200 scanned at low resolution from a test roll from a different lab.</p>

<p>I'm saying unusable files based on what appear to me to be poor scans. The lab told me what I was seeing was film grain. To me it looks like poor scan quality and introduced artifacts. Given my lack of experience with Portra 400, yet seeing sharp negatives, I'm posing a question asking if this level of quality seems acceptable to people who have more experience using both Portra 400 and having color negative film scanned. If, to a person with more experience, this looks like what you should expect from Portra 400 and a scan that isn't a TIFF or highly controlled, then I would accept that. In my experience with other 400 films, this does not look like natural film grain.</p>

<p>Les, I was only saying I expected more than this based on the fact that the negatives are sharp and yet the scans aren't and seem to have introduced artifacts despite being advertised as "high res." The closeup was actually one of the best examples of their scans. I've shot Tri-X, Tmax, HP5 and Delta 400 in the past but have developed it myself in a variety of developers from Ilford brand to HC-110(B) and Rodinal. So, while not color films obviously, I'm not unaware of the qualities of an ISO 400 film. If your assertion is that I did expect too much if I was hoping for more usable files, perhaps you could expand on what I should have expected rather than just reasserting that, yes, I have limited experience. I was trying Portra 400 based on Kodak's recommendations as a fine-grain, true 400 ISO film, and as I've mentioned, I've gotten better scans that are only 1mb from a local drug store of Kodak Gold 200. This was, in fact, done with a Noritsu HS-1800. And so it sounds like a lack of quality such as is seen in these examples should be expected given a "typical over sharpening"?</p>

<p>Good point about the lighting inviting more grain, Stephen. I have looked at the negatives and this was one example that was sharp. This is another example, without backlighting. In this example, I was at f11 and focus had locked on her right eye (camera left) in the negative and it's sharp. You can see fine detail in her eyelashes and eye lids. </p><div></div>

<p>And this is a zoom in of the same image.</p><div></div>