mood_lover

<p>I recently starting scanning Portra 400 (120) on my Epson V800 and I can't seem to figure out how get neutral, accurate colors that look white balanced perfectly. I use the RGB levels in Epson Scan and adjust the shadow/mids/highs in each channel to remove color casts to the best of my ability and then after scanning, I find that I have to repeat this exact process in Photoshop to remove further color imperfections via the Color Balance tool. So all I have is my eye and perhaps a reference image of a good Portra image I like (but of course the references colors don't seem to work for me).</p> <p>I'm still unhappy with my colors, they are often weird and the skin just doesn't look right. So does anyone know how exactly labs get such perfect color roll after roll?</p>

<p>I'm wondering if there's anything special about the holders that make them necessary. Say batch scanning is not my priority, but quality and getting the entire frame of the film is (including the outside border or rebate edge that holds the film stock info, <a href="http://36.media.tumblr.com/cfb3563749ce8d4ff4ba9556746635be/tumblr_mnxxo2CMb01rpd9d9o1_500.jpg">example here</a>). I'm going to purchase a Epson V800 and wondering what is a simple way to achieve my goal.<br /> I was thinking of buying some thin (black?) paper to cut a custom mask, placing the frame within that window and putting some glass on it to hold it down, perhaps with some tape. Here are some examples:<br /> <img src="http://i.imgur.com/HoLJgJT.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="375" /><br /> <img src="http://i.imgur.com/Hj0sbStl.jpg" alt="" width="480" height="640" /></p> <p>Issues are of course I don't know if it'll work or if the paper would get the negative off the glass to correct height necessary (anyone know what it is?). These are not my examples so I don't know what the issues with these methods would be (scan focus, quality, sharpness, flare?). Can anyone chime on ways to do this?</p>

<p>@John Shriver: I may just end up cutting it so that I can scan the whole frame. What tool is used to get a clean cut that wont damage the film once the modification is made to the holder? I only need to scan the rebate edges of one frame at a time so I dont mind taping the other frames to hold it in place. When you refer to the "large format" film holders are you talking about this one: http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/mstation.html - is this the one that comes with two masks so that I can create my own template? Lastly, why do we need a holder if some people just sit the negative on top of printing paper?</p> <p><br /> Example 1:<br /> <img src="http://i.imgur.com/HoLJgJT.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p>Example 2 (ANR glass on top of negative directly against bed, no paper):</p> <p><img src="http://i.imgur.com/qT06fCU.jpg" alt="" width="900" height="1200" /></p> <p>Is there any focus issues when doing something like this, i.e. cutting out your own template with paper or putting the negative directly on the glass?</p>

<p>@Les Sarile: Thank you for that, I had read somewhere that the older models had different optics so I didn't want to settle for anything other than the V700 that I know a lot of my favorite photographers use. I may just buy the V800 if the scan quality is at least the same as the V700.</p> <p>@Larry Dresser: The first line of my first post I stated I'd be scanning 120 film (medium format, 6x7). I found <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/747857-REG/Lomography_399_DigitaLIZA_120_Scanning_Mask.html">the 120 version of the lomography holder</a> you linked and it's weird because the description says "allows scanning of full negative strip" yet the reviews say it doesn't allow you to scan the border so I don't think this is going to work. </p> <p>@John Shriver: Ive been looking at the Better Scanning website and even emailed the guy though he said he doesn't make anything that does what I want. He did however link me to <a href="http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/insert.html">this</a> and <a href="http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/vb_mfholder.html">this</a> which, while not compatible with a V700, is still a workaround that other customers have used. I don't understand right away how these two work to allow me to the full rebate edge but I guess it's a start. For the "Variable Height Mounting Station" - how do you scan all the way to the edge of the film? Have you done this before for 120 and does it really get you all of it? Here is an example of what I'm looking to do: <a href="http://payload168.cargocollective.com/1/6/214161/5677599/LURVE_BURBERRY_905.jpg">click here <br /></a></p> <p> </p>

<p>I'm in the market for a great scanner within the $500 range that I can use to scan my 120 film. Please note that I am trying to scan without the holders using ANR glass on top of the film so that I can get the entire rebate edge/border of the film in the scan - so the holder quality is not of concern to me. I found some shops that are selling the discontinued V700 for about $150-200 more than the newer V800 which is supposed to be slightly faster. Can anyone explain this?</p>

<p>@Louis Meluso: Well I have the bare bulb pointed towards the v-flat, not upwards. <a href="http://i.ytimg.com/vi/h-umbubgZ-Q/hqdefault.jpg">This is what the AB400 looks bare</a>, the bulb is attached to a back, so could it actually shoot light backwards?! I had it bare since I figured the sides of the "softbox" could get hit and bounce light as well, but a reflector will create more diffusion? And okay, I'll bring the model closer to the scrim, what do you feel about feathering the light though? I was thinking instead of using the hotspot center (though there shouldnt be one with a large bounce like this), to use the back edge of the soft box instead. I do have some diffusion filters I'll try as well, since I'm trying to get as low contrast as I can and boost it later rather than having to reduce it in post.</p> <p>@Paul K: 'World In a Small Room' was amazing! Yeah I recall seeing some pictures where he used a black card to absorb light on the shadow side. For me, I want shadow detail and less contrast. The shot was definitely overexposed a little, and as you said, if I exposed it for the highlights then the shadows wouldve been completely void of detail. Once again, I guess thats where the fill light comes in. I have a white wall I can push the entire set towards to use as fill, so I'll play with that. Gradual flow from light to dark is exactly what I'm after. Thanks!</p> <p>@Michael Mowery: fill light has been so difficult for me to grasp, as you already know. Every time I put a reflector on the shadow side my eyes tell me there's no modeling on the face then I always regret not using it after.</p>

<p>I am trying to recreate the light of a north-facing window (I know itll never be exact but trying my best) by bouncing a strobe off a v-flat and passing that light through a bedsheet. I like the slow falloff but I'm finding that the overall contrast is just too high for me (highlights too hot, shadows too dark). What are some things I can do to lower the contrast in-camera? I have some guesses before my next shoot so if anyone wants to confirm or suggest new ideas that would be great:<br /><br />1. Put a white v-flat on the shadow side just out-of-frame to kick some light back into the shadow side. My issue with this is that I don't want it to look flat, but at the same time I think I need more light bouncing around. Would that lower the overall contrast, since using bounce fill doesn't affect highlights? I need the highlights to be less hot as well.<br />2. Push the background/model away from the bedsheet (like you would when feathering a softbox, or pulling a softbox back) to create less harsh of a falloff.<br />3. Add frontal fill flash, though I can't afford a secondary light right now!<br /><br /><img src="http://i.imgur.com/av24FPf.jpg" alt="" width="1200" height="1011" /></p>

<p>Yes I know that for sure. He used an RZ67 and if you ever used an RZ67 110mm at 2.8 you would know right away it's not artificial. If you raise the camera even slightly up like the example and shoot down on someone at 2.8 (which is paper thin on MF) everything behind the eyes fall out of focus rapidly. The hair is pin sharp just before it gets blurry because the focal plane is parallel to the lit side of his face, not straight on, look carefully at the angle of the camera.</p> <p>With a tilt-shift adapter the focal plane can be misaligned. Your blur is okay but there's a dark halo around her head and theres sharp hairs where the blur is. I see no reason for him to create it artificially really. And no, the shot you linked to isn't blurred artificially. He's using a tilt-shift lens, it says so in the description. Others have used the same arax tilt + volna 3 combo: https://www.google.com/search?q=volna-3&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=LhxlVdy4EcHAtQWasIOgAQ&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1434&bih=931#tbm=isch&q=volna+3+arax+tilt</p>

<p>@Pete S: good tip! I shouldve first shot a test roll with different exposures to see which I like best. I just figured since I dont have polaroids to see the image I would use the digital camera to preview it, and it looked fine to me though I shouldve looked harder and realized the histogram was way too far to the left for such a mid-key image.</p> <p>@Craig Shearman: When you say my exposure was simply off, I understand what you're saying but I just don't see why this would be if I'm using a flash meter. I thought the entire point of meters were to give me a reading of the incident light in the scene so that I could get a proper exposure based on that reading. For ambient readings my meter is dead on and needs no adjustment in post. I'm afraid I shot some black and white T-MAX 100 as well and read that black and white film has much less tolerance for exposure miscalculations, hence my worry. I really want to be able to trust my light meter and this is like the 5th portrait shoot I've had where it underexposed the image by 1 stop. I had a shoot before this one where it was perfect, but that seemed to have been a rare case. Also I was not using my digital camera's light meter for film, just using it to preview lighting and composition. I just came home and noticed the actual exposure was off though, and since I used the exact same settings for my film I'm almost sure my film isnt too far off either.</p>

<p>@Rodeo Joe: I had no ambient light on, just flashes (the room was dark otherwise). I'm measuring the flash directly under the subjects chin pointed at the light or lens, both result in the same reading. My ambient readings are dead on and dont have to be adjusted in post, I want this same result in flash but it's not happening. Yes my flash power is very, very low (I'm trying to get shallow depth of field portraits). However, when the exposure power is higher say at f/16 it's much more accurate I would say. Flash is an alienbee b400. I'm sure this is user error or something I'm missing, I just cant put my finger on it. I just had another shoot where the meter would give a reading of f/2.8 like I wanted but when I went home I had to add +1 to the exposure in Lightroom to get everything looking proper. Thread here: http://www.photo.net/photography-lighting-equipment-techniques-forum/00dJ8e</p> <p>@Michael Mowery: about the angle, I caught the subject off guard turning around while laughing and decided to use that photo because I cant show his face here. Mightve been a bit too high but that was only a few shots, thats all. It was just the fill light that was on but still, it should be exposed properly in my opinion.</p>

<p>I had a portrait shoot recently and wanted to shoot some Portra 160 film but before doing so, I took my digital camera to test, set it to 1/125, ISO160 and adjusted the meter to these settings. My reading for flash was f/2.8 which is where I usually like it. However when I went home I realized again my picture was a full stop underexposed and I had to add +1 to the exposure (example of digital photo below). Now I'm worried that the film I shot may be totally underexposed because of me using my Sekonic meter's reading. Am I supposed to always add +1 or something? I dont understand why this happens, would setting my flash power for f/4 but keeping the settings the same fix this problem?</p> <p><img src="http://i.imgur.com/aCcN9jv.jpg" alt="" width="1200" height="900" /></p> <p>I am metering underneath the subjects chin towards the light, then the lens (same reading for both). Meter has no compensation (either exposure or calibration). Imagine a situation where I didnt have my digital camera to test, just my flash meter and RZ67. If I took the meter reading and popped it into the camera I would be utterly screwed. Should I tell the lab to push the film 1 stop over?</p>

<p>@Rodeo Joe: it's not artificially blurred, the bokeh is just a result of using medium format film with a wide aperture.</p> <p>@Ellis Vener: thats a good tip though even when I have a light close the power doesnt change much on different points of the face (possible because I feather?). So I don't know how reliable this technique would be for making sure I'm not getting any specular highlights.</p> <p>@Allen Friday: great guess, I've contacted the photographer and he said he used a continuous light (halogen, 1000w) like a Raylab Xenos and a silver umbrella. Why do you think he used a reflector on the strobe? Also when I use a silver umbrella I get very specular highlights and hotspots so this is confusing for me.</p> <p>@Bob Bill: theres a debate between photographers that light is light yet every time I see portraits with fresnel continuous lights theres something different about them. Do you agree with this notion?</p> <p>@Tim Lookingbill: that was a great resource, though it further confirms my belief that using a silver umbrella will cause specular highlights and that a closer/larger light will smooth out the tones (though the photographer in the original post said he used a silver umbrella). Could you link me to the kind of light you're talking about? I know you noticed the shadow falloff but what about the highlights?</p>

<p><a href="https://500px.com/photo/5897916/vladimir-malcev-actor-by-sergei-sarakhanov?from=user">https://500px.com/photo/5897916/vladimir-malcev-actor-by-sergei-sarakhanov?from=user</a><br /> <a href="https://500px.com/photo/5897917/vladimir-malcev-actor-by-sergei-sarakhanov?from=user">https://500px.com/photo/5897917/vladimir-malcev-actor-by-sergei-sarakhanov?from=user</a><br /> <a href="https://500px.com/photo/6203071/v-f-kazachkov-actor-by-sergei-sarakhanov?from=user">https://500px.com/photo/6203071/v-f-kazachkov-actor-by-sergei-sarakhanov?from=user</a><br /> Photo of hot light being used: <a href="https://500px.com/photo/77052255/stanley-greene-war-photographer-by-sergei-sarakhanov?from=user">https://500px.com/photo/77052255/stanley-greene-war-photographer-by-sergei-sarakhanov?from=user</a><br> <br /> I can't seem to figure out how to get this kind of lighting though I've tried getting a 5' photek softlighter (reflective umbrella) just out of frame and throwing the majority of the light in front of the subject to "feather" it. I'm about 80% close but still can't seem to figure out how the light across the face is so even and smooth. Mine has some shinier/sparklier highlights across the face which I would like to even out like in the examples.<br> <br /> The photographer is using 400ISO film and has other pictures that show use of hot lights, which in my experience something like an Arri fresnel gives out a very smooth light even with just barn doors on. It's hard to tell from the catchlight what exactly what used. If anyone has done this exact kind of lighting before, please offer some insight - thank you!</p>

<p>Well I have an update, came back from the camera shop and all the guy did was push the lever further forward. For some reason, if my lever is pushed only 90% and not 100% the camera will not fire and the lever will not lock. When I push that last 5-10% forward it functions like normal and returns from it's "messed up mode". Can anyone explain why this is happening?<br /> <br /> Video proof (first is normal shot, then I recreate the problem, then I push it 100% forward to fix): <a href="http://tinypic.com/player.php?v=xbahdf%3E&s=8#.VVvXf6Yfk5k" target="_blank">http://tinypic.com/player.php?v=xbah...8#.VVvXf6Yfk5k</a></p>

<p>Video of it failing to cock shutter after advancing to first frame: http://tinypic.com/player.php?v=29w5stx%3E&s=8#.VVrj2qYfk5k</p>

<p>I'm trying to reproduce the problem and here is what's happening:</p> <p>I advance the film to frame 1, take the shot just fine. Then after advancing to frame 2, the lever doesn't lock, it can keep on being pushed/cocked over and over. When I try to hit the shutter button, the orange light comes up (the lever one).</p> <p>Again I tried, got to frame 9, then while trying to advance to 10 it feels like it lost control of the winding process and the lever has 0 tension on it. Sometimes its very hard to advance the frame, sometimes it doesnt advance at all.</p>

<p>Mid-roll, I was about to advance the film for the next shot when I realized that there was a lot less tension on the lever and once cocked, it could be re-cocked over and over again freely! When the camera is working fine, it can only be advanced once and locks until you take the shot. The film counter isnt advancing but the lever can be moved non-stop, the shutter can be pressed yet no shot is being taken! Is my camera broken?!</p>

<p>I'm trying to shoot some shallow depth-of-field portraits but need to kill some flash power with an ND filter so I can get a wide open aperture. This is easy to do on a DSLR because I can take a test shot, and adjust my ND until I like how the histogram and exposure looks. However, I cant figure out a way to do this on my Canon A-1 or RZ67, does anyone have any ideas?</p>

<p>Yeah make sure you're not on multiple exposure mode<br> Use this manual and ctrl or cmd+f to find "multiple exposure" and itll tell you all about it<br> http://www.mamiyaleaf.com/assets/files/documentation/RB67_Pro-S_v7.pdf</p>

<p>Basic question, but I can't find any answers to this in the manual. When loading film do I advance the film until the count is at 0 or until it's at 1?</p>

<p>I've read multiple articles about overexposing Portra 160 by a stop or two (even read the book Film Is Not Dead) and they all say overexposing this film by 1-2 stops has no significant affect the on highlights. I was wondering if anyone here found this to be true with flash portraits. My meter has been giving me funky readings lately with the highlights falling at middle-grey so I'd like to be safe and add a stop of light to my image. I was wondering if this would destroy my highlights in the film or not, since the new Portra is apparently something magical haha<br /> http://ukfilmlab.com/2014/04/24/film-stock-and-exposure-comparisons-kodak-portra-and-fuji/</p>

<p>@John Seamen: I know I can manually adjust exposure from what the meter suggests, and thats what I did. But if I didn't have the LCD on the back of my screen or wanted to shoot film (which I often do) I'd be utterly screwed if I relied on the light meter. For film theres no way to measure how a flash shot looks without a light meter so getting the meter reading dead on is important to me!</p> <p>@Michael: my meter doesnt work for any flash portraits, it underexposed by 1-2 stops in 3 different shoots with 3 different subjects on both white and dark backhrounds. I'd probably have to test another meter to see if the meter is faulty. These cant be reflected readings, I dont have the reflective grid installed and I was pointing the dome directly at the lights, then at the lens.</p>

<p>Yeah of course!</p>

<p>@ralph: I understand that they indicate correct exposure for middle-gray, but if this is true then why arent the white objects appearing white as they should when middle-gray is correctly exposed? Everything is coming out 1-2 stops darker than it should. Even my skin tones as you see are way too dark, but this issue only occurs in flash so I know there's something wrong here.</p> <p>@John: incident mode, I measure the light levels individually with the dome retracted then once I have things set I point it dome out at the camera. Thats why I dont understand why its acting like it's in reflective mode (I dont have the flat reflective add-on installed, just the regular dome that came with it).</p> <p>@Bob: no the background is not separately lit. My goal isnt to get pure white right now, its to make the entire overall exposure much higher. Yes I am taking the reading with all both the main and fill on, dome out towards camera. It kept reading f/2.8 so I plugged it in and noticed the histogram was only half-way up as the brightest point.</p>

<p>My Sekonic L-358 nails the exposure every time in ambient/natural light, the histogram is always to the right just before clipping (perfectly, no adjustments needed in post). I've checked exposure compensation and calibration, both set to 0. However, when I'm using flash to shoot some white background portraits it always underexposes by 1 to 2 stops. I've had this happen in 3 different shoots now and cant figure out why.<br /> <br> <img src="http://i.imgur.com/XWtsSHN.jpg" alt="" width="1068" height="800" /><br> <br /> If f/1.4 at IS0100 was necessary to get proper exposure for this shot, I'm not sure why the meter was reading f/2.8. I understand the meter is not supposed to tell you the proper exposure and it's merely just measuring the light power, but how come my ambient light readings always give perfect exposure if I plug those numbers in and flash readings dont? I see many photogs on youtube use their meters, measure the flash and pop those exact reading numbers into their camera to get proper exposure so I'm confused as to why this is happening to me.</p>