Jump to content

jamesjewell

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    20

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by jamesjewell

  1. jamesjewell
    I'm not trying to get into a pissing war, but I'd say you are ignoring that there are, in fact, many older technologies that surpass their modern counterparts, especially when the modern "replacement" was designed for any number of economies over pure performance.
  2. jamesjewell
    What RAW converter is that screen shot from?
  3. jamesjewell
    So let me thank everyone for their inputs. They've been most insightful. I posted this in "Casual Photo Conversations" because I guess I was looking to see if there were folks who had a similar feeling about digital color vs. analog color, if there even is such a difference, and what they had done about it. There is just something about my analog pics that I find more natural to my eye, be it C-41 or E-6. I've always assumed it was the colors, but perhaps is is the texture of grain, even though I don't see any grain in my 4x5 shots. Maybe I just need to put a lot more effort into my digital workflow to get the results I get right out of the box with film. Maybe it's a phase I'm going through........ BTW, my analog workflow is hybrid. I don't have a darkroom any more. Develop and scan.........
  4. jamesjewell
    OK, so Ektar is not subtle by any stretch of the imagination, but I still do find the colors to be more pleasing than my digital results (except for skin tones).
  5. jamesjewell
    I'm as sure as I can be. I'm not new to color management. I'm quite happy with my scanned analog color images, so I think I am doing it right, or they would be off. I'm starting to thing that this is a subtle psychological preference, though I cannot explain it.
  6. jamesjewell
    It must be nice to have enough time in your day to go out of your way to be patronizing and still contribute nothing. Well, I guess I have a little free time too.
  7. jamesjewell
    Perhaps I didn't choose my words carefully enough nor provide enough background. I am well versed in color management, and have a fully color-managed workflow. I profile and calibrate my monitors regularly. My printers are also profiled. What I should have been more clear about is my use of the phrase "unprocessed RAW". I didn't mean before initial RAW conversion (of which Rodeo_Joe gives a most excellent demonstration) but rather the next step of image editing. Apologies for the bad choice of words. I've attached an image converted to JPEG and sRGB. The colors just seem hyper-real to me. It was shot on a Sony a99.
  8. jamesjewell
    I shoot both film and digital, 35mm up to 4x5. I grew up in a Minolta family, so when I switched to Digital, I went with Sony. I've just never been happy with the digital colors I get. They seem garish and "plasticky", whereas Kodak Ektar and Portra look natural and subtle to my eyes. However I see plenty of pro digital photography that doesn't seem to have the plastic look. Is Sony known for garish colors? Do all RAW images look that way before being processed? Any thoughts on workflow? Anyone else share the same feelings? I've just started experimenting with some commercial film emulation profiles in Lightroom, but not yet sure if that will scratch my itch. V/R James.
  9. jamesjewell
    FWIW, I developed a roll of ACROS two days later with Ilfotec DD-X and the same stop bath, fixer, and tap-water pre-rinse. No spots whatsoever, so we can eliminate the quality of the tap water and the fixer and stop bath. I'm leaning towards undesolved xtol.
  10. jamesjewell
    Joe, Thank you for that. Do you have any advice on mixing XTOL? I went to town on that mixture with a power drill and paint-mixer attachment for many minutes.
  11. jamesjewell
    Hi All! I just developed a roll of Ilford HP5 in XTOL 1+1, and scanned it with a DSLR, and each negative has thousands of little dark spots on them. It is not dust (cleaned the negatives with pec pads and fluid to be shure). It is not air bubbles, as far as I can tell. I mix all my chemicals with distilled water, and do a final rinse with distilled water and photoflo. I use Patterson tanks. I almost always use rodinal in a semi-stand method and have never had this problem. The only thing that changed was using xtol. I did use tap water for a pre-rinse. Any thoughts?
  12. jamesjewell

    jamesjewell posted a gallery image in Uncategorized

  13. jamesjewell

    jamesjewell posted a gallery image in Uncategorized

  14. jamesjewell
    Joe, Thanks. I'm not quite sure what box my photos are in. I recently moved and still have many boxes to go through. Having said that, I unpacked a Soviet Leica copy and bought a few rolls of Ektar 100. I'll run some film through it this weekend. Give me a week to get it developed and I'll repost. Thanks again, James
  15. jamesjewell
    Once I finish the family happy snaps, I plan to rescan my old amateur landscape and portrait, as well as all of my new medium format film that I started shooting agan a few months back. For that, I had intended to start making linear raw scans to feed into ColorPerfect. My fear is that these medium format scans will be as bad as my 35mm scans.
  16. jamesjewell
    Hi, thanks to everyone so far. I did notice the magenta cast but didn't correct it or any other adjustments for the picture I posted as I wanted people to see what is coming out of the scanner/vuescan combo with nothing more than scratch and dust removal. I didn't even think that the magenta cast could affect the shadow noise. So while I try a few of your suggestions, can I get people to agree that (whatever the cause) that kind of noise is not "normal" for a color negative? Basically, I don't want to hear "sorry kid, that's the best you can get from a 35mm negative". I see this kind of noise in my older scans (taken with a variety of scanners over the decades) taken with pro gear and better-than-consumer film. I suspect it is something in my workflow, as the only other constant is Vue Scan, which I know people are getting better scans from.
  17. jamesjewell
    When I adjust contrast to move the noise into the black, much detail is lost in the rest of the picture. They are standing on a maroon carpet, which now looks black. They are in front of a dark wood bar, and it is now black.
  18. jamesjewell
    So this is an unknown color negative film type taken on an unknown camera (doing family archiving and not my usual real photography). It was scanned on the PrimeFilm XA at 5000SPI, and reduced in size with 2x2 averaging. This is also the product of 4x multiple scans and multi-exposure (which I guess doesn't affect the shadows on negative film). Just about every one of my scans with black in it shows this. The fact that the green noise remains as visible as it does after the 4x sampling and the 2x2 averaging leaves me wondering if it is my workflow, VueScan or the scanner.
  19. jamesjewell
  20. jamesjewell
    Hi, I've used a number of prosumer scanners over the last decade. I've used all of them with VueScan. However, amongst all of my color negative scans, there appears to be little green dots in the shadows, and in fact there seems to be a lot of shadow noise in my scans. The only constant across the decade is me and VueScan. Multipass and multisample seem to do nothing, which surprises me, because if it is random noise, you would think it would average it out. As this is negative stock, that means the noise is in the light areas of the negatives. Any idea what I am doing wrong?
×
×
  • Create New...