Film
Dave the Guy
preparing myself to take pictures with it as soon as it's out of the
box.
This can only mean trekking across town to B&H to get some film!
In 35mm, I've almost exclusively used Fuji color films including their
various slides. The few times I've used B&W is with several rolls of
10yr old Ilford HP5+ (my friend had it sitting on his shelf since he
was a student). They turned out well so I'm going to try a roll of
120.
So now with MF, I'd like to experiment with several different types,
just to get a feel for what's out there. Here are some choices I've
compiled, just by reading through B&H's list/catalog. I tried to list
films that seem to have differing "personalities" for variety. Please
feel free to add or subtract and/or comment:
B&W
Kodak Tri-X (320 and/or 400)
Kodak T-Max 400
Fuji Neopan 100
Ilford HP5+
Color
Fuji Velvia 100
Fuji Astia 100
Kodak Echtachrome 100
I'm also thinking of getting some filters. Since TLRs use two lenses,
will I need 2 filters (for example polarizing) to both see what I'm
doing and have the effect transferred to film?
David J. Littleboy
"Dave the Guy" <hairles...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> B&W
> Kodak Tri-X (320 and/or 400)
> Kodak T-Max 400
> Fuji Neopan 100
> Ilford HP5+
None of the above: Kodak TMAX 100 (Fine grain, high resolution and
sharpness) Maybe Plus-X, but I wasn't happy with the roll I shot of it the
other day.
The reason for shooting MF is for the image quality. The lenses are too slow
for available light work, so there's no point in throwing away the MF
advantage with ISO 400 films.
(Well, almost none of the above: Fuji Acros 100 is on my list of films to
try.)
> Color
> Fuji Velvia 100
> Fuji Astia 100
> Kodak Echtachrome 100
None of the above: Provia 100F (Velvia's too contrasty, Astia's too mushy;
Provia 100F remains the perfect combination of fine grain, sharp images, not
too excessive contrast. Lovely stuff.)
> I'm also thinking of getting some filters. Since TLRs use two lenses,
> will I need 2 filters (for example polarizing) to both see what I'm
> doing and have the effect transferred to film?
Using a polarizer will be hard, and for other filters, you don't really need
to look through the filter. I'd not spend money on filters for a TLR, at
least at first. (Well, other than maybe a yellow and red filter for B&W
landscapes.) Take some pictures first.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Dave the Guy
I really like Astia 100 on 35mm, but you are right in that it's kind
of, uh, "blobby" would be the term I use. I do seem to get good
results using it though ("good" meaning in context with the rest of the
junk pictures I take). Provia is one of the slides I never gave a shot
so it's definitely on my list now.
I figured polarizers would be difficult on tlrs so maybe I'll live
without one for a while. Thanks for the heads up on the black and
yellow filters. I'm guessing those emphasize contrast...
Q.G. de Bakker
> None of the above: Kodak TMAX 100 (Fine grain, high resolution and
> sharpness) Maybe Plus-X, but I wasn't happy with the roll I shot of it the
> other day.
>
> The reason for shooting MF is for the image quality. The lenses are too
slow
> for available light work, so there's no point in throwing away the MF
> advantage with ISO 400 films.
I find that using TMAX 400 exposed at 200, and processed accordingly,
produces better contrast than 'straight' TMAX 100.
Treating TMAX 100 the same way makes MF even slower; 2 stops slower than TMY
pulled.
So i made TMAX 400 my staple B&W film.
The 'advantage'/the quality is still there. No worries.
> (Well, almost none of the above: Fuji Acros 100 is on my list of films to
> try.)
>
> > Color
> > Fuji Velvia 100
> > Fuji Astia 100
> > Kodak Echtachrome 100
>
> None of the above: Provia 100F (Velvia's too contrasty, Astia's too mushy;
> Provia 100F remains the perfect combination of fine grain, sharp images,
not
> too excessive contrast. Lovely stuff.)
One question would be why use slide film at all. Very contrasty and no
lattitude.
So unless slides are a must (projection?), i think that colour negative film
would be preferable.
David J. Littleboy
"Q.G. de Bakker" <q...@tiscali.nl> wrote:
>
> One question would be why use slide film at all. Very contrasty and no
> lattitude.
> So unless slides are a must (projection?), i think that colour negative
> film
> would be preferable.
I've not been happy with the results I get from color negative films. They
just don't have the pop and snap the slide films do. And the grain is
grittier.
The new Fuji PRO160NC (120 and 4x5 only!) is supposed to be less grainy than
Reala and have enough contrast for landscape work, so I will be giving it a
try, though.
Q.G. de Bakker
> The new Fuji PRO160NC (120 and 4x5 only!) is supposed to be less grainy
than
> Reala and have enough contrast for landscape work, so I will be giving it
a
> try, though.
Thanks for the tip.
I have been using Portra for years, ever since they stopped making GPX.
And i never stopped missing GPX. That was a great film: sharp, good tone
range, colours i like.
Portra is good too, but not quite the same.
I finally started trying some other films (after having tried all possible
variations Portra comes in). I will certainly give the Fuji Pro160NC a go.
Dave the Guy
for being A) cheap, B) cheap, and C) really cheap. Ha! Seriously
though, they scan well, I've taken some great pictures on them, and
they're easy to develop.
But slides...just seem to give me a kind of ethereal quality when I
scan them in.
Robert C.
news:dg6q93$jeq$1...@nnrp.gol.com...
I personally like Kodak Portra 160VC shot at ISO100 and devolopped normally
as a color negative film. I have not noticed any significant film grain on
enlagermts up to 8X10 and the colour saturations are excellent.
--
~Robert C.
Lorem Ipsum
news:1126619615.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Okay so my Yashica Mat 124 delivery is nigh (tomorrow morning) and I'm
> preparing myself to take pictures with it as soon as it's out of the
> box.
>
> This can only mean trekking across town to B&H to get some film!
My opinion: Agfa APX 400 is just fine because it will allow you a quick
start; you can hand-hold the shots rather than using a tripod. No matter
what anyone says, it is perfect sense that the outcome will be better than
35mm of the same speed or half that. The camera was made to be hand-held,
people have been shooting like that for decades. Do it and enjoy. Later you
can get finicky and shoot tripod-only with slower films if you like.
Filters - You only need one of each filter - place it over the lower lens
and be happy. A special advantage of the TLR is that your view is not
hindered by the filter. Polarizing filters - get a circular polarizer or if
you want to be perfect, then get a traditional linear polarizer that has a
mark on the rim so that you can rotate it before the viewing lens, then
place it on the taking lens in the same orientation. I've been doing that
with a rangefinder for years. It works just fine for anyone with half a
brain.
Neil Gould
> "Q.G. de Bakker" <q...@tiscali.nl> wrote:
>>
>> One question would be why use slide film at all. Very contrasty and
>> no lattitude.
>> So unless slides are a must (projection?), i think that colour
>> negative film
>> would be preferable.
>
> I've not been happy with the results I get from color negative films.
> They just don't have the pop and snap the slide films do. And the
> grain is grittier.
>
I've used many of Kodak's Portra films and don't find them to be grainy
when printed optically, even for 9-10x enlargements. Scanning that film
can be another matter, depending on other factors. If "pop" is what you
like, the Portra VC versions can provide it without making colors too
garish, and you get more lattitude than with slide film.
Neil
Dave the Guy
generalize what you said in the first paragraph to include any medium
speed film (200-400). I'm definitely not a tripod guy so I'm not
looking to use anything faster than 100, if that. 200 is about the
limit for me on 35mm if I'm shooting during sunrise/set.
The polarizing filter idea is awesome, one of those head slapping ones
where you go,"Why didn't I think of that before?" :-)
Lorem Ipsum
> Never tried any Agfa so I'll shoot a roll of that. I'm going to
> generalize what you said in the first paragraph to include any medium
> speed film (200-400). I'm definitely not a tripod guy so I'm not
> looking to use anything faster than 100, if that. 200 is about the
> limit for me on 35mm if I'm shooting during sunrise/set.
There are a couple rules-of-thumb: Use a shutter speed that is (about) twice
as fast as your focal length. In your case, that's 160/th of a second.
Choose either 1/125 or 1/250, depending upon your confidence. The other is
the 'sunny 16' rule, which you probably know. If you take into account these
two things, I think you will find speed 400 film is better because your lens
is sharpest around F8. - again, depending upon how confident you are with
steady hand-held work, and how far you want to enlarge the results.
> The polarizing filter idea is awesome, one of those head slapping ones
> where you go,"Why didn't I think of that before?" :-)
:) I go back to the days when that was about all we had, so it was easy for
me.
Dennis O'Connor
can order the others by parcel post...
For Velvia you may want a warming filter, or not as you choose, and one for
the taking lens is plenty...
For B&W you want a Red 25A for those dramatic clouds... A light yellow for
skin tones on women and children... Just one each for the taking lens is
fine... You can branch out with other filters later, but those two will
actually do you for a lifetime of shooting...
For the polarizer, just one is plenty... This is MF, it is contemplative
photography, usually on a tripod - you are not taking sneak shots through a
hole in your robe at a KKK meeting... Hold the polarizer in front of the
viewing lens and turn it till the reflections go away... Notice the
orientation of the ring and mount it on the taking lens in the same
orientation...
Also with the Yashie, F11 is your friend... Set it there, leave it there,
and adjust your times... When the light finally gets interesting, really
early or really late, times of 1 to 10 seconds is the norm...
denny the old guy...
Dave the Guy
minute subway ride to B&H photo so it's not really inconvenient for me
to try a bunch of stuff out.
F11, got it! :-D
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
> None of the above: Kodak TMAX 100 (Fine grain, high resolution and
> sharpness) Maybe Plus-X, but I wasn't happy with the roll I shot of it the
> other day.
TMAX 100 is a great film, but it needs to be handled properly for best
results. Extremes of contrast will give you negatives with either "blocked
highlights" or "dark shadows". Take your pick or avoid those shots if you
can. Avoid high contrast developers.
Plus-X is a wonderful film. It's got a very wide dynamic range. Develop it
properly and it will serve you well.
Another film no one mentioned are the chromogenic black and white films.
My favorite is Ilford XP2 which is available in 120. They are extremely
forgiving of exposure errors and are developed in color chemistry.
In 35mm this is great because you can get the negatives and useable
prints from one hour photo places, in 120 you need to go to a "pro" lab,
but I expect it will be easier to find a place that does color negative
processing in 120 than black and white negatives.
At home, obviously regular black and white film is easier to process.
>
> The reason for shooting MF is for the image quality. The lenses are too slow
> for available light work, so there's no point in throwing away the MF
> advantage with ISO 400 films.
Back when I was in junior high school (1966-1969) TRI-X was the height
of available light film at ASA (now ISO) 400. I remember getting a roll
of 35mm 2475 recording film that was rated at ASA 1200 and was in available
light heaven. However I took many a shot with Tri-X and an F4 lens.
Ilford Delta 3200 is available in 120, the quiet shutter and non obvious
viewfinder of a TLR would be good for available light candids. The large
negatives will reduce the effect of grain. XP-2 can be shot at ISO 800
with no change in development, but with lower quality.
Geoff.
--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel g...@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (077)-424-1667 IL Fax: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
Support the growing boycott of Google by radio users and hobbyists.
It's starting to work, Yahoo has surpassed Google.
no_name
>
> One question would be why use slide film at all. Very contrasty and no
> lattitude.
> So unless slides are a must (projection?), i think that colour negative film
> would be preferable.
AFAIK, color positive is still the standard for publication.
Q.G. de Bakker
> AFAIK, color positive is still the standard for publication.
AFAIK digital files are in demand these days.
Negs scan very well, offer the larger latitude. longer tonal range, etc.
Using slide film only makes life difficult.
Dave the Guy
Paul Friday
<q...@tiscali.nl> writes
>One question would be why use slide film at all. Very contrasty and no
>lattitude. So unless slides are a must (projection?), i think that
>colour negative film would be preferable.
It's worth shooting one roll of slide film, just for the joy of looking
at huge slides.
--
Paul Friday
Paul Friday
the Guy <hairles...@gmail.com> writes
> Please feel free to add or subtract and/or comment:
Try a really slow mono film, just to see what grainless looks like.
Ilford's SFX200 is interesting, especially with a red filter.
Try something really fast as well, like Delta 3200.
--
Paul Friday
Dave the Guy
always thought of Tri-X as being the "norm" as that's what I used on
the teacher's recommendation way back in high school. Unfortunately, I
haven't developed my own film since then either, but scanning negatives
and slides are a godsend. It can't really take the place of a
darkroom, but it's a huge step forward for home enthusiasts.
henryp
Dave the Guy wrote:
> This can only mean trekking across town to B&H to get some film!
Oohhhhhhhhhhhh. The horror.
:-)
Henry Posner
B&H Photo-Video, Inc.
Dave the Guy
(My part of town is CRAZY with all the diplomats and heads of state
coming in for the UN conference...)
Dave the Guy
lexington ave. It's either kofi or dubya.
no_name
Unless you got a buyer who prefers slides.
There are all sorts of reasons why digital and color negative are
**better**, easier to work with, less hassle, make your teeth brighter &
give your car higher gas mileage.
But if your customer wants slides, you're better off giving him slides.
And I don't know any way to learn how to get good slides other than by
going out and shooting slides.
Besides, I like them.
I shoot digital, I shoot negatives, I shoot B&W, I shoot color, I shoot
35mm, med format & 4x5 ... I shoot slides.
I'll shoot anything someone will pay me to shoot, and I'll submit it in
whatever format & media they'll pay me for.
Q.G. de Bakker
> > Using slide film only makes life difficult.
>
> Unless you got a buyer who prefers slides.
You would have to shoot slides then, yes. Obviously.
But would it not make life more difficult...? ;-)
Peter
> So now with MF, I'd like to experiment with several different types,
> just to get a feel for what's out there. Here are some choices I've
> compiled, just by reading through B&H's list/catalog. I tried to list
> films that seem to have differing "personalities" for variety. Please
> feel free to add or subtract and/or comment:
>
> B&W
> Kodak Tri-X (320 and/or 400)
Tri-X 400 is the film I shoot more than any other in 6x6.
You can see the grain on an 8x10 (at least when developed
in D-76 1:1), but it is nice fine grain. A little bit of
grain can be a good thing. Try shooting at 200-250.
This is my first choice for snapshot type photography, though
I sometimes use Agfa APX 400 because it is somewhat cheaper
in Canada.
Tri-X 320 is a different film. I've only tried it a few times,
it has a differently shaped contrast curve than other films.
It is not a snapshot film, really more of a studio/portrait
film which rewards careful attention to lighting.
> Kodak T-Max 400
Never tried it.
> Fuji Neopan 100
I assume you mean Acros. Both Fuji Acros and Kodak TMax 100 (similar
films) are really nice in Xtol 1:1. They appear completely grainless
on 8x10 enlargements even when I look really close.
> Ilford HP5+
Similar, but not identical to Tri-X 400. I like Tri-X better when
shooting 6x6 which is strange because I shoot a lot of HP5+ in
35mm. If you ever use a red window camera, you will notice that
the frame numbers on the Ilford backing paper are very faint.
Also check out Ilford Pan-F for very fine grain in a conventional
film. It has a quite different look from the TMax-100 and Acros
films.
Ilford Delta-3200 is interesting stuff to play with. I haven't
managed to figure out how to make it do what I like, but it
is worth trying out.
> Color
> Fuji Velvia 100
> Fuji Astia 100
> Kodak Echtachrome 100
I've shot slides on Provia. I don't have an MF slide projector,
or I would shoot more. I've tried projecting on the wall of
my darkroom with my enlarger, and the results (while a bit dim)
indicate that an MF slide projector would be nice if I can talk
myself into the expense.
I've shot Agfa colour print films because the people at the
local lab (Silvano's in Toronto) seem to like them. The results
seem very nice, but I have no basis for comparison. I've got
a couple rolls of Fuji Reala which I intend to shoot soon.
I was pleasantly surprised at the prices, I had held off
shooting colour prints in 6x6 because I though it would
be expensive, but development and printing with 12 5x5 inch
proofs comes to only about C$8.50 including tax.
> I'm also thinking of getting some filters. Since TLRs use two lenses,
> will I need 2 filters (for example polarizing) to both see what I'm
> doing and have the effect transferred to film?
There used to be some accessories for TLRs to make this easier,
but the index mark idea (mentioned by others) works well.
Peter.
--
pir...@ktb.net
David J. Littleboy
>
>> AFAIK, color positive is still the standard for publication.
>
> AFAIK digital files are in demand these days.
Yes. But.
> Negs scan very well,
People keep saying that, but I don't get it. I much prefer the files that
come out of the scanner from Provia 100F than any negative film I've ever
scanned. The colors have far more punch/pop, the detail is superb, the grain
noise much less obnoxious.
> offer the larger latitude. longer tonal range, etc.
The larger latitude in the finer grain negative films is pretty minimal: a
scene that blows out Provia will blow out Reala. (Also, negative film skies
turn cyan pretty quickly, and it may be that an exposure low enough to get a
decent blue sky leaves one with even less shadow detail than slide film.
That is, negative film's latitude is all in the plus direction, but stuff
off scale in the plus direction tends to be way off scale, whereas another
two stops of shadow detail would be really appreciated.)
> Using slide film only makes life difficult.
Maybe people are using older or inferior scanners that can't capture the
shadow detail?
David J. Littleboy
>
> Tri-X 400 is the film I shoot more than any other in 6x6.
> You can see the grain on an 8x10 (at least when developed
> in D-76 1:1), but it is nice fine grain.
It's nice to see someone admitting that Tri-x is grainy at 8x10 in MF<g>.
But I don't want to see grain in my prints. Period. Ever. It wasn't in the
subject, and shouldn't be in the print.
> A little bit of grain can be a good thing.
I don't get grain. With grain, every surface has exactly the same texture,
that of the grain, regardless of the actual texture of the subject.
Photography should be about the subject, not the medium.
>> Fuji Neopan 100
>
> I assume you mean Acros. Both Fuji Acros and Kodak TMax 100 (similar
> films) are really nice in Xtol 1:1. They appear completely grainless
> on 8x10 enlargements even when I look really close.
There are two Fuji ISO 100 films: one's a TMAX clone, the other's a Plus-X
clone. Both are spoken well of.
Peter
> "Peter" <pir...@ktb.net> wrote:
> >
> > Tri-X 400 is the film I shoot more than any other in 6x6.
> > You can see the grain on an 8x10 (at least when developed
> > in D-76 1:1), but it is nice fine grain.
>
> It's nice to see someone admitting that Tri-x is grainy at 8x10 in MF<g>.
> But I don't want to see grain in my prints. Period. Ever. It wasn't in the
> subject, and shouldn't be in the print.
I'm not sure I'd use the word grainy, but there is a texture imposed
on smooth areas by the film grain. I think sometimes it can be an
improvement on complete smoothness, obviously you don't agree and
that's fine.
> > A little bit of grain can be a good thing.
>
> I don't get grain. With grain, every surface has exactly the same texture,
> that of the grain, regardless of the actual texture of the subject.
> Photography should be about the subject, not the medium.
It seems to me that where there is noticable texture in the subject,
the grain seems to disappear, and the texture of the grain shows up
best in areas which would otherwise be completely uniform.
> >> Fuji Neopan 100
> >
> > I assume you mean Acros. Both Fuji Acros and Kodak TMax 100 (similar
> > films) are really nice in Xtol 1:1. They appear completely grainless
> > on 8x10 enlargements even when I look really close.
>
> There are two Fuji ISO 100 films: one's a TMAX clone, the other's a Plus-X
> clone. Both are spoken well of.
I haven't seen the conventional Fuji ISO 100 B&W on 120 format
available in North America. B&H carries Neopan SS in 135, but
they seem to have only Acros in 120. I know that Fuji sells lots
of stuff (such as b&w paper) in Japan which never seems to be
available elsewhere.
Peter.
--
pir...@ktb.net
Chris Brown
>
>> AFAIK, color positive is still the standard for publication.
>
>AFAIK digital files are in demand these days.
>Negs scan very well, offer the larger latitude. longer tonal range, etc.
I disagree - I've never liked the colour I get from negatives - always seems
very dull compared to slides, and I alsofind that scanned stuff has the
worst noise in the dark areas of the slide/negative. For slides this is
fine, because it's, er, dark. For negatives, it's a serious pain in the
arse, because you end up inverting the luminance, which means the noisiest
bits of your scan are the bright bits - nasty mottled skies and grainy
highlights.
Sheet film scanning also makes another negative (no pun intended) feature of
print film obvious - the inevitable pre-exposure dust shows up on the end
result as bright white specks, which tend to be brutally obvious. On a
slide, the dust is dark, and lots of it can be ignored because it just
blends into the background.
Furthermore, with negatives you pretty much have to scan the thing to see if
it's even worth scanning in the first place. When I get a roll of slides
back, I can instantly see which ones are not worth bothering with and
consign them straight to the archive without bothering to go through a
pointless scanning process.
>Using slide film only makes life difficult.
I'll take vibrant colours, clean skies, less despotting and less unnecessary
scanning that slides offer any day of the week thanks. YMMV, of course.
Gregory Blank
"David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>
> The larger latitude in the finer grain negative films is pretty minimal: a
> scene that blows out Provia will blow out Reala. (Also, negative film skies
> turn cyan pretty quickly, and it may be that an exposure low enough to get a
> decent blue sky leaves one with even less shadow detail than slide film.
> That is, negative film's latitude is all in the plus direction, but stuff
> off scale in the plus direction tends to be way off scale, whereas another
> two stops of shadow detail would be really appreciated.)
One can use a ND Grad one the camera lens & give the shadows more
exposure can one not? To me the advantage of slide film is seeing the
original scene, that is if the film represents the scene in a way one
wants it to be represented.
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Gregory Blank
"David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
> "Q.G. de Bakker" <q...@tiscali.nl> wrote:
> >
> > One question would be why use slide film at all. Very contrasty and no
> > lattitude.
> > So unless slides are a must (projection?), i think that colour negative
> > film
> > would be preferable.
>
> I've not been happy with the results I get from color negative films. They
> just don't have the pop and snap the slide films do. And the grain is
> grittier.
But since your scanning you could add the pop and snap with curves and
levels in PS.
> The new Fuji PRO160NC (120 and 4x5 only!) is supposed to be less grainy than
> Reala and have enough contrast for landscape work, so I will be giving it a
> try, though.
I'll be interested in the 4x5 as well, have you tried the new Velvia 100,
I have roughly 20 shots I took in California about a month ago I have not
processed as of yet, but the 120 I have shot...it's a very nice film :)
Dave the Guy
grain (and the fact that we got a lot of it for free, thanks to the
school district). In fact this is the reason I have shyed away from
digital (besides the obvious pocket P&S one) because the end effect
seems to be just way too pristine looking. I enjoy a certain level of
grain, especially when a lot of my favorite photographs exhibit it
prominently.
On that note, I did stop by B&H this afternoon and here are my initial
purchases:
B&W:
TMax 400
Tri-X 400
HP5+ 400
Arcos 100
Color:
Provia 100
The single color film is not an accident of omission. I have enough
color negatives and slides in 35mm. Since I'm beginning something new,
why not kill two birds with one stone and try my hand at b&w as well?
:-)
Thanks for all the responses thus far. I'm glad that film is NOT dead
despite the constant ringing in my ears from the 35mm camp.
By the way, I got a Wein replacement battery for the obsolete 1.35v
mercury battery that the Yashicas used to take. I'm guessing, if the
camera's meter is broken, it'll check out against my hand held.
David J. Littleboy
"Gregory Blank" <greg@greg_____photo.com> wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>> "Q.G. de Bakker" <q...@tiscali.nl> wrote:
>> >
>> > One question would be why use slide film at all. Very contrasty and no
>> > lattitude.
>> > So unless slides are a must (projection?), i think that colour negative
>> > film
>> > would be preferable.
>>
>> I've not been happy with the results I get from color negative films.
>> They
>> just don't have the pop and snap the slide films do. And the grain is
>> grittier.
>
> But since your scanning you could add the pop and snap with curves and
> levels in PS.
The experience here is that that doesn't work. Getting significantly away
from the way the film rendered the subject never results in quality images,
in my experience. People who know more than I may be able to do better, I'd
think.
>> The new Fuji PRO160NC (120 and 4x5 only!) is supposed to be less grainy
>> than
>> Reala and have enough contrast for landscape work, so I will be giving it
>> a
>> try, though.
>
> I'll be interested in the 4x5 as well, have you tried the new Velvia 100,
> I have roughly 20 shots I took in California about a month ago I have not
> processed as of yet, but the 120 I have shot...it's a very nice film :)
I should get around to trying Velvia 100. I'm currently in a "back to Provia
state", though. Velvia 100F seems to have a "color cast multiplier effect";
if there's a cast to the ambient light, Velvia 100F seems to multiply it.
Still, I can usually get the colors reasonably close in the scanner.
--
David J. Littleboy
dav...@gol.com
Tokyo, Japan
David J. Littleboy
"Gregory Blank" <greg@greg_____photo.com> wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>>
>> The larger latitude in the finer grain negative films is pretty minimal:
>> a
>> scene that blows out Provia will blow out Reala. (Also, negative film
>> skies
>> turn cyan pretty quickly, and it may be that an exposure low enough to
>> get a
>> decent blue sky leaves one with even less shadow detail than slide film.
>> That is, negative film's latitude is all in the plus direction, but stuff
>> off scale in the plus direction tends to be way off scale, whereas
>> another
>> two stops of shadow detail would be really appreciated.)
>
> One can use a ND Grad one the camera lens & give the shadows more
> exposure can one not?
Yes. But that's irrelevant to slide vs. negative film. (Actually, the above
was a cheap shot at film from me with my digerati hat (complete with
spinning whirlygig) on: digital is limited in its highlight handling
capacity, but captures a lot more shadow detail than film.)
> To me the advantage of slide film is seeing the
> original scene, that is if the film represents the scene in a way one
> wants it to be represented.
Yep. One can look at B&W negatives and get a rough idea what's there
(there's also the sidelighting trick to make them look like positives), but
color negatives are always a surprise when scanned.
chasfs
images you're making? Chemical or digital? If you are scanning, the
type of scanner matters. Most flatbeds don't have the resolution to do
justice to medium format.
I like Fuji Astia. I scan it at 3200 DPI, which results in less
noticable grain than scanning at 4000DPI. Most any slide film will have
less grain than negative film, but this may not matter unless you are
making large images.
Astia is relatively low contrast, but its very easy to adjust contrast
in Photoshop. I've found its generally better to add contrast
digitally than to remove it, so Astia works well for this purpose.
Just a note on digital vs. chemical. I had a 16x20 Cibachrome hanging
in my stairwell for the last 10 years, taken with my Pentax 6x7, 165mm
lens, Fuji slide film. I just replaced the 16x20 with a 24x30, same
camera, same lens, different image, but instead of a Cibachrome, this
one is scanned at 3200dpi and printed on my Epson 7600. I used a bit
of touchup in Photoshop to adjust brightness and contrast, a very tiny
amount of unsharp mask. The difference is quite amazing. The 24x30 is
substantially sharper, smoother and more detailed, in comparison the
Cibachrome looks a bit too contrasty and somewhat grainier. I'm
getting great results with this hybrid approach.
Enjoy your new camera!
Peace,
-chasfs
http://chasfs.com
Dave the Guy wrote:
> Okay so my Yashica Mat 124 delivery is nigh (tomorrow morning) and I'm
> preparing myself to take pictures with it as soon as it's out of the
> box.
>
> This can only mean trekking across town to B&H to get some film!
>
> In 35mm, I've almost exclusively used Fuji color films including their
> various slides. The few times I've used B&W is with several rolls of
> 10yr old Ilford HP5+ (my friend had it sitting on his shelf since he
> was a student). They turned out well so I'm going to try a roll of
> 120.
>
> So now with MF, I'd like to experiment with several different types,
> just to get a feel for what's out there. Here are some choices I've
> compiled, just by reading through B&H's list/catalog. I tried to list
> films that seem to have differing "personalities" for variety. Please
> feel free to add or subtract and/or comment:
>
> B&W
> Kodak Tri-X (320 and/or 400)
> Kodak T-Max 400
> Fuji Neopan 100
> Ilford HP5+
>
> Color
> Fuji Velvia 100
> Fuji Astia 100
> Kodak Echtachrome 100
>
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
> I don't get grain. With grain, every surface has exactly the same texture,
> that of the grain, regardless of the actual texture of the subject.
> Photography should be about the subject, not the medium.
But (almost) everyone does not see things in shades of gray, they see it in
color. So by using black and white you are changing the perception of the
viewer. Some people use it to good effect, so ignore it, so people use it
poorly.
Grain is another effect that comes from film. If you want the effect that
it gives and use it well, it can enhance a photograph. If used poorly it,
as David says, adds unwanted texture.
It's like everything else in photography, any variable changes the viewer's
perception of the subject, learn to use it if you wish.
Q.G. de Bakker
> One can use a ND Grad one the camera lens & give the shadows more
> exposure can one not? [...]
You do not even need to use the grad.
The detail will still be there in the highlights when you expose for the
shadows.
It's true that getting both shadow and highlight correct in a scanned image
can be difficult.
When so, i select the highlights, put them in a separate layer, and adjust
curves/levels for both highlights and 'rest' layers separately. Works fine.
Q.G. de Bakker
> Photography should be about the subject, not the medium.
Compare any photographic image to what it is an image of, and see how much
alike both are.
They never are, are they?
Compressed tonal range, limited colour range, etc., and grain, are all part
of the photographic 'vocabulary'. A photograph is always about the subject,
but always expressed in that particular vocabulary. Always about the
subject, but always about the medium too.
You cannot get away from that, unless you get away from photography
altogether.
Apply your statement to any other medium, for instance 'Music should be
about the subject, not the medium', and try to imagine music without the
particularities introduced by musical instruments. Can't be done either.
Now some films speak a dialect that puts less, some more, emphasis on grain.
And we can make use of that.
But even then, photography is always about the medium too.
David J. Littleboy
>
>> Photography should be about the subject, not the medium.
>
> Compare any photographic image to what it is an image of, and see how much
> alike both are.
> They never are, are they?
You are confusing controlled abstraction with the imposition of noise.
Grain noise is completely irrelevant to the representation of the subject.
B&W photography abstracts away the color aspect of the image. Velvia
photography emphasizes the color contrasts in the scene. What does grain
photography do for you? It's not an artistic tool, it's just noise.
Q.G. de Bakker
> You are confusing controlled abstraction with the imposition of noise.
Not at all.
I'm pointing out that grain is part of photography.
When you made the choice of using photography, made the choice of using
film, you chose grain too.
> Grain noise is completely irrelevant to the representation of the subject.
Not so. It is not a quality of the subject itself.
But it's part of photography and any photographic representation of any
subject.
Maybe you should have chosen literature, sculputure, dance, music, or any
other form of representation to represent your subject instead?.
> B&W photography abstracts away the color aspect of the image. Velvia
> photography emphasizes the color contrasts in the scene. What does grain
> photography do for you? It's not an artistic tool, it's just noise.
Grain is like a painter's brush. It can be (and has been) used as an
artistic tool too.
Just that you do not like it...
Anyway, it's part of photography.
(Though now in the process of being replaced by noise)
David J. Littleboy
>
>> You are confusing controlled abstraction with the imposition of noise.
>
> Not at all.
> I'm pointing out that grain is part of photography.
Not my photography.
> When you made the choice of using photography, made the choice of using
> film, you chose grain too.
No, I use films and film formats such that the grain is not visible in the
print sizes I target.
>> Grain noise is completely irrelevant to the representation of the
>> subject.
>
> Not so. It is not a quality of the subject itself.
That's silly: there's no grain in the subject.
> But it's part of photography and any photographic representation of any
> subject.
> Maybe you should have chosen literature, sculputure, dance, music, or any
> other form of representation to represent your subject instead?.
Maybe you should choose a format that's more appropriate to the size prints
you target.
>> B&W photography abstracts away the color aspect of the image. Velvia
>> photography emphasizes the color contrasts in the scene. What does grain
>> photography do for you? It's not an artistic tool, it's just noise.
>
> Grain is like a painter's brush. It can be (and has been) used as an
> artistic tool too.
No painter paints with that heavy a hand. You put a roll of Tri-X in your
Leica. Every shot has the same texture everywhere. There's nothing artistic
about that.
Gregory Blank
I am not real fond of the 100F Velvia, a tad too warm yellow. The New
100 is splendid. If you like Provia which I do as well The 100 Velvia
should be a welcome film to use, better color, good grain and maybe a
little less contrast? Definitely not the warm color of the 100F.
Gregory Blank
"David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
> "Gregory Blank" <greg@greg_____photo.com> wrote:
> > "David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
> > One can use a ND Grad one the camera lens & give the shadows more
> > exposure can one not?
>
> Yes. But that's irrelevant to slide vs. negative film.
But never the less applicable.
>(Actually, the above
> was a cheap shot at film from me with my digerati hat (complete with
> spinning whirlygig) on: digital is limited in its highlight handling
> capacity, but captures a lot more shadow detail than film.)
Yes it can be nice, I shot a sailing event two weeks ago and the color
is on par with very nice film images. I just wish I had bigger files :-)
>
> > To me the advantage of slide film is seeing the
> > original scene, that is if the film represents the scene in a way one
> > wants it to be represented.
>
> Yep. One can look at B&W negatives and get a rough idea what's there
> (there's also the sidelighting trick to make them look like positives), but
> color negatives are always a surprise when scanned.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
One thing I do with LF is take two images of the same set up, one
negative one on slide film....gives me a reference for scanning and
printing. In theory if I flub the slide exposure I still have the
negative because the film is shot at 100 versus the rating of 160.
Q.G. de Bakker
> > I'm pointing out that grain is part of photography.
>
> Not my photography.
You must not be using film then?
> No, I use films and film formats such that the grain is not visible in the
> print sizes I target.
So it is part of your photography too. (Obviously, since it is part of
photography).
A part you're trying to hide.
;-)
> >> Grain noise is completely irrelevant to the representation of the
> >> subject.
> >
> > Not so. It is not a quality of the subject itself.
>
> That's silly: there's no grain in the subject.
That's why it says "not"...
Read again. ;-)
> Maybe you should choose a format that's more appropriate to the size
prints
> you target.
Why?
And where to stop? Maybe i should choose a medium that has better colour
space too? And that is not plagued by the sharp-unsharp issuee either? And
...
I like photography. And all (!) it entails.
> > Grain is like a painter's brush. It can be (and has been) used as an
> > artistic tool too.
>
> No painter paints with that heavy a hand.
Come again?
> You put a roll of Tri-X in your
> Leica. Every shot has the same texture everywhere. There's nothing
artistic
> about that.
Not to you.
Texture (grain) can be, and has been, put to good use.
That you don't like it is something else entirely.
Neil Gould
> In article <432738e0$0$44290$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl>,
> Q.G. de Bakker <q...@tiscali.nl> wrote:
>> no_name wrote:
>>
>>> AFAIK, color positive is still the standard for publication.
>>
>> AFAIK digital files are in demand these days.
>> Negs scan very well, offer the larger latitude. longer tonal range,
>> etc.
>
> I disagree - I've never liked the colour I get from negatives -
> always seems very dull compared to slides, and I alsofind that
> scanned stuff has the worst noise in the dark areas of the
> slide/negative. For slides this is fine, because it's, er, dark. For
> negatives, it's a serious pain in the arse, because you end up
> inverting the luminance, which means the noisiest bits of your scan
> are the bright bits - nasty mottled skies and grainy highlights.
>
(rest snipped for brevity)
I agree with your observations about scanned film, both positives and
negatives. However, I see that as an artifact of scanning, rather than a
detrimental quality of film, per se. Film was not designed to be scanned,
and most of today's scanners are not designed to scan negatives properly.
Slides are a better match for the low to mid-range scanning process than
negatives.
Slides are popular for reproduction for all of the reasons that have been
mentioned in other responses, plus at least one that I haven't seen yet;
standard b&w and process color print methods have an even more restrictive
color and tonal range than slides, so in that usage there is no advantage
to using negatives.
Printed optically, one doesn't typically get mottled skies or grainy
highlights from negatives (high-speed film excepted). Compared to the
compressed highlights and shadows that one gets from slides (and even
worse from digital), negatives provide far better tonal gradation, a
desirable quality IMO.
Regards,
Neil
Neil Gould
> "Q.G. de Bakker" <q...@tiscali.nl> wrote:
>> When you made the choice of using photography, made the choice of
>> using film, you chose grain too.
>
> No, I use films and film formats such that the grain is not visible
> in the print sizes I target.
>
"To grain, or not..." that is an artistic decision; you choose not, which
is OK. Others see grain in an entirely different light (pun intended), as
it adds a textural quality to the rendering of the scene that may enhance
the vision that the photographer had.
>>> Grain noise is completely irrelevant to the representation of the
>>> subject.
>>
>> Not so. It is not a quality of the subject itself.
>
> That's silly: there's no grain in the subject.
>
Ummm, I think you are in agreement with Q.G., here. ;-)
>> Grain is like a painter's brush. It can be (and has been) used as an
>> artistic tool too.
>
> No painter paints with that heavy a hand.
>
Well, that's a bit overly broad. There are *many* "heavy handed" painters,
and even some styles that require it. Gordon would be a better person to
elaborate on such things.
> You put a roll of Tri-X in
> your Leica. Every shot has the same texture everywhere. There's
> nothing artistic about that.
>
Regardless of what the intentions of the photographer might be? Isn't it
about the final image, and if so, how can it *not* be artistic?
Neil
Wai-Ming Ho
>>>Grain is like a painter's brush. It can be (and has been) used as an
>>>artistic tool too.
>>
>>No painter paints with that heavy a hand.
>>
>
> Well, that's a bit overly broad. There are *many* "heavy handed" painters,
> and even some styles that require it. Gordon would be a better person to
> elaborate on such things.
>
And even light handed masterpieces of Georges Seurat can show a lot of
each brush stroke....
Lorem Ipsum
news:1126663221.6...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>[...] I enjoy a certain level of
> grain, especially when a lot of my favorite photographs exhibit it
> prominently.
Grain can give apparent sharpness to certain subjects that fine-grain film
cannot.
Lorem Ipsum
> exposure can one not?
If subject contrast is an issue with reversal film in MF and LF, and
depending upon degree of enlargement, I suggest y'all try Tiffen's (yes,
Tiffen) contrast filters. I first used them for digital video because the
horrible range of DV blows highlights so easily (even on the Canon XL2). I
used them on the 'blad a few times with good results.
Lorem Ipsum
news:dg8o3a$54d$1...@nnrp.gol.com...
>
> What does grain photography do for you? It's not an artistic tool, it's
> just noise.
In some cases, the dislike of grain is a cultural thing, but it remains a
fact of human perception that grain can enhance apparent sharpness.
Lorem Ipsum
news:4327f058$0$67724$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl...
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>> Grain noise is completely irrelevant to the representation of the
>> subject.
>
> Not so. It is not a quality of the subject itself.
> But it's part of photography and any photographic representation of any
> subject.
True, hence the inclusion of "add grain" to Photoshop. It does not work like
real grain, of course, but most digimaniacs can't tell. Pity them.
Lorem Ipsum
> No painter paints with that heavy a hand. You put a roll of Tri-X in your
> Leica. Every shot has the same texture everywhere. There's nothing
> artistic about that.
You are speaking of the medium revealing its nature. It is incorrect to say
that no painter exploits the texture of paint. It is three dimensional.
Paint's texture is accommodated by the artist's technique. It is critical to
his work.
Grain in 35mm is not evenly distributed. Not one bit. It is not like laying
a digital pattern over an otherwise smooth image.
Gregory Blank
> Grain can give apparent sharpness to certain subjects that fine-grain film
> cannot.
Be a nice "troll" and give the readers some examples.
Dave the Guy
limit using my flatbed canon 8400F scanner) would limit how sharp an
image can be. On my budget I couldn't get the nicer 9950F model which
can go up to 4800dpi.
I've read the scan theory/techniques/science websites, but I haven't
been able to master it quite yet. My 35mm astia slides never seem to
scan as well as I'd like them to. They look a lot nicer through a loop
on a light box than when scanned. Any advice on your process?
Currently nervously waiting for the UPS guy to come in through the
office door!
Gregory Blank
"Neil Gould" <ne...@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
> >
> "To grain, or not..." that is an artistic decision; you choose not, which
> is OK. Others see grain in an entirely different light (pun intended), as
> it adds a textural quality to the rendering of the scene that may enhance
> the vision that the photographer had.
I agree with your take on this, although I am in David's corner on
personal dislike of grain...but I have an open mind and don't rule out
at some point seeing imagery where it might work.
> Well, that's a bit overly broad. There are *many* "heavy handed" painters,
> and even some styles that require it. Gordon would be a better person to
> elaborate on such things.
Somewhat awkwardly stated,...could imply Gordon is a heavy handed
painter, that isn't what you implied is it? <g>
Gregory Blank
"Neil Gould" <ne...@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
>
> Printed optically, one doesn't typically get mottled skies or grainy
> highlights from negatives (high-speed film excepted).
Unless one is a really crappy darkroom worker.
> Compared to the
> compressed highlights and shadows that one gets from slides (and even
> worse from digital), negatives provide far better tonal gradation, a
> desirable quality IMO.
Right on - and the resolution sure seems a lot higher, colors 10-20% or
more, more brilliant without being artificial in saturation.. by making
optical prints,....that is if one is a skilled chemical printer or
knows someone that is. Of course I do use modern enlarging lenses.
Neil Gould
> "Neil Gould" <ne...@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
>>>
>> "To grain, or not..." that is an artistic decision; you choose not,
>> which is OK. Others see grain in an entirely different light (pun
>> intended), as it adds a textural quality to the rendering of the
>> scene that may enhance the vision that the photographer had.
>
> I agree with your take on this, although I am in David's corner on
> personal dislike of grain...but I have an open mind and don't rule out
> at some point seeing imagery where it might work.
>
Whether one likes or dislikes an image that exhibits grain is one thing,
while whether it "works" or not is perhaps best determined by the
intentions of the creator of that image. I may not "get it" when looking
at such images, but that only means that it didn't "work" for me. ;-)
>> Well, that's a bit overly broad. There are *many* "heavy handed"
>> painters, and even some styles that require it. Gordon would be a
>> better person to elaborate on such things.
>
> Somewhat awkwardly stated,...could imply Gordon is a heavy handed
> painter, that isn't what you implied is it? <g>
>
It wasn't my original thought, but I suppose that the validity of such an
implication depends on in which forum one finds Gordon's commentary...
;-)
Neil
David J. Littleboy
"Gregory Blank" <greg@greg_____photo.com> wrote:
> "Neil Gould" <ne...@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
>> >
>> "To grain, or not..." that is an artistic decision; you choose not, which
>> is OK. Others see grain in an entirely different light (pun intended), as
>> it adds a textural quality to the rendering of the scene that may enhance
>> the vision that the photographer had.
>
> I agree with your take on this, although I am in David's corner on
> personal dislike of grain...but I have an open mind and don't rule out
> at some point seeing imagery where it might work.
To my eye, grainy images that work, work in spite of the grain, not because
of it.
One such image I saw the other day was a 35mm IR shot of
the remains of the dome that serves as the memorial to the atomic bombing of
Hiroshima. The stark contrast in the sky, the bright foliage, and the
extreme wide angle lens he shot it with made it (IMHO) the definitive image
of the memorial. All that _in spite of_ the grain from the 35mm IR film. The
grain detracted from the image, but the image flies anyway. (All the other
images in this guy's exhibit were shot with a 'blad and didn't show any
grain.) The friend I saw the show with, though, didn't like the dome image;
he thought it too extreme.
Dave the Guy
meter seems to be checking out so far. Wow! I thought my old Cosina
m42 slr was solid, this thing is like a work of art...in the shape of a
brick!
First test roll: Tri-X 400
:-) I'm all smiles on this one.
no_name
> no_name wrote:
>
>
>>>Using slide film only makes life difficult.
>>
>>Unless you got a buyer who prefers slides.
>
>
> You would have to shoot slides then, yes. Obviously.
> But would it not make life more difficult...? ;-)
>
Embrace adversity and overcome it. That's where the fun is.
If it was easy, anyone could do it.
henryp
Q.G. de Bakker wrote:
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>
> > You are confusing controlled abstraction with the imposition of noise.
>
> Not at all.
> I'm pointing out that grain is part of photography.
> When you made the choice of using photography, made the choice of using
> film, you chose grain too.
Funny thing is a few years ago Sunpak had a product called "Prograin"
which was inserted into a 35mm camera and made the images look more
grainy for thos eof us who liked the way film looked before they
improved all the character out of it.
Henry Posner
B&H Photo-Videol, Inc.
henryp
Q.G. de Bakker wrote:
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>
> > You are confusing controlled abstraction with the imposition of noise.
>
> Not at all.
> I'm pointing out that grain is part of photography.
> When you made the choice of using photography, made the choice of using
> film, you chose grain too.
Funny thing is a few years ago Sunpak had a product called "Prograin"
which was inserted into a 35mm camera and made the images look more
grainy for thos eof us who liked the way film looked before they
improved all the character out of it.
Henry Posner
B&H Photo-Video, Inc.
Gordon Moat
> Recently, David J. Littleboy <dav...@gol.com> posted:
>
> > "Q.G. de Bakker" <q...@tiscali.nl> wrote:
> . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>
> >> Grain is like a painter's brush. It can be (and has been) used as an
> >> artistic tool too.
> >
> > No painter paints with that heavy a hand.
> >
> Well, that's a bit overly broad. There are *many* "heavy handed" painters,
> and even some styles that require it. Gordon would be a better person to
> elaborate on such things.
Oh sure Neil, drag me into this. ;-)
Okay, texture control in oil painting is an aspect of expression, and can
convey upon a viewer a certain mood or feeling. One side issue is that
reproductions of paintings rarely show that texture. Anyone who has seen a
van Gogh painting in person will get to see how heavily applied (seemingly
so) the paints are on the canvas. Reproductions of van Gogh works seem much
more flat.
However, I would not put grain in film prints in the same realm. Sure, they
can convey a mood or feeling, though it is usually to create an association
to something the viewer may already be familiar. An example is that older
film images have this grain, so a new image with grain could seem to have a
look of a time in the past. While that is maybe not the best example, I think
most here might understand that.
Regardless, when you compare grain in a photo print to texture of oil paints
on a canvas, the feeling is very different for the viewer. When the viewer of
an oil painting can see the brush strokes, or the way the paint was applied,
the viewer can get a sense of the feeling and thoughts the painter might have
expressed while creating that painting. Those could be concentrated, angry,
elated, or perhaps something else the viewer imagines. The three dimensional
nature of brush strokes and peaks and valleys of oil paint on canvas is very
different than grain in photo prints. WIth grain in photo prints, that grain
alone does not convey any feeling of the mode to the photographer when
creating that image, and that it a fundamental difference.
>
>
> > You put a roll of Tri-X in
> > your Leica. Every shot has the same texture everywhere. There's
> > nothing artistic about that.
> >
> Regardless of what the intentions of the photographer might be? Isn't it
> about the final image, and if so, how can it *not* be artistic?
I don't agree entirely with David, though he has a point. If I used Delta
3200, it was because that film worked well in very low light conditions. A
side aspect of using that film is that grain will be apparent. Knowing that
the grain is not avoidable with that film, it can influence what I choose to
photograph. In some ways that is an expression, though if you look at it from
the perspective David implies, then it is an unavoidable consequence of
grainy film.
I see film choices much like choosing brushes, palette knives, and various
oil paints. These choices will influence the composition, and are the
artistic expression, or the language of creative imagery. While it is easy to
change that expression on a canvas, since oils are very workable, it is much
tougher to change to what might be a more appropriate film. In other words,
it would be possible to be confronted with a brief moment, and a desire to
capture that scene on film, though if one is constrained to the film in the
camera (maybe not the best choice) the scene might end up not being expressed
in the best possible manner. Planned photo shoots can turn out better due to
the fact we can choose our films ahead of time.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
Gordon Moat
> In article <Y5UVe.474$jS...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>,
> "Neil Gould" <ne...@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
> > >
> > "To grain, or not..." that is an artistic decision; you choose not, which
> > is OK. Others see grain in an entirely different light (pun intended), as
> > it adds a textural quality to the rendering of the scene that may enhance
> > the vision that the photographer had.
>
> I agree with your take on this, although I am in David's corner on
> personal dislike of grain...but I have an open mind and don't rule out
> at some point seeing imagery where it might work.
>
> > Well, that's a bit overly broad. There are *many* "heavy handed" painters,
> > and even some styles that require it. Gordon would be a better person to
> > elaborate on such things.
>
> Somewhat awkwardly stated,...could imply Gordon is a heavy handed
> painter, that isn't what you implied is it? <g>
While it does not come across in the samples I have posted on my web site, in
fact he is somewhat correct. My painting style involves very heavy application
of paint. If you saw one of my works in person, the surface quality is very
dimensional on most. This is also one of the reasons why I only use oil paints,
not acrylics, since I like that texture and layering.
Gordon Moat
Oh come on now . . . what were you really thinking when you typed that?
Okay, so just to give an example, or two:
<http://www.allgstudio.com/paint/Vincent.jpg> This painting has enough
surface texture that if you ran your hand over the paint, the tactile
quality might almost leave marks. I think it is appropriate for this
composition, and a smooth rendition would not convey the same feeling for
someone viewing it in person.
<http://www.allgstudio.com/paint/Chair.gif> The left panel is very rough
texture, and some brush strokes and palette knife applications of paint
impart a feeling of the actual object suggested in the composition. The
right panel is very smooth in comparison, much like the subject matter. The
texture of one side contrasts the smoothness of the other. That contrast
also is conveyed in the choice of warm colours on the left panel, and cool
colours on the right panel. Done as two photos, perhaps the left panel would
be grainy and high contrast, while the right panel would be absent of grain,
and almost cold in palette.
Unfortunately, it would be much better to see these in person. The feeling
of the textures sort of disappears in the JPEGs.
Neil Gould
> Neil Gould wrote:
> (in response to David L's statement re: heavy-handed painters)
>>
>>>> Well, that's a bit overly broad. There are *many* "heavy handed"
>>>> painters, and even some styles that require it. Gordon would be a
>>>> better person to elaborate on such things.
>>>
>>> Somewhat awkwardly stated,...could imply Gordon is a heavy handed
>>> painter, that isn't what you implied is it? <g>
>>>
>> It wasn't my original thought, but I suppose that the validity of
>> such an implication depends on in which forum one finds Gordon's
>> commentary... ;-)
>>
>> Neil
>
> Oh come on now . . . what were you really thinking when you typed
> that?
>
I was thinking that, as a painter, you'd be far better qualified to speak
to the issue of heavy-handed techniques. I've seen many examples, and know
that it adds another dimension to the image (pun intended) that can be
quite artistically relevant.
> Okay, so just to give an example, or two:
>
Thanks for those...
Regards,
Neil
Neil Gould
> "Gregory Blank" <greg@greg_____photo.com> wrote:
Not having seen this image and not being familiar with the territory, my
comments about it are purely speculative, but, after having thought about
it from your description, were I to have photographed this scene, I may
have used the extreme wide angle to imply an expanding landscape, and the
IR and grain to imply radioactive interaction of the film. Since the scene
is current, the juxtaposition of these elements would enhance the meaning
of the image. The same scene shot "flat" or with normal film would not
convey these ideas, and therefore the *lack* of grain would detract from
the image.
Different strokes...
Regards,
Neil
Lorem Ipsum
> Not having seen this image and not being familiar with the territory, my
> comments about it are purely speculative, but, after having thought about
> it from your description, were I to have photographed this scene, I may
> have used the extreme wide angle to imply an expanding landscape, and the
> IR and grain to imply radioactive [...]
Wow, we have gone beyond impressionistic speculation to pretend picture
making. The circle is complete.
Dave the Guy
chasfs
claimed resolution. There's a big difference between a dedicated mf
film scanner and a flatbed. I use a Microtek 120tf, which aside from
its lacking an ir channel, is similar in resolution to the Nikon 8000.
I actually think the Microtek does slightly better in the shadow
detail, but both are very usable for mf. Both of these scanners claim
that they are 4000 DPI, and I do notice a difference scanning at 4000
vs 3200, but see http://www.jamesphotography.ca/scanner_test.html for
the Scanner Bake-Off. You have to click on the 2004 or 2005 links to
see the results. For some comparisons between formats, see
http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/ and
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/drum.vs.flatbed-scanners/index.html
One more thing to consider in your film choice - if you shoot with
color film, you can turn it into black and white in Photoshop. This
lets you play around with the digital equivalent of different filters
after the image has been captured.
Now, more advice on my process. When you scan at 4000DPI and zoom in
up to 1600% with Photoshop, along the way you'll get a sense of just
how good your lens/film/scanner system is. With the very best 35mm
lenses and slide film you may need to scan at 5000+ DPI to really get
all of the detail. However, grain gets in the way with any film and
how you deal with it determines how you scan. For me, I have less
work in Photoshop and usually don't require Neat Image, to remove
noise, when I use Fuji Astia 100 slide film in my Pentax 6x7, and scan
at 3200dpi on my 120tf. I should mention, I bought a glass film
holder for the 120tf - it holds the film flatter, which makes a
difference. Also, please consider, if you want to make a really large
image, some of the medium format lenses, especially the older ones,
don't work all that well. There is mtf data on the web for many lenses
- i can't vouch for all of the data, but it is a starting point.
And finally, I've been making fairly large prints for about 5 years
now. I don't do it full time, but have learned a lot by trying things
out. There's a tendency early on to try to use all of the tools at your
disposal, but what I find is a very light touch yields the best
results. I use a tripod virtually all the time and clean the slides
well before scanning. I'm using Photoshop 5 LE and Silverfast 6.2.1r2.
Right after scanning I save the file, using jpeg with the max quality.
With 50+ megapixel images, I don't see any advantage to using
uncompressed image formats. The first thing I do is rotate the image
to get a true horizontal horizon. I may do perspecitve correction at
this time, but have to use something other than Photoshop 5LE. I clean
things up with the clone tool and may blur the sky (especially with
print film), using a gaussian blur. Astia requires less work in the
sky than most other films. I adjust brightness and contrast, and may
add a touch of saturation. I crop and uprez to print size, at 360 dpi,
using bicubic. Once I get to print size, I zoom in so the monitor
matches the print size (33% zoom in my system) and then may use a touch
of unsharp mask - starting with amount 100%, radius 1.5 pixels,
Threshold 0 or 1 levels.
I then make a test print. As long as I've been doing this it often
takes 2 or 3 big prints to get it right. You just don't notice
everything on the monitor that you see in a 24x30. I hope this helps -
and good luck with the new camera!
Peace,
-chasfs
http://chasfs.com
Dave the Guy
All I've been doing has been adjusting a bit of contrast and sharpness,
although I'm not proficient enough with PS or Silverfast to really do a
good job.
As far as scanners go, I've had luck printing pretty decent 20x30"
images from 35mm negs, even when using a jpg to print instead of an
uncompressed file (the jpg is highest quality though).
If you feel like it, please check out some of the photos on my page and
see what you think I should improve on as far as scan quality goes.
Before you comment on the dust, I should warn you, I'm a lazy lazy man
who does this for his own pleasure. A bit of lint never bothers me.
You can tell film scans from print scans because the full view sizes
are much MUCH larger.
Dave the Guy
I opted to shoot Tmax 400 first, HP5+ second (currently going through
the roll), and TriX third. I'm working on shooting the Arcos 100 for a
special project this weekend (product shots) so that will be last.
My negs will be ready tomorrow.
chasfs
125percent" - great job!
The scan looks good, but I'm not sure if the color balance is quite
right. Not much detail in the dark parts of her hair. What
camera/lens/film/scanner?
Peace,
-chasfs
http://chasfs.com
Gregory Blank
Gordon Moat <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Oh come on now . . . what were you really thinking when you typed that?
>
> Okay, so just to give an example, or two:
>
> <http://www.allgstudio.com/paint/Vincent.jpg> This painting has enough
> surface texture that if you ran your hand over the paint, the tactile
> quality might almost leave marks. I think it is appropriate for this
> composition, and a smooth rendition would not convey the same feeling for
> someone viewing it in person.
>
> <http://www.allgstudio.com/paint/Chair.gif> The left panel is very rough
> texture, and some brush strokes and palette knife applications of paint
> impart a feeling of the actual object suggested in the composition. The
> right panel is very smooth in comparison, much like the subject matter. The
> texture of one side contrasts the smoothness of the other. That contrast
> also is conveyed in the choice of warm colours on the left panel, and cool
> colours on the right panel. Done as two photos, perhaps the left panel would
> be grainy and high contrast, while the right panel would be absent of grain,
> and almost cold in palette.
>
> Unfortunately, it would be much better to see these in person. The feeling
> of the textures sort of disappears in the JPEGs.
>
> Ciao!
>
> Gordon Moat
> A G Studio
> <http://www.allgstudio.com>
As a fellow painter and photographer when I hear "heavy handed"
I think Kludge, instead of applying thickness to ones work for textural
effect as you do.
Frank Pittel
: "Peter" <pir...@ktb.net> wrote:
: >
: > Tri-X 400 is the film I shoot more than any other in 6x6.
: > You can see the grain on an 8x10 (at least when developed
: > in D-76 1:1), but it is nice fine grain.
: It's nice to see someone admitting that Tri-x is grainy at 8x10 in MF<g>.
: But I don't want to see grain in my prints. Period. Ever. It wasn't in the
: subject, and shouldn't be in the print.
I've had people tell me that grain can be a good thing in a print and I've seen
a print where the grain "worked" in the print. Otherwise I agree with you about
grain. I don't like it and I don't want to see it in my prints!!
: > A little bit of grain can be a good thing.
: I don't get grain. With grain, every surface has exactly the same texture,
: that of the grain, regardless of the actual texture of the subject.
: Photography should be about the subject, not the medium.
: >> Fuji Neopan 100
: >
: > I assume you mean Acros. Both Fuji Acros and Kodak TMax 100 (similar
: > films) are really nice in Xtol 1:1. They appear completely grainless
: > on 8x10 enlargements even when I look really close.
: There are two Fuji ISO 100 films: one's a TMAX clone, the other's a Plus-X
: clone. Both are spoken well of.
I know a few people that have gotten very good results with the Fuji films.
--
-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
Frank Pittel
: "Q.G. de Bakker" <q...@tiscali.nl> wrote in message
I never noticed the filter in photoshop. Of course since I don't like seeing
grain in prints made in a wet darkroom why would I want it from PS?? :-)
Frank Pittel
:
: > Grain can give apparent sharpness to certain subjects that fine-grain film
: > cannot.
: Be a nice "troll" and give the readers some examples.
AA gives a good example of it in his book The Negative. Of course the solution
is to use a "sharp" and low grain film such as Tmax-100 and be done with it. :-)
Dave the Guy
I didn't do any color correction on that one (or Joe's portrait
either), probably a straight scan from the negative as I do with most
scans. The colors might not look entirely natural because I took the
photos about half an hour until the sun was setting and was shining
nearly horizontally through one of the streets. It was a very orange
sunset. I'm guessing that with such a strong light source there was a
huge amount of contrast between the dark and light.
That was shot with an old Vivitar 220SL (Cosina STL1000, with a Sears
(most likely a rebranded ricoh) 50/1.4f on , scanned using a Canon
8400F at 3200dpi using the software that came with it. An odd note
about the lens: It's a nice old heavy lens with glass that's turned
sepia due to (I'm hypothesizing) radioactive elements. The smaller the
aperture the more sepia is introduced into the image, kind of a neat
quirk. I enjoy shooting wide open though, or as wide open as possible,
which might explain the soft images.
Gordon Moat
Okay, that makes a bit more sense. Thought I was missing something.
David J. Littleboy
"Gordon Moat" <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> Gregory Blank wrote:
>>
>> As a fellow painter and photographer when I hear "heavy handed"
>>
>> I think Kludge, instead of applying thickness to ones work for textural
>> effect as you do.
>
> Okay, that makes a bit more sense. Thought I was missing something.
What I meant by "heavy handed" was something on the order of "doing exactly
the same thing not only everywhere in a given image but in every image
without the artist making any artistic decisions whatsoever". I suppose
"heavy handed" isn't exactly the right term; I'm objecting to the same
texture appearing everywhere; that's not what happens when an artist uses
heavy oil paints; in that case, the artist is making artistic decisions at
every point in the work; there's nothing heavy-handed about that.
Gordon Moat
Having known a few photographers who mainly used one film for everything, I
sort of agree with that view. Some of those individuals have a very narrow
style and range of subject matter. However, when there chosen film is used
outside of their normal approach, then it can adversely affect the tone (mood)
of the images.
I use a wide variety of films, so hopefully I manage to avoid that problem.
With my paintings I do work the oils differently in different areas of the
canvas, and often change texture and application as I go. Much tougher to
shift around like that in photography.
Neil Gould
> exactly the same thing not only everywhere in a given image but in
> every image without the artist making any artistic decisions
> whatsoever". I suppose "heavy handed" isn't exactly the right term;
> I'm objecting to the same texture appearing everywhere; that's not
> what happens when an artist uses heavy oil paints; in that case, the
> artist is making artistic decisions at every point in the work;
> there's nothing heavy-handed about that.
>
shot on the roll may have the same color balance and idiosyncracies of the
chosen film, without the artist making any artistic decisions. ;-)
Or that buys mainly one kind of paper; uses the same photo printer for all
their prints; etc.
Does the medium really determine whether an image rises to the level of
being art, or, conversely that the user can not possibly be artistic in
their use of a medium?
Neil
Michael Benveniste
> Wow, so everyone passed on Tri-X in favor of another kodak b&w? I
> always thought of Tri-X as being the "norm" as that's what I used on
> the teacher's recommendation way back in high school.
I'm still a Tri-X person when it comes to ISO 320/400/etc traditional
B&W film. But if I'm going to the effort of shooting medium format,
typically I'll use a slower film as well. Since I don't do my own
darkroom work, my choices for medium format B&W film are TMax 100 or
Ilford Delta 100.
--
Michael Benveniste -- mhb-...@clearether.com
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.
no_name
> "Dave the Guy" <hairles...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Wow, so everyone passed on Tri-X in favor of another kodak b&w? I
>>always thought of Tri-X as being the "norm" as that's what I used on
>>the teacher's recommendation way back in high school.
>
>
> I'm still a Tri-X person when it comes to ISO 320/400/etc traditional
> B&W film. But if I'm going to the effort of shooting medium format,
> typically I'll use a slower film as well. Since I don't do my own
> darkroom work, my choices for medium format B&W film are TMax 100 or
> Ilford Delta 100.
>
If you don't do your own darkroom, you ought to at least experiment with
some of the cromogenic (C41 process) B&W films. They may not suit, but
then again they might.
Michael Benveniste
wrote:
>If you don't do your own darkroom, you ought to at least experiment with
>some of the cromogenic (C41 process) B&W films. They may not suit, but
>then again they might.
Since Kodak has given me 7 rolls of the stuff on various promotions
(first Supra 400 B&W, most recently BW400CN), I've tried it with
mixed results. It has less "grain" (or what ever you want to call
it on C-41) than Tri-X, but it also gives me fewer options to tame
contrast. But for certain landscape shots, BW400CN is quite nice.
The "trick" I use is to compose the subject as I would for Tri-X, but
light the scene as I would for Supra 400.
Your suggestion is a good one. There's a real tendency to reject
chromogenic films out of hand as "fake" B&W. If you treat them
like they hybrids they are, they will reward your efforts.
Bandicoot
news:dgcpn5$b41$1...@nnrp.gol.com...
I agree about painting, but: grain in a photograph does _not_ apply the same
texture everywhere. It is very different between highlights and shadows, so
your statement is somewhat disingenuous.
Also, while it may be an abrogation of one artistic choice to choose the
same film and same grain for every image, why deny that it may be an
artistic choice - even if one you dislike - to choose a particular film,
grainy or otherwise, for a particular subject?
Peter
Bandicoot
news:4328AFE4...@attglobal.net...
[SNIP]
> This is also one of the reasons why I only use oil paints, not
> acrylics, since I like that texture and layering.
>
Do you feel that the stiffer acrylic media and texture pastes still don't
give this effect? I'm curious - or is it just that acrylic loses some
luminosity when too much medium has to be added?
Peter
Gordon Moat
I use to joke about people using acrylics in my painting classes in college,
comments like "easter egg colours" or stuff like that. Honestly, I have seen
some very nice works in acrylic. It is possible to get some dimensional
aspect to working acrylics, though the actual layering does not work the
same as with oils. Oils are translucent, so the underlying colour always
affects the appearance, while with acrylics they are more opaque so that
unless very watered down don't combine in a lighting affect in the same
manner as oil paints. I suppose I could call it a luminous quality of oils,
compared to a vibrancy of acrylics.
Acrylic paints can be better for illustration, or works that need to be
reproduced. The colours and pigments lend themselves more easily to copy and
reproduction. Oil paints can be worked in a way that the colours fall out of
the realm of the majority of films, or of direct digital capture, or even
printing inks, so are tougher to reproduce. The qualities that some like in
oil paintings can make them tougher to copy for a run of prints or posters.
Finally, I like the blending ability much better with oils. Acrylics can be
faked to blending effect, though the colours really do remain very separate.
I rarely ever mistake a work in acrylics for one done with oils, I find the
differences that obvious.