Godfrey
Well-known member
Contax Tix - Kodak Advantix B&W 400
Nikon LS-40, Lightroom processing
flickr page: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdgphoto/3579077139/
Comments always appreciated.
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
more film: "Resistance"
- Thread starter Godfrey
- Start date
Contax Tix - Kodak Advantix B&W 400
Nikon LS-40, Lightroom processing
flickr page: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdgphoto/3579077139/
Comments always appreciated.
D
ddk
Guest
If I may Godfrey, your scans look over processed, a shame if you're using film imo. Besides no detail in your blacks, you even wiped out all detail from her hair in the first one.
The outdated small format 400 film can have some interesting grain!
The outdated small format 400 film can have some interesting grain!
N
nei1
Guest
Nice to see someone else giving film a go,I dont know what this film is but it seems to show ths same characteristics as the c41 b and w films;great unsubtlety in the blacks and disapointing grain........this is not a comment on the photos..........best to you,neil.
schweikert
New member
I have a Nikon Coolscan 5 and since the Nikon scanning is so flaky on a Mac, I use Vuescan which does a better job. With b&w, it helps to get as broad a scan as possible, flat, with lots of detail and then work a curve in PS or even LR to flavor. These web images don't do much for me. I think keeping in mind what a great b&w chemical print looks like helps to have a reference when going to any form of digital b&w.
The content doesn't work for me, with the trash can, car and forced pose. But everyone has different tastes. Shooting volume with lots of experimentation is the key to finding what works and what doesn't.
The content doesn't work for me, with the trash can, car and forced pose. But everyone has different tastes. Shooting volume with lots of experimentation is the key to finding what works and what doesn't.
Godfrey
Well-known member
I use a Nikon Coolscan IV ED with VueScan on Mac OS X, I've been scanning film since 1993. I assure you, the tonal scale and detailing I chose was quite intentional ... I scanned this one several times to obtain scan data that would develop exactly the look I was going for, and I'm quite happy with how it prints. ;-)
And that is perfect, the kind of commentary that I expect from someone critiquing a photograph.
Thank you!
schweikert
New member
Godfrey,
Certainly not intending to offend you on your scanning skills. Looking at your website,if you scanned all those, then I would say you are very proficient at the craft, but looking at the example in this thread just doesn't represent your skills IMO.
It's perfectly fine if the tones are intentional, just as a viewer they don't convey that.
I have judged a lot of student work (in addition to judging working photogs' images) over the years and it only takes a split second to get a feel of whether someone knows what they're doing. Your website and that body of work conveys "you know what you're doing", this image just didn't, that's all.
Your hotel image in the other thread, now that's a very nice photo in both color and b&w. I look forward to more of your images.
Certainly not intending to offend you on your scanning skills. Looking at your website,if you scanned all those, then I would say you are very proficient at the craft, but looking at the example in this thread just doesn't represent your skills IMO.
It's perfectly fine if the tones are intentional, just as a viewer they don't convey that.
I have judged a lot of student work (in addition to judging working photogs' images) over the years and it only takes a split second to get a feel of whether someone knows what they're doing. Your website and that body of work conveys "you know what you're doing", this image just didn't, that's all.
Your hotel image in the other thread, now that's a very nice photo in both color and b&w. I look forward to more of your images.
Last edited:
Godfrey
Well-known member
You're not doing a very good job with your intent.
I don't know what website you are looking at, but everything on Flickr or gdgphoto.com aside from the photograph of the hotel in the other thread, the self-portrait I posted the other day, and this diptych is digital capture.
I have not shot film since 2004 and have not posted any of the scans I've made since then other than this stuff, and a couple of frames in 2007 that are off on my old personal website. (Most of what I've scanned since 2004 has been for clients and is their property, not mine to show...) Everything else on these websites is from 2005 and later, exclusively digital capture.
You should have stopped after the first sentence in this quote. Why is it so difficult to simply say, "This photograph doesn't appeal to me, I dislike the tonal qualities and rendering"? or "It looks nice but there's nothing in it that commands my attention?"
---
These are a couple of ancient 35mm film scans from around 9 years ago. Enjoy them.
Nikon F2, 1982
Nikon FM, 1981
They're not for comment.
schweikert
New member
OK Godfrey,
You're the one saying you have scanning skills dating back 16 years, so I only assumed your website work was mostly film, seems a reasonable assumption. The original image simply doesn't demonstrate said skills in the technical/scanning capabilities. That's all I was trying to say. I apologize if it didn't come across in a constructive way.
I owned an Imacon and learned how to bleed as much from that machine as I could. I know scanning quite well and am getting back to it again with more recent film work.
I am always looking to learn and looking to help. If you are happy with the above scan, wonderful, then that's all that matters.
Ciao.
You're the one saying you have scanning skills dating back 16 years, so I only assumed your website work was mostly film, seems a reasonable assumption. The original image simply doesn't demonstrate said skills in the technical/scanning capabilities. That's all I was trying to say. I apologize if it didn't come across in a constructive way.
I owned an Imacon and learned how to bleed as much from that machine as I could. I know scanning quite well and am getting back to it again with more recent film work.
I am always looking to learn and looking to help. If you are happy with the above scan, wonderful, then that's all that matters.
Ciao.
Godfrey
Well-known member
Actually, I started scanning (and using film recorders) while I worked for NASA in the 1980s, but I have been scanning my own film since 1992. Yes, I know how to use an Imacon too ... I teach other people how to use them.
Bad to assume.
There you go again. Get off your high horsey. For someone with so much skill in scanning, why can't you get it through your head that the RENDERING is independent of the SCANNING? I can make the picture appear any way I want to ... I CHOSE this way of rendering the photograph.
You don't like it? That's fine. Implying something about my scanning skills on the way this photo looks is not only insulting and wrong, it isn't even a logical thing to do.
If you want to learn something, learn not to judge other people's skills based on foolish assumptions and incorrect premises.
Last edited: