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 and more film fun with something other than a Leica M

mathomas

Active member
Here are a few from Twin Lakes, CO. I shot a roll of color (Ektar) too, but the B&W came out especially well (if I do say so myself). All shot with the Fuji GW690III on Delta 100, 2x yellow filter, "sunny 16" exposure. I used a monopod on all shots. I don't have a suitable scanner for 120, so I've been doing lab dev/scan on my MF film. Not sure what they use.













Slideshow of all 8 shots from the roll.


Thanks for looking!
 

Cindy Flood

Super Moderator
Drazin, Amazing.
ScottG, I really like all of the Holga shots, but the double exposure is really cool.
Mike, The landscapes look great in black and white, especially the first. The lab scans are just a little too sharpened for my taste.
 

mathomas

Active member
Drazin, Amazing.
ScottG, I really like all of the Holga shots, but the double exposure is really cool.
Mike, The landscapes look great in black and white, especially the first. The lab scans are just a little too sharpened for my taste.
Thanks Cindy. I'm pretty sure I didn't add additional sharpening, so thanks for mentioning that they appear too sharpened. Not sure if it's the lab scan, or whatever flickr does to uploads. I do hate relying on others to get the quality right. I was also a very contrasty day, shooting with a yellow filter, etc, so I'm not surprised that they're very contrasty. I ordered a 16x24" print from my zenfolio site, and while the print looks nice from a few feet it's definitely not what it should be. It shows digital artifacts close-up, and the whites are blown clear out. I'm going to have a same-size wet print made of it at my local family-owned lab to see what I can get from the original negative (though again, I'm at the mercy of someone else, since I don't have a wet darkroom).
 

Cindy Flood

Super Moderator
Thanks Cindy. I'm pretty sure I didn't add additional sharpening, so thanks for mentioning that they appear too sharpened. Not sure if it's the lab scan, or whatever flickr does to uploads. I do hate relying on others to get the quality right. I was also a very contrasty day, shooting with a yellow filter, etc, so I'm not surprised that they're very contrasty. I ordered a 16x24" print from my zenfolio site, and while the print looks nice from a few feet it's definitely not what it should be. It shows digital artifacts close-up, and the whites are blown clear out. I'm going to have a same-size wet print made of it at my local family-owned lab to see what I can get from the original negative (though again, I'm at the mercy of someone else, since I don't have a wet darkroom).
My guess is that the wet print will look great. I gave up on having my film scanned out. I didn't want to pay to have a pro lab scan (and you can get great scans out at a good lab). My local lab oversharpened mine. If you are seeing artifacts, I would guess you aren't getting the best scan that is possible for those negatives.
 
T

tokengirl

Guest
The whole series is wonderful, this one is my favorite.

Agree with Cindy, I think the lab's sharpening on the scans is a little too much. Not uncommon from most labs, the last time I had a roll of film scanned, they were downright crunchy.
 

Valentin

New member
I recently was able to trace back and get my very first camera. It was a Russian Zenit ET. These shots are on 400TX, processed and scanned by the lab.
 

jbcrane

New member
Greetings Fellow Film junkies... I've been traveling a lot this summer and am starting to get some of my films back. Here's one from a week ago on the return from Illinois to Colorado. I've been driving I-80 for years and this time re-routed north to Highway 20 and met with some wonderful opportunities to shoot.


This is pretty much exactly what I remember seeing... it was a stunning site... I was zipping down Highway 20 through central Iowa at 65mph wishing I could find 1 last (first!) good photo of the day. The sun had gone down and for all intensive purposes it was too dark to shoot. In the distance I saw what looked like smoke and at first thought it was a fire. Then I saw I was about to go over a bridge. Half way over the bridge I glanced right and slammed on the brakes, parking in the middle of a very long, wet expanse. The mist was rolling in from the north on the Iowa River creating this beautiful, moody and mysterious riverscape. I used a 1 stop ND Grad for the sky and exposed for about 10 seconds. I was standing on a bridge with cars whipping by... the cool air was coming up over the bridge railing and the smell was beautiful... The film captured all the subtle beauty of this scene.

Through my Mamiya RZ67, 65/1:4LA, Ektar 100 @ 100.
I'll be shooting a lot more Ektar.
 

Cindy Flood

Super Moderator
I recently was able to trace back and get my very first camera. It was a Russian Zenit ET. These shots are on 400TX, processed and scanned by the lab.
Congratulations on getting back to your first camera.

jbcrane: The photo is stunning! Love the Ektar!
 

mathomas

Active member
Definitely a "you are there" photo. I recall driving early one morning in KY over a bridge that spanned the KY river. The fog was rolling heavy, and it was fall. I didn't stop. Your photo reminds me that stopping is part of the battle, and can be oh-so-worth it.

I love Ektar too, though I shoot 90% B&W (on film, anyway).
 

mathomas

Active member
The whole series is wonderful, this one is my favorite.

Agree with Cindy, I think the lab's sharpening on the scans is a little too much. Not uncommon from most labs, the last time I had a roll of film scanned, they were downright crunchy.
Thanks for your comments, folks. In case anyone is interested, I just took this negative to a pro printing shop. They're going to "drum scan" it (something like 8000 dpi -- probably a 100MB file? -- I haven't done the math), and then do "corrections" on it, then print it at 16x10" on some fancy high-end carbon printer. Total cost: $100 just for one scan/adjust/print. But it will be the best possible result for a hybrid film/digital process, and I'll have an adjusted file that I can use for future print jobs (or uploading to the web for others to make prints from).

Once I see how (if any) different the drum scan is, I'll upload that to my zenfolio account. Should improve the quality of prints for this photo, anyway.

This would all be worth it if I could just sell some prints. However, $100 for a beautiful 16x24" print of this is not too bad (and the adjusted drum scan is a bonus).

Regarding sharpening, I looked back at the original scan and I didn't add any. So, the theory that the initial scan had sharpening applied could hold water. However, the Fuji lens is super-sharp. Matter-of-fact, when the guy at the shop was looking at the negative with a loupe, he commented, "well, it's certainly a sharp image" (he'd previously been complaining that it was "thin", although I have to say if it was any more exposed the whites would have been lost -- very contrasty day).
 
Top