What I learned today

[Andysnap]

So, I went out today and took my second roll of film. This time I used a newer lens. The first thing I learnt was that a Nikon 18-135mm lens was not made for a 35mm camera.

An unintentional vignette


Also it does not have an aperture ring, which didn't seem to make a great deal of difference.

Faded Glory


Pump Action


Top Gear


OK, I think these are a bit better than yesterday and tomorrow I shall try my Sigma 24-60mm which is ok on 35mm and has an aperture ring. Little Moreton Hall here I come.

Cheers

Andy

 

[TheBigYin]

Looks like you had your share of that flat light today as well. I went out for a quick walk around the local common, just to test if my repairs to the old FED-3 had worked, and while it was at least dry, the light was just flat, flat, flat.

At least you go something workable out of it - i'm liking Pump Action and Top Gear a lot!

Had to laugh a little when I saw the first one - I did something similar a while back - was out shooting with the digital and the eos-3 and i'd got my Sigma 10-20 along. For a giggle I put the 10-20 on the 35mm and took a couple of shots. Talk about view from a porthole! The shots actually came out circular, in the middle of the neg's Having said that, 10mm was pretty funky on a full-frame.

 

[RaglanSurf]

How are you doing this? You've just turned out a load more contrasty shots.

Or is it just me

 

[Andysnap]

Looks like you had your share of that flat light today as well. I went out for a quick walk around the local common, just to test if my repairs to the old FED-3 had worked, and while it was at least dry, the light was just flat, flat, flat.

At least you go something workable out of it - i'm liking Pump Action and Top Gear a lot!

Had to laugh a little when I saw the first one - I did something similar a while back - was out shooting with the digital and the eos-3 and i'd got my Sigma 10-20 along. For a giggle I put the 10-20 on the 35mm and took a couple of shots. Talk about view from a porthole! The shots actually came out circular, in the middle of the neg's Having said that, 10mm was pretty funky on a full-frame.

Thanks BY. Yes the light was very flat, which is why I did a few close-ups. One or two of the shots at 18mm were almost circular and almost worked in a weird way

How are you doing this? You've just turned out a load more contrasty shots.

Or is it just me

I like contrast Also, and I don't know if this is the cause, I sharpen by making a duplicate layer, setting that layer to overlay and adjust using the high pass filter until it looks sharp.

Cheers

Andy

 

[RaglanSurf]

I like contrast Also, and I don't know if this is the cause, I sharpen by making a duplicate layer, setting that layer to overlay and adjust using the high pass filter until it looks sharp.

Cheers

Andy

That makes sense, I wasn't knocking it, I like the contrasty look too. I was just trying to work out how you got that amount of contrast straight out of the camera. A little tweaking works wonders

 

[TheBigYin]

High pass filter is probably the best way i've found of sharpening film shots - I scan my own neg's and always scan without any sharpening from the scanning software. Once into the computer, I do a quick levels adjustment - bringing the black and white points to the edges of the histogram. It's that Black and White rather than Grey and Light Grey Thing. A quick run over with the healing tool to cover any dist motes that may be showing, flatten the image, then copy layer, Filter/Other/High Pass and adjust the Raduis until the image is shown but the grain of the film isn't. Change blending mode to overlay/soft light/hard light as appropriate and flatten again. Job's a good 'un !

 

[clicknologicley]

High pass filter is probably the best way i've found of sharpening film shots - I scan my own neg's and always scan without any sharpening from the scanning software. Once into the computer, I do a quick levels adjustment - bringing the black and white points to the edges of the histogram. It's that Black and White rather than Grey and Light Grey Thing. A quick run over with the healing tool to cover any dist motes that may be showing, flatten the image, then copy layer, Filter/Other/High Pass and adjust the Raduis until the image is shown but the grain of the film isn't. Change blending mode to overlay/soft light/hard light as appropriate and flatten again. Job's a good 'un !

Is'nt all this processing kind of defeating the object of using film, might aswell just use digital in the first place.

Just my opinion by the way

 

[excalibur2]

Is'nt all this processing kind of defeating the object of using film, might aswell just use digital in the first place.

Just my opinion by the way

LOL with most amateurs using film...it's a hobby.

 

[pepper]

Still can't beat having photos to hand around to show everyone at home!

We have a huge big bowl on our table full of photographs, the kids spend hours going through them, sorting them, pinching the ones they want and generally holding and looking at our family history.

 

[TheBigYin]

Is'nt all this processing kind of defeating the object of using film, might aswell just use digital in the first place.

Just my opinion by the way

Well - the levels adjustment is only the digital version of selecting a contrasty grade of paper to print the photograph on.

The healing tool - again would be performed by retouching the photograph with spotting dyes.

And the sharpening - well thats purely for the digital version that's printed or shown on here - remember that a 35mm frame scanned at 4800dpi gives a image of 6803x4535 pixels (call it 30 megapixels!) - you wouldn't take a camera raw shot from a Canon 5Dii, and just resize to 800px longest size without applying a little sharpening for print or display would you ? 120 film is even worse - my little Voigtländer produces 56mm x 56mm negatives - even at a reduced resolution of 3600dpi its a 7937x7937 image (63mp!)

It's not as If we're talking digital cutting and pasting or swapping skys etc. - remember, most of the retouching tools in Photoshop were devised to be a digital version of a existing darkroom process.

Also - its not as if I'm a digital obsessive, I use digital on a day by day basis. I also use film, in situations where I can make it work, and where I've no client pressure screaming for images 10 minutes after i've pressed the button. I'd be highly unlikely to do macro work, stop-motion shooting, or shoots where I'm liable to produce 600-700 images in a day on the film camera. However, occasionally, I may just be taking a walk around a photogenic little village, and the little Voigtländer and a roll of Velvia will sit neatly in my fleece jacket pocket, 12 shots will be plenty for a considered approach to shooting, and I get a couple of hours fun wet processing the film, then when they're dry another session of scanning the end result. Plenty of smiles per shot

 

[ujjwaldey8165]

Is'nt all this processing kind of defeating the object of using film, might aswell just use digital in the first place.

Just my opinion by the way

I am largely in agreement with what you are saying.....

The trouble I have found with using digital camera (which I use to take photos of stuffs to sell on ebay etc, and scanned photos) is that they usually look over exposed and washed out; and needs some correction ( I usually use the auto adjust button to get an acceptable photo). I thought its the weakness of the digital technology, but maybe my monitor is the issue.

 

[TheBigYin]

Still can't beat having photos to hand around to show everyone at home!

We have a huge big bowl on our table full of photographs, the kids spend hours going through them, sorting them, pinching the ones they want and generally holding and looking at our family history.

Agreed on that one as well. I've got two large boxes of shots covering 3 generations back of my family. My dad's eyesight is pretty poor (advanced glaucoma) , and the only way i've been able to get him to be able to go through the shots and say who's who has been scanning the pictures (mostly 120 or 127 BnW contact prints!) and putting them into slide shows that he can see on a large TV screen. I've then been able to organise the pictures a bit better, rather than one huge mess of unrelated BnW pictures of people I don't recognise, they're now "Great Aunt ...." or "Aunt Rose's second Boyfriend" and now mean something to me.

 

[Ambermile]

Also - its not as if I'm a digital obsessive, I use digital on a day by day basis. I also use film, in situations where I can make it work, and where I've no client pressure screaming for images 10 minutes after i've pressed the button. I'd be highly unlikely to do macro work, stop-motion shooting, or shoots where I'm liable to produce 600-700 images in a day on the film camera. However, occasionally, I may just be taking a walk around a photogenic little village, and the little Voigtländer and a roll of Velvia will sit neatly in my fleece jacket pocket, 12 shots will be plenty for a considered approach to shooting, and I get a couple of hours fun wet processing the film, then when they're dry another session of scanning the end result. Plenty of smiles per shot

can't say fairer than that BY, just about sums it up for me too. I have always said it is horses for courses - used to ride a bike to work - got poked fun at 'cos I had to lift the bike over the car to get it out of the garage! Car was fine for distance and Tesco but blatting under 10 miles? No contest!

 

[Kev M]

Is'nt all this processing kind of defeating the object of using film, might aswell just use digital in the first place.

Just my opinion by the way

I am largely in agreement with what you are saying.....

The trouble I have found with using digital camera (which I use to take photos of stuffs to sell on ebay etc, and scanned photos) is that they usually look over exposed and washed out; and needs some correction ( I usually use the auto adjust button to get an acceptable photo). I thought its the weakness of the digital technology, but maybe my monitor is the issue.

Not really, as big yin has pointed out spotting and dust removal has been done for years as has adjusting contrast during the printing stage. It's quite easy to make a print that looks nothing like the negative in terms of contrast and exposure.

Negatives (not including slides) are pretty useless until you do some further processing to them be that scanning and fettling or wet printing.