and the site receives a small commission
Show us yer film shots then!
- Thread starter Grant
- Start date
img135
- Messages
- 3,050
- Name
- Dean
- Edit My Images
- Yes
excalibur2
My F4's Broken...
- Messages
- 11,778
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Thought you were about to say, "A guy used to post here of dodgy parts of Los Angeles, and we haven't heard from him in ages".
That as well
So many street scenes he posted and I don't think it has been equaled by anyone else.
- Messages
- 7,621
- Name
- Jonathan
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Apologies for my absence on the forum of late, work is hell. Finally got round to developing a pile of B&W frame that have accumulated over many, many months. This is from Mupe Bay. Thoughts welcome as always
Mupe Bay by Jonathan Woods Photography, on Flickr
(I see the resizing has made it appear soft. Click for sharp version)
Mupe Bay by Jonathan Woods Photography, on Flickr
(I see the resizing has made it appear soft. Click for sharp version
)
Last edited:
- Messages
- 10,526
- Name
- Suz
- Edit My Images
- Yes
We'd prefer not to see pics of that!
- Messages
- 8,526
- Name
- Trevor
- Edit My Images
- No
Correctomundo...!!
happygolucky
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,101
- Name
- Andrew
- Edit My Images
- No
That's nice photo Jonathan, well seen and captured (clap)Apologies for my absence on the forum of late, work is hell. Finally got round to developing a pile of B&W frame that have accumulated over many, many months. This is from Mupe Bay. Thoughts welcome as always
Mupe Bay by Jonathan Woods Photography, on Flickr
(I see the resizing has made it appear soft. Click for sharp version
- Messages
- 7,621
- Name
- Jonathan
- Edit My Images
- Yes
TheBigYin
Moderator
- Messages
- 16,669
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
Paul, i'm sure you have either posted that picture or a similar frame before (probably scanned on something else) but I'll be honest, I liked it last time, but the fresh scan really does it justice... Wonderful almost Luminous quality about the colours. Just Stunning.
- Messages
- 2,531
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Thanks very much guys, very kind!
I think I remember posting one from this session a while ago, possibly a frame that looks more to the bar that's on the left from the view here but I can't quite remember. I'm proppa chuffed at how scans from the Cezanne are starting to look after some time getting to know it, in some ways I'm getting the feeling it outperforms the D4000. It's certainly much quicker in terms of the process of scanning, and I've been nothing but stunned by the detail it can extract from a sharp frame of film.
All I need to do now is get my arse into gear and get the 15-odd rolls of exposed film I have sitting in the fridge devved so I have some new stuff to post!
I think I remember posting one from this session a while ago, possibly a frame that looks more to the bar that's on the left from the view here but I can't quite remember. I'm proppa chuffed at how scans from the Cezanne are starting to look after some time getting to know it, in some ways I'm getting the feeling it outperforms the D4000. It's certainly much quicker in terms of the process of scanning, and I've been nothing but stunned by the detail it can extract from a sharp frame of film.
All I need to do now is get my arse into gear and get the 15-odd rolls of exposed film I have sitting in the fridge devved so I have some new stuff to post!
ChrisR
I'm a well known grump...
- Messages
- 11,034
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
This one has been hanging around in case I was desperate for an "Anything goes" image for POTY! Taken at the Suffolk film meet, on my Pentax MX with (I think) the Pentax-M 85mm f/2 lens, on the expired PanF that @srichards gave or sold me at Llandudno!
- Messages
- 8,758
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
JG Redline, I miss his postingsThat as well
This is from Mupe Bay. Thoughts welcome as always
I like it.
I suppose the objective is to see it, like it and know why........then shoot it.
Having not acquired that gift, figuring out why I like something afterwards, ain't so bad.
It has nothing to do with sharpness, tonal range, processing, intention, context or any of that crap, just a simple curve that links front to back, everything else is sprinkles...:shrug:
Last edited:
- Messages
- 8,758
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
What host ?, I can't see anything, I could have blocked it I dunno, peeps post all sorts of naff gifs and rubbish I don't want to load on other forums.Contemplating... Another oldish one from Madeira back in 2007. I need to try another scan of this one actually, the blown bit on my mate Tom's shoulder is bugging me!
- Messages
- 2,531
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I honestly have no idea what you're referring to here! Host?
- Messages
- 8,758
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
A couple of old ones here I've been playing about with scanning, XP2 in Berlin back in November 2007!
I thought you were introducing a "couple of old ones" and yinny was commenting on them.
I can't see them so I thought I might have blocked the host you where using, either that or I've completely lost it
- Messages
- 2,531
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
They're hosted on Imgur, I have no idea what you have blocked at your end but other people seem to be able to see them!
- Messages
- 2,531
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Ahh right, yeah maybe so. I used to use photobucket before they started horribly compressing everything, Imgur seems to be one of the few hosting sites where you can post full fat photos!
excalibur2
My F4's Broken...
- Messages
- 11,778
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 2,531
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It was scanned at 2000dpi which gave a 153.57MB TIFF file with pixel dimensions of 5570 x 4796 (26.7 megapixels).
excalibur2
My F4's Broken...
- Messages
- 11,778
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 2,531
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The jpeg will be an 8 bit file which contains much less information than a 16 bit TIFF, hence the smaller file size despite the greater pixel dimensions.
ChrisR
I'm a well known grump...
- Messages
- 11,034
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
This is what terrifies me about scanning to TIFF! Multiply that by a few thousand shots and you're talking serious storage, enough to require a new laptop I think.
Otherwise it's learning how to split Aperture libraries (or whatever I end up switching to after Aperture finally dies) and use NAS drives for some of them. Not cheap!
- Messages
- 6,320
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Disk space is almost exponentially cheap though, you'd have to be shooting at a prodigious rate to fill a 1tb hard drive before a 5tb disk came down to the equivalent price.
excalibur2
My F4's Broken...
- Messages
- 11,778
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Well first you should test your scanner to see if it's capable of showing a difference between scanning for tif and jpg, also you could scan at tif then do your alterations and save to jpg? Anyway I suppose we should stop side tracking as I've noticed in other threads posts mysteriously disappear if they are nothing to do with the thread title
- Messages
- 2,531
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Remember that's only what the scanner's spitting out (and only because that's what I'm telling it to spit out). There's almost always a degree of post-processing to do after scanning, I scan as TIFF because personally I don't see the point in having a high end scanner only to work on little compressed 8 bit JPEG files at the end of it. Once you've achieved what you want from the scan you can save it as a JPEG and delete the TIFF if you prefer to do that, thus saving space. Or of course you can scan as 8 bit JPEG to start with but as I say, that seems rather pointless to me! At least until you've reached the end result.
As Steven says though, storage is very cheap these days and you'd have to be rattling through a fair old amount to fill a 1GB drive. I don't know about anyone else but I probably scan and properly use less than 5% of what I actually shoot, it'd take me eons to fill a 1GB drive with my own work!
Last edited:
TheBigYin
Moderator
- Messages
- 16,669
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
...Anyway I suppose we should stop side tracking as I've noticed in other threads posts mysteriously disappear if they are nothing to do with the thread title
This whole thread is one massive rules-crash Brian... it's a photo sharing thread, in a discussion section, with lots of "side shoots" and banter all through it...
Frankly, I doubt that the TP Towers Hoover would ever be up to even beginning tidying this thread... And - tbh - I like this particular thread as it is - though there are occasions when certain arguments/discussions WOULD be better hived off into another thread. However - I tend to wait for a few people to hit the RTM button and complain before taking that course of action - so, if you've had posts removed, it's because you've annoyed lots of people on here, not just me.
TheBigYin
Moderator
- Messages
- 16,669
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
To be honest, if you find that worrying, you'd better not think of getting hold of one of the newer breed of Full Frame Digital SLR's... bearing in mind the Nikon D810 shoots at a native 36.3mp (7360x4912) and if you're working with RAW files they're pretty much on a par with compressed TIFF files... And, of course, that's with something that'll shoot 5 frames per second.
- Messages
- 2,531
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Indeed! 16 bit TIFF scans of 35mm are coming out at around 45MB, RAW files from my 7D and 5D2 are around 25-28MB. Not really a huge amount of difference, and even less difference between the TIFF scans and something like a D800.
excalibur2
My F4's Broken...
- Messages
- 11,778
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Well Mark I must have got this habit of side tracking from my wife as she will never keep to the point in an argument\discussion
- Messages
- 6,320
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
5 frames per second, I'm not sure I've shot 5 this month.
- Messages
- 6,320
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
ChrisR
I'm a well known grump...
- Messages
- 11,034
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You're right, and I won't!
TBH it's much more the hassle factor than the cost. These days I can probably get a 3-4TB NAS for not much over £100, but it's probably got to be wired into the hub, which means in the living room, which means permission, it needs to be configured for backup AND for file storage, etc etc. It will happen one of these days, but scanning to TIFF would get me there much sooner, and probably well before I can know what an appropriate post-Aperture strategy is for me.
More to the point of this thread, I've yet to notice a significant difference in PP flexibility with images I've scanned to TIFF compared to those just to JPEG (based on my practice and my observation, definitely YMMV!). That might partly because I only do PP in Aperture, which is non-destructive editing, and rarely use plugging or external editors, so there's generally only two save-to-JPEG steps in the whole workflow. If I was going in and out of various plugins like some workflows I've seen, I think the disadvantages of starting from a 8-bit JPEG would be much more apparent. But I could be entirely wrong here, I'm learning all the time!