Recent content by Mr_T

It's been a while since a visited this thread and even longer since I posted something. A quarry in Worth Matravers shot on Pan F 50: On the Rocks by Part-time Lion, on Flickr Light to Dark by Part-time Lion, on Flickr Quarry Pillars by Part-time Lion, on Flickr Rockface...

I went film only for quite some time and did enjoy it even with the expense. The two areas of photography I feel that film doesn't really suit are macro (getting the DoF right with so few frames is incredibly hard) and wildlife. That's without taking into consideration the high ISO performance...

While I can see the appeal of reviving older bodies I'm not quite sure why you'd do it. One of the reasons I predominantly shoot film, particularly for landscapes is that I much prefer the way film renders colour, even if I do always end up digitising anyway... maybe I'm weird.

If you plan on calibrating your scanning, make sure you lock down all the settings so that they are the same each time. Any changes of exposure, or even the addition/subtraction of ICE will make a difference. It's also worth noting that you cannot make a scanner profile with a linear scan as it...

Reala is lovely actually, I'd like to shoot more of it. I also really liked Pro 160s, it's a mighty shame that got the axe. Still can't complain, there are still excellent print and slide films out there!

Nguss, those are some absolutely lovely frames, it must be awesome to have positives that large to look at!

Linear positive scan of the negative. I couldn't seem to find C200 anywhere in Colorperfect so I had to do some manual correction too. It's not usually a problem with Ektar even with scans thought to be previously unusable. For easiest colour correction there needs to be something grey though...

All done now, updated the image in post #15 to the version without the awful cast. I think the most noticeable difference is how much more detail is being retained in the sky. The digital version is pretty blown out and even from the low resolution scan it doesn't look as though there is any...

Layers should be compatible with different software packages, it's not solely for PhotoShop users. It's just a non-destructive way of editing, your original scan is underneath the tweaks should you wish to revert any changes. How would you like me to get the TIFF to you, I've got a dropbox...

Right, I've just put this through colorperfect and got: I tend to prefer the results to be quite flat out of colorperfect as it gives you quite a bit of leverage when it comes to PPing. In this case I have made a few tweaks in adjustment layers to get the gamma and microcontrast where I think...

ChrisR, I'm more than happy to run this through Colorperfect for you but it looks as though your scanning software has applied the sRGB colour space to the file which will severely limit the quality of the results. A useful guide for making linear scans for colorperfect can be found here.

If anyone has any Ektar shots with a similar cast, or just can't get the colours right I can try and run them through my copy of colorperfect. It's by far the best solution I've found. Best results are had with linear scans. If anyone wants me to give it a go, let me know.

Have you tried saving as TIFF? I'm pretty the format is capable of saving layered files.

I'd say that there's a bit more detail to be had but not much. A drum scan should be able to get down into the grain structure to really bring out every bit of tiny detail to be had. It will also show up any inadequacies with shots, my focusing for instance still needs "work" before I'd consider...

100% crops could be misleading because they will differ depending on what the chosen scanning resolution is. You could of course try to resize everything to get it consistent but I feel that that is more of a judgement of whatever software you were using for the resizing. The only thing I semi...