12 year old film:- fuji superia 100 & NPS160

excalibur2

excalibur2

My F4's Broken...
Messages
11,784
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
Yes
Well all my 120 negs (5 rolls) came back from Snaps Photo services and first impression is clean negs so (y) and total cost with postage there and recorded del back was £16.
Negs look perfectly exposed held up to the light, so switched on the V750 for an easy scan and the first two rolls I've done needed a lot of correction in the histogram ermm and also needed saturation in Photoshop. Anyway the best I can do for the church shot similar in Vista thread...but to me there is no oomph in the shot in using a RB67.
I'll feed some more in and also comparisons with prettier 35mm shots with reala.

Fuji superia 100 expiry 2000 RB67 65mm lens
6X7800px.jpg
 
RB67 NPS160 12 years old:-
6X7007-800pxmk2.jpg


35mm TC with Hexanon lens Reala 100
konica880-800px.jpg
 
Last edited:
I personally think you're way over editing these. On the first one especially there are loads of haloes and you've pushed the unsharp mask/high pass too much. Also NPS is low contrast neutral colour and your image no longer resembles any of the characteristics of the film... You've almost "HDR"ed them.
 
Jakska said:
I personally think you're way over editing these. On the first one especially there are loads of haloes and you've pushed the unsharp mask/high pass too much. Also NPS is low contrast neutral colour and your image no longer resembles any of the characteristics of the film... You've almost "HDR"ed them.
Click to expand...

For me this film is not easy to scan, and I'm trying to get the RB67 shot as I saw the view with my eyes, anyway have reduced the saturation down a bit and increased magenta....the shot looks better in PS.
 
Last edited:
One with the RB67 180mm lens, NPS160 film:-

From the old comes the new:-
6X7018-800px.jpg
 
Now that is much better :)

I'm afraid Jakska's right, the first shot is way over sharpened, though.
 
Musicman said:
Now that is much better :)

I'm afraid Jakska's right, the first shot is way over sharpened, though.
Click to expand...


The shot has to be sharp otherwise it would ruin the reputation of the RB67 lenses and the reason to use medium format ;)
 
2nd & 3rd pics must be Latimer (not sure about the church in pic 1 though).
 
Last edited:
custodian said:
Is it just me, or is there a circular logic in there?
Click to expand...


The logic is sound:- a large neg, very good lens, slow film, sunshine in shots so the shutter speed and aperture can be better which all adds up to a sharp shot.......if it's not, it's either my fault or the scanner is not set high enough so when sharpening you are only putting back which should be there anyway, so it's not cheating, but the degree of sharpening? Well I suppose I should have a 6X7 neg drum scanned to show how sharp a good neg should be and then use that as a reference to try and emulate that, using Photoshop or whatever.
 
Film can take a lot of abuse, this film is not only at least 12 years old and stored at room temp but this winter shot I've just had developed... also on a computer screen a S3 Pentax/MTL3 with either a Helios or Pentacon nifty fifty can put up a good show against an Etrsi 75mm....shots taken within minutes of one another.

ETRSi 75mm fuji 100
6X7026-800px.jpg


Helios or Pentacon nifty fifty on IIRC fuji superia 200
Photo13_12-800px.jpg
 
Last edited:
excalibur2 said:
Tor the scanner is not set high enough so when sharpening you are only putting back which should be there anyway
Click to expand...

I don't have access to the original, but if the posted version is just a down-scale of the full size file, it looks like you did a USM with quite a broad radius (25, 50 or even 100 pixels depending on the scan resolution) at something approaching 100% amount.

It's a handy technique I use initially to put some punch back into the raw output of my V700, but I rarely go over 20% at that stage.

At least to my eye, there's some visible halos in the first picture, most noticeable around the top of the church and in the tree branches.

The others are rather better, and the last ones you've posted are lovely. I just think you've overcooked it a little in that particular instance.

My 2p anyhow. :)
 
Musicman said:
I don't have access to the original, but if the posted version is just a down-scale of the full size file, it looks like you did a USM with quite a broad radius (25, 50 or even 100 pixels depending on the scan resolution) at something approaching 100% amount.

It's a handy technique I use initially to put some punch back into the raw output of my V700, but I rarely go over 20% at that stage.

At least to my eye, there's some visible halos in the first picture, most noticeable around the top of the church and in the tree branches.

The others are rather better, and the last ones you've posted are lovely. I just think you've overcooked it a little in that particular instance.

My 2p anyhow. :)
Click to expand...



The scan was with sharpening on, default?

More sharpening with Photoshop
21%
Rad 30 pixels

But if I posted mickey mouse unsharp shots, members/lurkers even people on google search wouldn't think much of the results from a RB67....which is unfair to the RB67 as it's an excellent camera and although the lenses might not be as razor sharp as excellent 35mm ones, it has the muscle from a large neg which balances it out, so if the shots look inferior it's all down to me.
 
Musicman said:
Hmm. I shall just have to put it down to some weirdness of perception or something :thinking:

.
Click to expand...

...but I might have given the Church shot another dose of sharpening after reducing to 800px ;)......I usually go by what it looks like on my 22" CRT screen, but if we all had 30" wide monitors and were allowed posts of 30mp shots I would have to have a rethink on presentation ;)
 
I don't think this is a case of what is or isn't a sharp negative or scan, to me it just looks like the focal point is just further back, the bench in the first shot seems out of the plane of focus whereas the fence in front of the church seems much sharper. It's a similar story for the foliage in the foreground of the second shot. Everything else looks OK (although it's hard to tell at web res!). I really like the winter shots, especially the first (y).
 
excalibur2 said:
...but I might have given the Church shot another dose of sharpening after reducing to 800px ;)
Click to expand...

Ah. For myself, I usually reserve a very tight radius for sharpening after a size reductions (around 0.3px). Maybe that's it. :)
 
ok ... I am still learning, so correct me if I'm wron.

Sharpening ... I have read, time and time again, that it should only be done once, and specifically for the intended output. Large/small print/web image/etc etc

Sharpening an already sharpened image will give halo's and outlines to everything, and flatten the image somewhat.
 
Tricky69 said:
Sharpening ... I have read, time and time again, that it should only be done once, and specifically for the intended output. Large/small print/web image/etc etc

Sharpening an already sharpened image will give halo's and outlines to everything, and flatten the image somewhat.
Click to expand...

As always, rules are made to be broken. The trick is knowing when to break them and why.

There are two things going on here

1) Processing a Scan

Especially with flatbed scanners like the V700/V750, the raw output is far from optimal. The scan head reads through the glass of the scan bed, for one thing. As distinct from sharpness at the pixel level, the scan will usually suffer from a lack of overall contrast.

Consequently, I (and excalibur2) apply a wide-radius USM at a low amount level to correct this.

This acts at a radius of 30 or 50 pixels, so still leaves the sharpness of the details untouched. In many practical respects, it's not what you would really call sharpening, but more like the application of a series of tone curves with very complex masks.

A second pass at a tighter radius (2-5 pixels) and a higher amount is then applied to bring out the detail, which is what you would conventionally think of as 'sharpening'.

Personally, with scans from my V700, I'll often apply a final pass at around 0.25 to 0.5 pixels to tighten details up to my satisfaction.

With film scans, I may do either or both of the last two passes with a high-pass filter technique to avoid over-emphasising the grain.

The important thing here is that the three different sharpening passes are directed at different radiuses for different purposes. They affect the photo in different ways.

What you wouldn't want to do is to apply multiple sharpening passes of the same or similar radius to the same file, as this is liable to result in halos.

If you have a drum scan or a scan made by a dedicated film scanner, then some or all of these steps may be unnecessary, especially if the scanning software provides satisfactory sharpening of its own to the output. I've not got deep enough pockets for that kind of kit. :)

2) Size reduction

So, you take your TIFF file that's several thousand pixels wide and knock it down in size to 800px for posting on a forum. That happens by averaging the values of the pixels from the original size to calculate the one in the final, small file. A side-effect of this is to reduce the apparent sharpness of the reduced file.

To counteract that, it's common to apply a small amount of sharpening to the reduced-size version. Photoshop offers it as an option when resing (Bicubic Sharper). I like to leave it without (normal Bicubic resize) and have control of the sharpening at the reduced size.

This is your final output sharpening, optimised for the finished size.
 
Last edited:
TheBigYin said:
.
Click to expand...

Well I re-scanned the church at 4800dpi which gave a 90mp@99mb file just using the scanner's sharpener, used the histogram to get the exposure/contrast right also added a bit more saturation.
Any CA could be the 65mm lens not well stopped down as I didn't use a tripod and therefore had a higher shutter speed.

So the first shot only with scanner's sharpener:-
6X7010800px.jpg


So the 2nd shot with scanner's sharpener + one click on Photoshop sharpener.
6X7010800pxsharpning.jpg
 
Peter_Hartland said:
Love the winter snow images. Something about film & the extra depth you get
Click to expand...

Many debates on forums about 3d effect in depth and how to get it, some shots it pops up but it helps using the well known lenses esp Zeiss....erm well for me WO zeiss, two lenses that help (with 3d) that come to mind are the Nikkor 50mm f1.8 and the Etsri 75mm, and was surprised the cheap Helios (or the Meyer/Pentacon) gave depth in the snow shots.
 
The shot just using sharpening at the point of scanning is just right, the resharpening on the second makes the contrast in the sky and the church roof look particularly weird. I much prefer things to look slightly soft than artificially sharp. If you're using a V700/750 the optical resolution is apparently roughly 2200 dpi, anything about that is interpolating the sensor data which can cause loss of detail (and vast file sizes).
 
I've lately been getting the best results with my V700 by scanning at 6400 dpi (which apparently engages a higher resolution sensor) and then downsampling.

Even with 645, this does mean you start out with a 16-bit colour file that's 900MB, though.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Music man, for the explanation :) I am yet to scan film properly, and work post processing on it. My "knowledge" so far, only covers digital.

Excalibur2 - I like the new ones better. Esp that top one.
 
Nice shots, I love the snow photos.
I think we sometimes forget how good film can look.
 
Tricky69 said:
Thanks Music man, for the explanation :) I am yet to scan film properly, and work post processing on it. My "knowledge" so far, only covers digital.
Click to expand...

In principle, it's very similar to the default sharpening that most RAW converters apply to undo the effects of an anti-aliasing filter on a digital sensor.

You then apply some more sharpening to the finished file for print or when resizing for the web, so that's two sharpening passes.

edit: apols for the OT drift. I'll stop there.
 
Musicman said:
I've lately been getting the best results with my V700 by scanning at 6400 dpi (which apparently engages a higher resolution sensor) and then downsampling.

Even with 645, this does mean you start out with a 16-bit colour file that's 900MB, though.
Click to expand...

No one has criticized the first shot with the RB67 of the country scene and houses, the colours look odd to me.....I might have another go at it.
 
Mr_T said:
The shot just using sharpening at the point of scanning is just right, the resharpening on the second makes the contrast in the sky and the church roof look particularly weird. I much prefer things to look slightly soft than artificially sharp. If you're using a V700/750 the optical resolution is apparently roughly 2200 dpi, anything about that is interpolating the sensor data which can cause loss of detail (and vast file sizes).
Click to expand...


Well the shots I've posted need/have to be sharp IMO, softness is for other subjects e.g. portraits
 
Actually my wife, who is not very interested in photography, peeped over my shoulder, saw that photo ( country scene and houses) and said 'thats lovely. It captures the feeling of the english countryside' Then she gave me a look which said ' now, you should learn how to take some like that' , and with that she walked away.
Made me mad :LOL:

P.S : I loved it too
 
Well, it is expired film, so I let it pass without comment. I wasn't sure whether you'd accurately reflected what was on the film and that was perhaps your point.

I did have a quick play with the colour in Photoshop last night, but as you had 'no edit' on your Avatar I never saved it :)

I can do a re-run if you don't mind.
 
Musicman said:
Well, it is expired film, so I let it pass without comment. I wasn't sure whether you'd accurately reflected what was on the film and that was perhaps your point.

I did have a quick play with the colour in Photoshop last night, but as you had 'no edit' on your Avatar I never saved it :)

I can do a re-run if you don't mind.
Click to expand...

edit is now on......but I have posted many shots of the same scene with different lenses and don't care if it breaks any rules of photography e.g composition it's just erm pretty pretty to me.
 
ujjwaldey8165 said:
Actually my wife, who is not very interested in photography, peeped over my shoulder, saw that photo ( country scene and houses) and said 'thats lovely. It captures the feeling of the english countryside' Then she gave me a look which said ' now, you should learn how to take some like that' , and with that she walked away.
Made me mad :LOL:

P.S : I loved it too
Click to expand...

I've used about 8 different lenses on that view, and you can't go wrong as it's an easy scene for the camera to meter (well not with snow ;))
 
Musicman said:
:)

Three minute edit. Not sure if I'm entirely convinced it's as good as I could get, but the worst of the magenta is gone and it still maintains a film/period feel.

6X7007-800pxmk2.jpg
Click to expand...


That's nice :clap: ...can we swop it for my one when no one is looking? ;)
 
I'm so fascinated by this view I don't mind if the colours are not exact or if it's over sharpened, in fact in this shot I've forgotten what the lens was used but the camera was 35mm.

Photo06_6-800px.jpg
 
This shot was scanned at 6400 and was taken with the RB67-180mm lens and no tripod was used, still the old Fuji NPS 160..one click in Photoshop for sharpening:-

6X7008-800px.jpg


And a crop, this shot might have a been better if a tripod was used (or maybe I didn't focus to infinity :) )
crop-1.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top