Show us yer film shots then!

NickT said:
Here's one from last weekend on the Vista 400. It seems to have quite a blue cast which I can't do much about. It was taken very early on a sunny morning. The development is by Asda, the scanning by me using Vuescan(basic edition), Picasa and Gimp. I've never noticed what appears to be a huge amount of pin cushion distortion from the Olympus XA before; it's either that or several buildings in Liverpool are about to fall over.
Click to expand...

Probably this, it IS Liverpool after all, scousers probably nicked the foundations.
 
ChrisR said:
Or maybe you had the camera pointed down? I've had to take lots of shots of my missus with 65 different combinations of wedding outfits, and I've discovered that the shorter lenses with a little bit of downward pointing leads to some very weird effects. :(
Click to expand...
Thanks Chris you are right, this is of course, the reason for outward leaning. The posted image is pretty much the full frame and we can see that the aiming point is somewhere near the water surface in the middle of the dock. I think we all know that wide angle lenses have to be pointed upwards to get that church tower in and the resulting image shows it falling in on itself. What I've taken is a less exaggerated version of the reverse tilt. I should have put two and two together knowing that this is why architectural photographers have LF tilting/shifting everything! A quick experiment with my phone's camera taking high and low shots of my garage doors was enough to confirm the theory.

Kevin Allan said:
I'm no expert at post-processing but this is what I got by editing the image in GIMP and using the curves tool to edit the blue (add more yellow) and red (add more red) channels. I also used the perspective tool to slightly straighten the verticals but a more sustained efffort would be needed to do that properly, as the front bike wheel has become squashed.
Click to expand...

Thanks Kevin, the colour shifts you made are a definite improvement. I always find it tricky shifting levels and never attempt it if there are any flesh tones in the photo, as the subjects either look like aliens or sunburn victims.

Anyway, thanks both for the suggestions and edits. It's always nice to receive constructive comments on one's posts.
 
southernjessie said:
I used my Olympus Trip and Ilford xp2 inside the Queen's House in Greenwich. These are the Tulip Stairs
Click to expand...

Excellent composition and I look forward to seeing more of your work uploaded. The Trip has handled the exposure very well. I have a Trip I paid £2 for, thought it was a bargain then realised the aperture never varied. I had finished two films before I realised this ... it must have been the right kind of day for that aperture.
 
Last edited:
Did Wallace and Gromit not borrow that console?....,,I'm sure they used it to control their rocket en route to the moon.

Abonded buildings like these fascinate me..,,,their history etc.
In fact i recently passed through an old settlement that now looks to be déserted ......i have no idea of what, how, when became of it but i'm very interested to find out.
 
Asha said:
Abonded buildings like these fascinate me..,,,their history etc.
In fact i recently passed through an old settlement that now looks to be déserted ......i have no idea of what, how, when became of it but i'm very interested to find out.
Click to expand...

Well I too would like to explore deserted buildings but being near London you never know if any undesirables are in there. Yet when I was a kid I used to play in plenty of bombed buildings and never thought of any danger.
 
excalibur2 said:
Well I too would like to explore deserted buildings but being near London you never know if any undesirables are in there. Yet when I was a kid I used to play in plenty of bombed buildings and never thought of any danger.
Click to expand...

Take your T70, Brian, no one will bother to mug you if that's what they'd get. :sneaky:
 
excalibur2 said:
Well I too would like to explore deserted buildings but being near London you never know if any undesirables are in there. Yet when I was a kid I used to play in plenty of bombed buildings and never thought of any danger.
Click to expand...
Strappy said:
Take your T70, Brian, no one will bother to mug you if that's what they'd get. :sneaky:
Click to expand...

They might even take pity on you Brian and give you a much nicer camera, maybe even an F100 ;)
 
seeing as @Sectionate bought up the urbex game lets thow some of this down and see what the feedback is


4.jpg


4.jpg
 
Last edited:
Or an F3.....:rolleyes:
 
RaglanSurf said:
They might even take pity on you Brian and give you a much nicer camera, maybe even an F100 ;)
Click to expand...

:D:D erm well nice with a nice selection of lenses with it (y), ......but I'm going for a three day break to Holland soon (well if I can get my passport renewed in time) and one backpack (hand luggage) has to contain a camera and lenses, clothes, shaving stuff etc etc. Well the camera has to be one that I can trust, not too heavy and large, with dedicated flashgun, good lenses inc maybe M42, and the top of the short list is:- drum roll........ a Canon T70.

Just to keep the mods happy in deviating off the thread title
Canon T70, Canon fdn 28mm f2.8
 
Last edited:
excalibur2 said:
Just to keep the mods happy in deviating off the thread title
Canon T70, Canon fdn 28mm f2.8
Click to expand...

Need some proper advice on how you guys scan your images and your workflow....I can't get colours as natural as you guys....
Is it £1 film fault? Is it my scanners fault ? Or just my fault....
 
bastic said:
Need some proper advice on how you guys scan your images and your workflow....I can't get colours as natural as you guys....
Is it £1 film fault? Is it my scanners fault ? Or just my fault....
Click to expand...

Well I just press the button ;) and all my stuff is done at Asda before that Tesco and corrected for the usual faults in PS......Asda is great for the right subjects as they clip the shadows and sharpen too much on scanning, so if the shadows are important or the scene shows too much sharpening, then it's best to use a good home scanner or lab. Also Vista plus is OK but some subjects need something a bit better like Superia 200.
 
Last edited:
excalibur2 said:
Well I just press the button ;) and all my stuff is done at Asda before that Tesco and corrected for the usual faults in PS......Asda is great for the right subjects as they clip the shadows on scanning, so if the shadows are important then it's best to use a good home scanner or lab. Also Vista plus is OK but some subjects need something a bit better like Superia 200.
Click to expand...
Hmmm I've posted some shots from Sunday few posts above...have a look
 
bastic said:
Hmmm I've posted some shots from Sunday few posts above...have a look
Click to expand...

Good shots Lukas and just needs a bit of colour cast correction in PS...on my monitor they just need the slight blue (or magenta) cast removed..but maybe not the last one as it could have a faint yellow cast......Anyway that's my monitor maybe others would disagree.
 
excalibur2 said:
Well I just press the button ;) and all my stuff is done at Asda before that Tesco and corrected for the usual faults in PS......Asda is great for the right subjects as they clip the shadows on scanning, so if the shadows are important then it's best to use a good home scanner or lab. Also Vista plus is OK but some subjects need something a bit better like Superia 200.
Click to expand...
Colours are bit off completely...best ones are of flowers...
I need to get a 'proper' film bit have to say that prints look much much better considering those are from snappy snaps...
 
bastic said:
Colours are bit off completely...best ones are of flowers...
I need to get a 'proper' film bit have to say that prints look much much better considering those are from snappy snaps...
Click to expand...

Have you seen the Vista thread, the film is still good if you know what subjects its best at and on some shots\subjects you wouldn't see the difference if using Superia 200 or Reala 100. but generally even my seven year old Superia 200 and Reala give better results as I have been using them for about four years, and even with the equilizer of scanning I can see they are better (of course generally and over time).
 
excalibur2 said:
Have you seen the Vista thread, the film is still good if you know what subjects its best at and on some shots\subjects you wouldn't see the difference if using Superia 200 or Reala 100. but generally even my seven year old Superia 200 and Reala give better results as I have been using them for about four years, and even with the equilizer of scanning I can see they are better (of course generally and over time).
Click to expand...
haven't seen Vista thread on here...will have a look
 
southernjessie said:
This is my first pic posted on the forum so go easy with me :)

I used my Olympus Trip and Ilford xp2 inside the Queen's House in Greenwich. These are the Tulip Stairs - I had to lie flat on my back to get the pic (ignoring strange looks from tourists passing by!)

View attachment 13473
Click to expand...
Simply stunning!
 
A shot from last year. I uploaded a rather low-contrast straight-from-the-scanner shot to Flickr. For some reason, last week I decided to see what Flickr's in-built Aviary editor was like - I'd never used it before. I clicked on its version of "I'm feeling lucky" and . . . well, I'm not going to lie and say that the foliage in the foreground was this exact shade of red in real life, but I rather liked the result.

Nikon f601, 50mm 1.4 D, Fuji Superia.

Red! by Arfonfab, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
bastic said:
Need some proper advice on how you guys scan your images and your workflow....I can't get colours as natural as you guys....
Is it £1 film fault? Is it my scanners fault ? Or just my fault....
Click to expand...

it is hard to give general advice as there are a number of variables. We know what film you used but not what scanner or scanning software. I use an Epson V700 scanner, which came supplied with EpsonScan and Silverfast, and I also have Vuescan. After reading your post I went to get a negative to scan to see what thoughts came into my mind. As it happens the one I chose presented a number of not-unusual issues.

View attachment 13605

The first issue is that I took this photo - on Kodak Portra 160 film - last year and I simply can't remember what the actual colours looked like to my eye on that day. Vegetation obviously changes colour at different times of the year and different times of the day, and according to the amount of sunshine at that moment. I really should have used a polarising filter to reduce the glare on the water, and that would also have changed the colour balance. So there are a number of different colour interpretations which could be plausible to a casual observer. One version may be viewed as attractive by some viewers but be totally unacceptable, for example, for submission to a plant magazine because they expect a high standard for colour accuracy.

With colour negative film, (unlike colour positive / transparency / slide film) there is no reference point against which a casual user can determine whether the combination of scanner hardware and software have produced a "neutral" interpretation of the information recorded on the negative. In any case, the information recorded on the negative will differ according to the film brand/version, the amount of exposure given, the storage conditions under which the film was kept, and the age of the film.

In order to alter the colour balance when scanning, you would start by choosing a colour preset, if the software has this feature. For example, Vuescan has options such as manual, neutral, tungsten, landscape, auto levels. Then you can tweak the red, blue, and green colour channels. Once you get the image looking approximately right, scan the image and feed into your favourite photo editing package. I scanned the image above using the "neutral" settings then further edited the green colour channel in GIMP using the Curves command. I am sure that Photoshop allows you to do the same thing for £600 that the free GIMP product does, and the later versions of Lightroom can also do this for less than £100.

If you are willing to spend some time experimenting to see the effect that scanning options have, you could make your own test image consisting of objects, which you possess and can hold on to for later comparison, in a range of colours. Then you can rescan the negatives trying out different options, and perhaps create some presets that give the effect you want. You might also consider doing this test with slide film, as you will then be able to compare your scanned version with the slide which you can view just by holding it up to the light. Of course, the calibration of your monitor is also relevant - but since I haven't calibrated my monitor I'm not in a position to say anything ...

The amount of effort I put into adjusting the colours of each image depends upon the uses I intend to make of the image, and on whether it hits the right buttons in other aspects such as composition, subject matter, and lighting. At one end of the spectrum I might scan a whole 35mm film in EpsonScan using automatic settings, and live with some imperfections, and at the other end I am likely to individually adjust the colours in each medium format neg, both with the scanning software and afterwards in Lightroom or GIMP.

Finally, I know that a lot of forum members use £1 film - and I do so on occasion myself - but it's not the best starting point for achieving the highest quality results that your talent allows.At the risk of a backlash from the Agfa users, if you want "neutral" colours then I think that using Portra (160 or 400) is a very good starting point and worth the extra cost. My biggest photography expenditure is petrol, not film, and I don't begrudge spending more than the minimum on film.

Hope my preceeding ramble helps somebody

Kevin
 
Last edited:
Excellent reply Kevin and wise to post a shot as I was looking at a thread recently (might be this one) and the "flow" had gone with missing posts...well I reckon a mod pops over here and thinks this is nothing to do with the thread title and just deletes the post\posts o_O
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top