Show us yer film shots then!

Coincidentally I was there in September for a few days (from the 9th) and caught that week of great weather. Looks like it might have been the same week from your shots!

 
Threeracers said:
Coincidentally I was there in September for a few days (from the 9th) and caught that week of great weather. Looks like it might have been the same week from your shots!

Click to expand...


Nice shot! I think we might have been there just after you were; the weather was just starting to get a bit nippy, if I recall correctly.
 
Guy, that's turned out very nice indeed. Get that darned camera out and take a few more, d'ya hear? (y)
 
I like both of these, lovely warm tones.

Andy
 
Cg_Girl said:
I really like this, Agree with Steve the trees framing the shot are lovely but then everything within the image creates a lovely scene too (y)
Click to expand...

Thanks. I looked at your thread and was very impressed with your first film. I look forward to seeing more.
 
Solo man said:
So, why does the smaller negative require more dpi than the bigger negative, and when would I need to use 4800dpi?
Click to expand...

They doesn't necessarily require it, for my purposes I generally scan my 35mm and 120 film at 2000dpi which gives plenty of detail for web use. Obviously doing that the 120 scans are much bigger than the 35mm ones (which is fine because that's kind of the point), but if I didn't need a huge image and wanted to save a bit of time and storage space I could scan the 120 at a lower resolution, say, 1000dpi, which would be a quicker scan and take up less space.

The resolution you scan at really depends on what you need to do with the images although you'd only ever usually need to use resolutions like 4800dpi if you were doing huge prints, the only thing is you have to be a bit careful when talking about resolution because quite often scanners will have specified resolutions they're not actually capable of. This sounds a bit weird, but often you'll find scanners claiming to be capable of resolutions like 9600dpi when in fact their maximum optical resolution may only be 3200dpi, they just upscale the image to a larger size (a bit like sticking it in Photoshop and cranking the image size up). Such scans don't contain any more real detail than those at lower resolutions so there's nothing really to be gained, it's just a way that manufacturers trick consumers into believing they're getting more than they actually are!
 
PMN said:
They doesn't necessarily require it, for my purposes I generally scan my 35mm and 120 film at 2000dpi which gives plenty of detail for web use. Obviously doing that the 120 scans are much bigger than the 35mm ones (which is fine because that's kind of the point), but if I didn't need a huge image and wanted to save a bit of time and storage space I could scan the 120 at a lower resolution, say, 1000dpi, which would be a quicker scan and take up less space.

The resolution you scan at really depends on what you need to do with the images although you'd only ever usually need to use resolutions like 4800dpi if you were doing huge prints, the only thing is you have to be a bit careful when talking about resolution because quite often scanners will have specified resolutions they're not actually capable of. This sounds a bit weird, but often you'll find scanners claiming to be capable of resolutions like 9600dpi when in fact their maximum optical resolution may only be 3200dpi, they just upscale the image to a larger size (a bit like sticking it in Photoshop and cranking the image size up). Such scans don't contain any more real detail than those at lower resolutions so there's nothing really to be gained, it's just a way that manufacturers trick consumers into believing they're getting more than they actually are!
Click to expand...
Thank you Paul for taking the time to give an explanation.... I think I get it (y)
 
I was just looking through my old stuff, and couldn't remember if I actually posted this one or not...


Black and Whites by TheBigYin on Talk Photography

(probably not, as I'd missed focus and everything was a bit soft... still at least it proves that not all my Vanitas Still Life stuff on the Digital was composited to high heaven! - the digital colour version for comparison is here)
 
Last edited:
TheBigYin said:
I was just looking through my old stuff, and couldn't remember if I actually posted this one or not...


Black and Whites by TheBigYin on Talk Photography

(probably not, as I'd missed focus and everything was a bit soft... still at least it proves that not all my Vanitas Still Life stuff on the Digital was composited to high heaven! - the digital colour version for comparison is here)
Click to expand...

Much better in colour...and a very good shot (in colour).
 
yeah, if you look at the EXIF on the colour one, it was taken something like 9:45pm and posted to flickr something like 11:15pm. After I'd sorted that, I nipped into the other bedroom where the set was built, and quickly grabbed a shot with the Bronny before I had to take the entire set apart, dismantle the lighting and restore the bedroom to a state where I could actually sleep in there that night. Strangely enough, I couldn't be arsed with getting a roll of velvia out of the freezer and waiting a couple of hours for it to defrost, so I had to shoot the only 120 that I had available...
 
TheBigYin said:
I was just looking through my old stuff, and couldn't remember if I actually posted this one or not...


Black and Whites by TheBigYin on Talk Photography

(probably not, as I'd missed focus and everything was a bit soft... still at least it proves that not all my Vanitas Still Life stuff on the Digital was composited to high heaven! - the digital colour version for comparison is here)
Click to expand...

Your colour version is rather nice.....rich and warm.....
I quite like this black and white one, and although it's soft.... and the same image as the colour version.... these one has a certain 'sadness' about it.
 
I think this one could (should!) have been so much better. Too many weak links in the chain, all but one being me!
(My dev technique wasn't up to scratch, I lost track of up to a minute. My scanner glass needs cleaning inside and the software is basic. Other than that.... :D )
But I'm just happy to get something up!
Mamiya C33, Sekor (Seikosha-S) 65mm. FP4 in FD10. Epson 4490 at 2400.
 
Last edited:
medwaygreen said:
Asha, Love the bar shot,it has a real quality feel to it,very authentic.

.
Click to expand...

My appologies Richard for not replying sooner.

Thank you for your kind words.....

It was a spur of the moment shot and if iirc the little pentax will have shot wide open F/2.8 with flash and 100 iso film. ( it stops down to F/5.6 with 400 film)
 
TheBigYin said:
I was just looking through my old stuff, and couldn't remember if I actually posted this one or not...


Black and Whites by TheBigYin on Talk Photography

(probably not, as I'd missed focus and everything was a bit soft... still at least it proves that not all my Vanitas Still Life stuff on the Digital was composited to high heaven! - the digital colour version for comparison is here)
Click to expand...

Solo man said:
Your colour version is rather nice.....rich and warm.....
I quite like this black and white one, and although it's soft.... and the same image as the colour version.... these one has a certain 'sadness' about it.
Click to expand...


I agree with what Lee has to say Mark.

I have seen the digi shot before and yes it is excellent, however although soft etc , this b&w film version is timeless and could so easily have been shot many moons ago......I personally like it very much indeed.
 
Cheers. It was a strange sky that day, which made the scene quite difficult to expose. I'm wondering whether a soft grad might have been better, given the film size, focal length, the nature of the scene and the difficulty of accurate filter placement… :thinking:
 
Last edited:
And some from the end of the roll which were shot at ISO 400:

5

Acros 100 shot at 400, ID-11 for 14 minutes by Tom Horton Photo, on Flickr

6

Acros 100 shot at 400, ID-11 for 14 minutes by Tom Horton Photo, on Flickr

7

Acros 100 shot at 400, ID-11 for 14 minutes by Tom Horton Photo, on Flickr

8

Scan-131121-0009Acros 100 shot at 400, ID-11 for 14 minutes by Tom Horton Photo, on Flickr

9 (need to work on cleaning by the looks of this haha...)

Acros 100 shot at 400, ID-11 for 14 minutes by Tom Horton Photo, on Flickr

Gutted this didn't come out, would have made a nice shot :(

Acros 100 shot at 400, ID-11 for 14 minutes by Tom Horton Photo, on Flickr
 
Tom, your links are wrong mate... you need to grab the bb code (something like
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top