| Moderated by: chrisbet, |
|
| Film v digital | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted by Graham Whistler: Thu Aug 6th, 2020 04:43 | 1st Post |
Sorry not stacking or Nikon but we seem to post flowers here. We had a walk in The Arboretum at Romsey yesterday and I took my 1960 Rollieflex 3.5F with Zeiss Planar lens loaded with Ilford HP5 film for fun. It still works as well as the day I purchased it 60 yrs ago but with this flowering tree, I had to use my mobile phone to record its dramatic colour. My old camera friend has a built in selieum cell exposure meter that still works quite well enough for black and white film. I must say we are spoilt with the ease of use with fodays DSLRs. Click here to comment on this image.
____________________ Graham Whistler |
| Posted by Graham Whistler: Thu Aug 6th, 2020 04:48 | 2nd Post |
This is what my old friend looks like for those who are not yet 80 yrs old! It was my first professional camera and at the time cost £150 but would now as a collectors working camera fetch well over £1000! Click here to comment on this image.
____________________ Graham Whistler |
| Posted by Graham Whistler: Thu Aug 6th, 2020 10:47 | 3rd Post |
Our local Titchfield Abbey taken with the Rolleiflex recently with 120 Ilford HP5 400 ISO film. Pperhaps not the best of scans but we were happy making a living with cameras like that a few years ago! Click here to comment on this image.
____________________ Graham Whistler |
| Posted by jk: Thu Aug 6th, 2020 11:37 | 4th Post |
| Plenty of detail there Graham. What scanner did you scan the film on?
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Graham Whistler: Fri Aug 7th, 2020 03:02 | 5th Post |
| http://www.ilfordlab.com process films to neg stage for me and do high res scan on cd. (Cost about £17 for the 12 exposures. No choice now as I shut down my last darkroom about 1995) My stock of 120 HP5 is bit old now with Sep 2016 but seems to work OK. One forgets the grain!!!!! It's good to get my old friend working from time to time. Perhaps I should get a few rolls of FP 100 ISO film?
____________________ Graham Whistler |
| Posted by jk: Fri Aug 7th, 2020 04:32 | 6th Post |
| Ilford FP4 developed in Paterson Acutol was always a favourite of mine as was Kodak Tri-X in HC110 or ID11. I could never decide which I preferred PanF or FP4 but the extra speed of FP4 seemed to win when you look through my files of negs as there is plenty of Tri-X and FP4. 35mm and 120 slides were always Ektachrome 100 (or 400 occasionally) until I moved to Agfa Agfachrome RS. I couldnt find my 5x4 negs and slides when I last looked, when I was in Spain.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by chrisbet: Fri Aug 7th, 2020 06:08 | 7th Post |
| The link goes to Harman Lab - I guess they took over from Ilfords? I used to work for Ilford in Basildon in the 1960s!
____________________ If it is broken it was probably me .... |
| Posted by Graham Whistler: Fri Aug 7th, 2020 17:28 | 8th Post |
| Yes Chris they do a good job and I have just posted my latest film to them. You should see the price of FP4 HP5 120 films now makes you think! Fun to get the old camera out but modern DSLRs are easy and quick to use with a great range of modern lenses producing top quality results and no waiting for the photos to come back from the lab.
____________________ Graham Whistler |
| Posted by Graham Whistler: Sat Aug 15th, 2020 12:24 | 9th Post |
Last weeks scans sent back to download sorry not very interesting just front of our house but all shots spot on for exposure with the old camera's built-in meter. Click here to comment on this image.
____________________ Graham Whistler |
| Posted by Iain: Sun Aug 16th, 2020 04:12 | 10th Post |
| When you look at those pics and the grain in them and then we have the nerve to complain if we get noise on a pic taken at 6400 iso.
|
| Posted by Graham Whistler: Sun Aug 16th, 2020 09:59 | 11th Post |
| You are so right Ian we used to be very happy with our old film cameras. I have just ordered 4 rolls of FP4 film to try and see what the grain is like with a 125 ISO film, may even have to get out a tripod. All part of the joys of locked up in your own home for months. It looks sadly that Wendy and I are not going to get to our villa holiday in SW Spain booked last year (and paid for), this Sept.
____________________ Graham Whistler |
| Posted by Robert: Sun Aug 16th, 2020 17:16 | 12th Post |
| I feel film grain is more 'in tune' with the image, noise is more random and adds nothing artistic.
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by Iain: Mon Aug 17th, 2020 02:45 | 13th Post |
| It dosen't look good for holidays in Spain at the moment Graham. It will be intresting to see what the grain is like on the 125iso.
|
| Posted by jk: Mon Aug 17th, 2020 05:29 | 14th Post |
Iain wrote:It dosen't look good for holidays in Spain at the moment Graham. It will be intresting to see what the grain is like on the 125iso.On 120 film with FP4 it used to be wonderful quality. I wish I still had my Hasselblad kit. I found a great set up on ebay that was hugely tempting but I resisted. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Hasselblad-503CW-A12-Back-CFV-50C-Digital-Back-and-3-x-Lenses-Complete-Kit/402363578366?hash=item5daebcf7fe:g:mFcAAOSwOVNfN~ve
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Eric: Mon Aug 17th, 2020 07:14 | 15th Post |
Graham Whistler wrote:You are so right Ian we used to be very happy with our old film cameras. I have just ordered 4 rolls of FP4 film to try and see what the grain is like with a 125 ISO film, may even have to get out a tripod. All part of the joys of locked up in your own home for months. It looks sadly that Wendy and I are not going to get to our villa holiday in SW Spain booked last year (and paid for), this Sept.It's quite a dilemma this foreign holiday issue. We have postponed our travels to France till next year. That said, a lot of caravan/motorhome owners are still going this Sept (according to the forums). Their argument is that they can self isolate just as well in their own caravan as staying at home. They can click and collect from French supermarkets (after registering) to avoid potential close contact indoors. And if their normal holiday revolves around laying in the sun with a good book, they are able to accomplish that with no concern. As many are retired the prospect of quarantine on their return isn't as a much of a deal breaker. I suppose the main concern is if you are unlucky enough to catch it...you may have to be hospitalised in a foreign land, apart from the obvious overwhelming worry about catching it in the first place! Personally, we don't see it as worth the risk. Part of holidays has always been relaxing body and soul. Not sure you can do the latter looking over your shoulder at potential virus carriers all the time. We will wait and see what happens in the rest of this year. Can you not claim back on insurance some of the costs? Or have you friends/family less vulnerable and prepared to go in your place? Seems a shame to let it go to waste.
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by Eric: Mon Aug 17th, 2020 07:31 | 16th Post |
jk wrote:On 120 film with FP4 it used to be wonderful quality. I wish I still had my Hasselblad kit.I must have the nostalgia gene missing. I can fondly remember the quality of the images those cameras achieved but I have no desire to work with a 'brick' in the hand' or lug about supports anymore. The results we can achieve with DSLRs like the D850 are perfectly comparable quality. And if they are not good enough, it's ME that's letting the equipment down.
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by jk: Mon Aug 17th, 2020 10:42 | 17th Post |
Eric wrote:I must have the nostalgia gene missing.That is the reason why I did not pursue this as I feel that it is nostalgia but in reality the quality I can get from the Z7 or D850 is as good and I also have a full range of fast lenses that I can use. It is nice old engineering with a digital back. Nice but how worth it that is questionable? You also bring up the highly important aspect of size, portability and the need for a tripod, all negative aspects for me.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Iain: Mon Aug 17th, 2020 15:34 | 18th Post |
| I couldn't go back to film now,processing it, printing or scanning it To get IQ that I can better with digital. No thanks.
|
| Posted by Robert: Tue Aug 18th, 2020 01:26 | 19th Post |
| I like the 'free' almost unlimited rolls of film you get with digital, the histogram and the immediacy. I occasionally hanker after my Bronica S2a but not the processing delay and cost.
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by jk: Tue Aug 18th, 2020 03:07 | 20th Post |
Robert wrote:I like the 'free' almost unlimited rolls of film you get with digital, the histogram and the immediacy. I occasionally hanker after my Bronica S2a but not the processing delay and cost.That is exactly how I feel.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Graham Whistler: Tue Aug 18th, 2020 05:22 | 21st Post |
| I agree with all that but it took two years hard savings to purchase that Rolleiflex and I took many of my early professional pixs with it until I could afford a Hasselblad. It is just a bit of fun to put the odd film through my old friend but agree it is not good for serious photography compared with D500 and D850 there is no contest. I was glad to sell the Hasslblads (at that time when other photographers were very cautious about digital I got serious money for all my Hasselblad kit) as soon as I knew that D1X was good enough for 90% of my work. For a time for studio photography and big blow-ups I kept using my 4x5 Sinar with transp film but the D3X saw that go.
____________________ Graham Whistler |
| Posted by Eric: Tue Aug 18th, 2020 08:21 | 22nd Post |
Graham Whistler wrote:I agree with all that but it took two years hard savings to purchase that Rolleiflex and I took many of my early professional pixs with it until I could afford a Hasselblad. It is just a bit of fun to put the odd film through my old friend but agree it is not good for serious photography compared with D500 and D850 there is no contest. I was glad to sell the Hasslblads (at that time when other photographers were very cautious about digital I got serious money for all my Hasselblad kit) as soon as I knew that D1X was good enough for 90% of my work. For a time for studio photography and big blow-ups I kept using my 4x5 Sinar with transp film but the D3X saw that go.Yes I can understand that. When you look back at the equipment we bought, that was needed to be self sufficient in business, it's quite scarey. Professional film and flatbed scanners 🤯 I think my first serious flatbed scanner cost £8000. 3 years later they were £800. But the alternative at the time was a £100,000 drum scanner. 😱😱😱😱. I I bought a Freestanding CD writer, one of the first of its kind, back in 1995 to transfer artwork to repro houses and later printers. It was a monster more like an old VHS video player 😆 . It cost £1500 and within 3 years they were selling them integral with PCs for £350. Fortunately mine had coffee spilt in it and faced with sending back to Germany to try to repair it (it went for a trip round UK electrical repairers first) the insurers gave me £1300 back ....went and bought a £350 version for my PC . 😎 I also remember writable CDs were £11 each when they came out ...of course that went on every job. 😆 There I go reminiscing .....maybe my nostalgia gene is awakening.
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by chrisbet: Tue Aug 18th, 2020 08:48 | 23rd Post |
| That is exactly why I never go for leading edge equipment, buy it when it has started to flatten out in value and then use it till it dies....
____________________ If it is broken it was probably me .... |
| Posted by Iain: Tue Aug 18th, 2020 09:47 | 24th Post |
| The cost of kit in that in-between period of film/digital was crazy. If i remember right my Nikon neg scanner was £3000.
|
| Posted by Eric: Tue Aug 18th, 2020 11:03 | 25th Post |
I take it back....it seems prepress flatbeds are still mega bucks. Still half what I had to pay in 1996.  http://www.microtek-scanners.co.uk/shop/artixscan-3200xl/
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by Graham Whistler: Fri Aug 21st, 2020 09:10 | 26th Post |
For a bit of fun this is a 1960 of myself then a 20 yr old photo student with the same camera new that year! Click here to comment on this image.
____________________ Graham Whistler |
| Posted by Graham Whistler: Fri Aug 21st, 2020 09:14 | 27th Post |
And here is a studio portrait of one of my then Kodak bosses using the camera with Mole Richard studio spotlights, no electronic studio flash then. I have just scanned the neg and it would have been 120 PluX 100 ISO dev D76 very little grain! Click here to comment on this image.
____________________ Graham Whistler |
| Posted by Graham Whistler: Fri Aug 21st, 2020 12:19 | 28th Post |
Ian one for you showing how good grain was even in 1960 this was Kodak Vericrome Pan 100 ISO dev Kodak D76 My Rollieflex again. Click here to comment on this image.
____________________ Graham Whistler |
| Posted by Graham Whistler: Fri Aug 21st, 2020 12:22 | 29th Post |
London in 1960 Rollieflex 3.5F Zeiss Planar Lens and Vericome Pan 100 ISA or should say ASA!  Click here to comment on this image.
____________________ Graham Whistler |
| Posted by Graham Whistler: Fri Aug 21st, 2020 12:42 | 30th Post |
Just to compare quality in 1960 this is a portrait of my uncle Mr FWM Pratt MS FRCS taken by me for The Royal College Surgeons in the Kodak studio again with a 8x10 inch Kodak studio camera with a 14 inch lens and P1600 Glass Plate!!!  Click here to comment on this image.
____________________ Graham Whistler |
| Posted by jk: Fri Aug 21st, 2020 15:55 | 31st Post |
Graham Whistler wrote:London in 1960 Rollieflex 3.5F Zeiss Planar Lens and Vericome Pan 100 ISA or should say ASA!London, before it was choked with traffic! Great shot Graham.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Eric: Sat Aug 22nd, 2020 14:59 | 32nd Post |
Graham Whistler wrote:Just to compare quality in 1960 this is a portrait of my uncle Mr FWM Pratt MS FRCS taken by me for The Royal College Surgeons in the Kodak studio again with a 8x10 inch Kodak studio camera with a 14 inch lens and P1600 Glass Plate!!!Terrific portrait, Graham. ousing quality. 
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by Iain: Sat Aug 22nd, 2020 15:06 | 33rd Post |
Eric wrote:Terrific portrait, Graham. ousing quality.It is that. Clear and sharp.
|
| Posted by Bob Bowen: Sun Aug 23rd, 2020 03:49 | 34th Post |
| How times change a doctor pictured smoking and it needed a 10x8 plate to achieve. Excellent image.
____________________ Bob Bowen |
| Posted by Graham Whistler: Sun Aug 23rd, 2020 05:48 | 35th Post |
| Ian thanks for that you prompted me to look up some early film shots and quality proved to stand up quite well and I scanned the negs on my Epson 4990 Scanner. The photo of my uncle taken on 8x10 plate long lost so that is a scan from a 4x5 copy neg made at the time. I have just shot a roll of FP4 so will post the result when the negs and set of hi res scans come back from the lab. Sorry all this is not Nikon material but hope it is of interest.
____________________ Graham Whistler |
| Posted by jk: Sun Aug 23rd, 2020 11:20 | 36th Post |
| Graham, when you printed the 8x10 did you do a contact print from the neg or use an enlarger? One of the things I like with my old MPP 5x4 was the fact that a contact print was very easy to make.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Graham Whistler: Sun Aug 23rd, 2020 12:57 | 37th Post |
| No Kodak had a 8x10 enlarger but I made a copy 4x5 neg and am glad I did as there was little loss of quality and I still have the neg and have been able to get a high res scan off it as the picture is important to the family (Sadly he died just three years later smoking did not help). He was very senior in the Royal College of Surgeons and I was asked to take a portrait for their board room when he retired.
____________________ Graham Whistler |
| Posted by Graham Whistler: Thu Sep 3rd, 2020 09:45 | 38th Post |
Ian further to the Rolleiflex image with Ilford HP5 400 ISO here is the test again with FP4 125 ISO, This is D500 with 18-140 at 50mm 125ISO 1/250 sec f11 Click here to comment on this image.
____________________ Graham Whistler |
| Posted by Graham Whistler: Thu Sep 3rd, 2020 09:47 | 39th Post |
 This is B&W off above colour image, interesting how much darker the sky is compared to the Rollei pix below. Perhaps should have used orange filter with the Rollie?
____________________ Graham Whistler |
| Posted by Graham Whistler: Thu Sep 3rd, 2020 09:52 | 40th Post |
60 yrs later not that much in it. Ian you were right to ask for a look at my old Rolleiflex is with FP4 not bad, but the D500 is clearly better. I did my best to match the two B&W images.  Click here to comment on this image.
____________________ Graham Whistler |
| Posted by Iain: Thu Sep 3rd, 2020 10:22 | 41st Post |
| The Rollieflex gave it a good go Graham but as you say the D500 has the edge.
|
| Posted by Graham Whistler: Thu Sep 3rd, 2020 12:55 | 42nd Post |
| Yes but400 ISO HP5 only suitable for press photography. I still get good pixs at 3200 ISO with both my DSLRs also the use of zoom lens to compose. My Rollei was upstaged very soon by Hasselblad to get the range of lenses and back changing for b&w or colour shot of the same pix.
____________________ Graham Whistler |
| Posted by Iain: Thu Sep 3rd, 2020 13:26 | 43rd Post |
| When I started working as a sports photographer I was using Fuji 800iso Colour print Film pushed to 3200 as the lights at Newcastle falcons was like six candles.
|
| Posted by Graham Whistler: Thu Sep 3rd, 2020 13:57 | 44th Post |
| Ian most of my working life I was doing advertising or commercial so I used studio flash a lot even on location. I also shot a lot of 4x5 or even 8x10, 50 or 100 ISO was the order of the day I had never used high ISO until the last 5 years doing bird photography!
____________________ Graham Whistler |
| Posted by Eric: Thu Sep 3rd, 2020 15:50 | 45th Post |
Graham Whistler wrote:Am I seeing banding in the sky on that image Graham?
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by Graham Whistler: Fri Sep 4th, 2020 04:23 | 46th Post |
| Looks OK to me I checked main files all look good.
____________________ Graham Whistler |
| Posted by Robert: Fri Sep 4th, 2020 04:39 | 47th Post |
Eric wrote:Am I seeing banding in the sky on that image Graham?It may be down to the viewers screen resolution, I am seeing (I think) very slight faint banding here on my high res iMac screen but more of a concern is the strong faded halo on the left hand side sky to masonry junction. What's causing that??? It caught my eye immediately. Edit: I just looked at it with my MacPro which currently has a 1080 screen, the banding is more visible.
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by jk: Fri Sep 4th, 2020 05:45 | 48th Post |
Robert wrote:It may be down to the viewers screen resolution, I am seeing (I think) very slight faint banding here on my high res iMac screen but more of a concern is the strong faded halo on the left hand side sky to masonry junction. What's causing that??? It caught my eye immediately.I have said this for years that some of the effects we 'think' we see, are really interactions between resolution, screen pixel pitch, and image resolution. I cant see the banding on my iPad Pro or on my MacPro 30' high resolution (2048x1280 used, 2560x1600 max res.).
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by chrisbet: Fri Sep 4th, 2020 07:50 | 49th Post |
| Looks like there ARE bands in that sky - more noticeable if you defocus your eyes.
____________________ If it is broken it was probably me .... |
| Posted by jk: Fri Sep 4th, 2020 13:29 | 50th Post |
| I can see something there but it is not obvious banding unless I downgrade the image resolution to 1080 as Robert says. I dont pretend to understand this as it seems real but I need convincing it is not an interaction of screen resolution and final resolution of the saved image.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Eric: Fri Sep 4th, 2020 15:10 | 51st Post |
jk wrote:I can see something there but it is not obvious banding unless I downgrade the image resolution to 1080 as Robert says.Surely if it were merely a screen effect, it would be there in the film image? I only see it in the D500 image. It's there in the colour image and has been amplified in the mono conversion. On reflection, it can't be banding as it's not parallel with the frame. Wonder if it's a cloud effect that's not captured by the film version??  Click here to comment on this image.  Click here to comment on this image.
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by chrisbet: Fri Sep 4th, 2020 16:10 | 52nd Post |
| Or maybe a refractive effect in the atmosphere caused by an interface between temperature levels - it has an almost wave like appearance.
____________________ If it is broken it was probably me .... |
| Posted by Eric: Fri Sep 4th, 2020 16:57 | 53rd Post |
chrisbet wrote:Or maybe a refractive effect in the atmosphere caused by an interface between temperature levels - it has an almost wave like appearance.But it's not evident in the Rolleiflex photograph.....so must be something only a sensor is seeing?
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by Graham Whistler: Fri Sep 4th, 2020 17:21 | 54th Post |
Looking at other views taken at the same time clouds were in parallel light dark thin layers you can see this in pix low left sky. This pix clearly shows on my large screen no camera faults in the sky? Click here to comment on this image.
____________________ Graham Whistler |
| Posted by Graham Whistler: Fri Sep 4th, 2020 17:26 | 55th Post |
Made this dark? Click here to comment on this image.
____________________ Graham Whistler |
| Posted by jk: Fri Sep 4th, 2020 18:18 | 56th Post |
| I can see the effect that Eric is describing on my iPad. I must have been looking at the wrong image! Yes it is in the D500 image but not the film image.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Graham Whistler: Sat Sep 5th, 2020 02:51 | 57th Post |
The same file open new again from NEF and did Eric crop: no sign of banding but let me know what you think? There were some strange looking light misty bands of cloud that morning but perhaps internet or JPG file got messed with uploading.  Click here to comment on this image.
____________________ Graham Whistler |
| Posted by Eric: Sat Sep 5th, 2020 03:34 | 58th Post |
| Nothing wrong with those images Graham. Must have been internet gremlins.
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by Eric: Sat Sep 5th, 2020 05:59 | 59th Post |
chrisbet wrote:Looks like there ARE bands in that sky - more noticeable if you defocus your eyes.Just asked the wife if she can see any bands on that image and she said ...â€yes...... it's more noticeable if you defocus your eyesâ€. Have you been colluding? 
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by chrisbet: Sat Sep 5th, 2020 06:59 | 60th Post |
| Certainly not! But it is well known that peripheral vision is more sensitive in some respects - I think that the brain is messing with reality if you focus directly on something!
____________________ If it is broken it was probably me .... |
| Posted by Graham Whistler: Sat Sep 5th, 2020 13:18 | 61st Post |
Ths is the front view with the Rolleiflex and FP$ Click here to comment on this image.
____________________ Graham Whistler |
| Posted by Iain: Sun Sep 6th, 2020 07:46 | 62nd Post |
| I have looked at all the images and I see banding on the D500 images but not on the last one that Graham put up.
|
| Posted by Graham Whistler: Sun Sep 6th, 2020 07:56 | 63rd Post |
| It is on this forum and not on any of the images as shot or any of the JPG before they were uploaded. The last D500 image of the bbey uploaded I reprocessed from the NEF just to see if there was any problem with the camera and all is good!
____________________ Graham Whistler |
| Posted by Eric: Sun Sep 6th, 2020 15:01 | 64th Post |
| Have you tried reloading the problem images to see if it happens again? If they are inherent issues with the first images they should reoccur...if they don't exhibit the same issue, it would suggest an upload anomaly.
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by Graham Whistler: Sun Sep 6th, 2020 17:09 | 65th Post |
| Post 197 is reloaded from the first image that showed the banding. I have also checked all the other files and all clean. This is the original JPG but full image. Click here to comment on this image.
____________________ Graham Whistler |
| Posted by Graham Whistler: Sun Sep 6th, 2020 17:13 | 66th Post |
This is the original trouble JPG reloaded now. Click here to comment on this image.
____________________ Graham Whistler |
| Posted by Eric: Mon Sep 7th, 2020 03:43 | 67th Post |
Graham Whistler wrote:This is the original trouble JPG reloaded now.I can still see banding lines in that image. That suggests something in the original file conversion.
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by Eric: Mon Sep 7th, 2020 03:48 | 68th Post |
 Click here to comment on this image. Boosting the mid tone contrast emphasises the effect and also the halo effect that Robert mentioned. I think something was different on that first nef processing. I don't know what the effect is. It clearly isn't 'digitally' regular or parallel. It looks like an atmospheric effect that for some reason the first process picked out. 
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by Eric: Mon Sep 7th, 2020 04:02 | 69th Post |
| Ok I think it's atmospherics that the first processing emphasised. This other image is taken from a different angle and if the mid tones are boosted, the lines are there but running at a downward angle. Turn the camera round to the left more (as in the discussed photo) and that would turn the lines more horizontally across the frame. Just don't know how/why one process highlights it and another doesn't?  Click here to comment on this image.
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by chrisbet: Mon Sep 7th, 2020 05:00 | 70th Post |
| It's not under a flight path is it? - Old contrails?
____________________ If it is broken it was probably me .... |
| Posted by jk: Mon Sep 7th, 2020 06:56 | 71st Post |
| Looking at the image in more detail. I think that the section with the streaks or banding is where I think Graham has increased saturation so it is a 'problem' with the software (?Adobe Photoshop or Nikon Capture NX?) doing the manipulation.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Eric: Mon Sep 7th, 2020 14:33 | 72nd Post |
jk wrote:Looking at the image in more detail.Which image are you referring to Jonathan? Some of the 'saturated' ones are mine...where I boosted mid tone contrast to emphasise the effect. Having spoke with Graham he tells me there was a lot of sea mist around ....he had to wait until it had dissipated before photographing the building. Maybe it hadn't completely cleared? Whatever it was,it seems to have been 'seen' and brought out during subsequent processing. It just shows how good these sensors are at finding detail.
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by Graham Whistler: Tue Sep 8th, 2020 04:22 | 73rd Post |
| My good friend Gordon is a very good railway photographer and has published some very high-quality railway books and is still very happy with hid Nikon D300. This is his interesting e-mail he sent me about then and now ie Rolleiflex-V-Modern DSLR (also used Rollei in the early days): Hi Graham, I suspect that publishing digital images on hi-def screens has brought 'perfect detail' to all - and somehow this is unsettling. It may be that the Mk1 eyeball leads us astray. The DSLR reveals things that we didn't know are there. Looking at those WW2 reconnaissance pictures reveals that the normal limits we accepted could be exceeded. Liking old camera qualities allows some delightful variability and restores some room for our likes and dislikes and artistic interpretations. As someone who uses images to publish all the time, the new digital setup allows undreamed of precision (if that's what you want). The old camera would probably do that with a digital back, but I wouldn't want to lose the digital precision of what we have, yet I wouldn't part with the artistic impressions available from film. However the WW1 images we saw, coloured, detailed and with sound (researched) and added were amazing. I advance the answer: the optics are good, the shutters are tricky; exposure needs expertise - the film was limiting. Reality from the old blurry pics my family took was that if you wanted photos, go to a professional. Today 'point and press' gives you the dream on a plate. Gordon.
____________________ Graham Whistler |
| Posted by jk: Tue Sep 8th, 2020 05:30 | 74th Post |
Eric wrote:Which image are you referring to Jonathan? Some of the 'saturated' ones are mine...where I boosted mid tone contrast to emphasise the effect.I can honestly say that I am now confused by all the different versions of the images.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Eric: Tue Sep 8th, 2020 05:55 | 75th Post |
Graham Whistler wrote:My good friend Gordon is a very good railway photographer and has published some very high-quality railway books and is still very happy with hid Nikon D300. This is his interesting e-mail he sent me about then and now ie Rolleiflex-V-Modern DSLR (also used Rollei in the early days):Fair comments. There is no doubt that the quality of the Rollei stands the test of time, as I am sure will all serious professional equipment of that period. We are however spoilt with modern DSLRs. Using the old cameras now feels awkward. They are heavier, less ergonomic and without previews, (ok you might still be able to get Polaroid film or even Digital backs ....assuming someone else is paying for it!) which means the user needs to be precise in set up to guarantee the result. That's not a bad thing. But in the rush and bustle of modern day life we probably don't take as much time 'previsualising' as we used to do. Well I know I don't. I am reminded of Ansel Adams' reply when asked his opinion on the 'new' 35mm format. He said something along the lines of... the capability of the smaller film was potentially still very good but “....the biggest obstacle to quality is the ease and speed of use (of the equipment)â€. The other part of 'film photography' was the darkroom. I enjoyed developing and printing my own photos. In fact it was a significant part of the pleasure in taking photos. This had to be sidelined when working professionally in favour of commercial labs for speed and reproducibility. So when I switched to a DSLR for my work, it brought with it the added bonus of being able to reclaim the 'processing and darkroom' for myself. In fact, with Photoshop, I was also able to carry out post shoot corrections and additions that to some extent reduced the amount of time spent setting up the scenes. For example, in hotel bedroom shoots I've 'digitally ironed' pillow creases and bedding misalignments rather than waiting for housekeeping to fix; I've put stock painting on walls to better compose and beautify the room (or hide wall defects) without having to carry props with me; I've retrospectively added images on projection screens when meeting room equipment failed. In kitchens, I've cleaned oven fronts, tiles and equipment....without getting my hands dirty. Yes there is arguably a degree of laziness that creeps in at the time of taking the photograph when you know it can be adjusted later. But even Ansel Adams with his Previsualising and Zone system factored in necessary darkroom work back home ...for every one of his images. So yes, the quality is there in medium /large format film ...but the taking and subsequent processing of the photos would never entice me back to it.
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by Eric: Tue Sep 8th, 2020 06:06 | 76th Post |
| Might it be an idea to put the recent film v digital discussion (142 onwards?) on a separate thread?
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by chrisbet: Tue Sep 8th, 2020 06:43 | 77th Post |
| Excellent idea Eric, we seem to have drifted off the topic by a country mile ...
____________________ If it is broken it was probably me .... |
| Posted by jk: Tue Sep 8th, 2020 08:51 | 78th Post |
Eric wrote:Fair comments.So many points here that are so true. Great post Eric. Thanks for these reminders. Sloppy and careless execution is the killer of quality.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by chrisbet: Wed Sep 9th, 2020 17:01 | 79th Post |
| Thread split from Macro Images using Focus Stacking.
____________________ If it is broken it was probably me .... |
| Posted by Robert: Wed Sep 9th, 2020 17:07 | 80th Post |
| Thanks Chris, much appreciated.
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by GeoffR: Thu Sep 10th, 2020 15:12 | 81st Post |
| I calculated recently that, were I still using film, my annual expenditure would be around £6,000 for slide film and developing. I simply couldn't afford to take the number of photographs that I do with film. More to the point I wouldn't even have attempted some of my better images because they are parts of a long sequence (not shot on continuous). I would, in most cases, have run out of film before getting to the best image.
|
| Posted by Robert: Fri Sep 11th, 2020 03:19 | 82nd Post |
| Geoff, you hit the nail right on the head. Not just that but my photography sessions were much less frequent. Most extravagant was my trip to Le-Mans when I took about seven rolls of film in 36 hours. Due to my lack of practice and in such a strange environment (for me) I did't get as many really good pictures as I would have had I gone in recent times having had loads of practice at lesser events, which was afforded due to the 'free film' provided by digital. Digital has many advantages but I still say the biggest are the 'free film' and the histogram. I can home in and get an optimal exposure in difficult or impossible lighting, even bracketing and combining images (HDR) at times to 'get the picture'. All that said, I haven't even picked up a camera for at least two months. Just been too busy.
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by Graham Whistler: Sat Sep 19th, 2020 06:52 | 83rd Post |
Scanning in some negs from my photographic student days at the Regent Street Polly. This is another Rolleiflex image the 60 yer old neg still perfect only one dust spot to clone out.  Click here to comment on this image.
____________________ Graham Whistler |
| Posted by Eric: Sat Sep 19th, 2020 17:45 | 84th Post |
| I've tried hard Graham....but it's faultless to my eyes ....which are nothing like hers, by the way. Looking at the standard of your college work, I am reminded of the remark made to me by a teenage squash player who I (in my late thirties) had just beaten in a thrilling and exhausting squash tournament match. As we left the court he said “well done.... I bet you were really good when you were young?â€. Well done, lovely image and so reminiscent of the period.
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by Graham Whistler: Sun Sep 20th, 2020 02:49 | 85th Post |
| Could we do better quality with a DSLR today? I think it would have been Kodax PlusX 120 Film and D76 developer 100ASA and Mole Richards studio lighting (No studio flash in those days)
____________________ Graham Whistler |
| Posted by Iain: Sun Sep 20th, 2020 08:50 | 86th Post |
| The detail in that is great, don't know if you could get better than that with digital.
|
| Posted by Graham Whistler: Wed Sep 23rd, 2020 14:12 | 87th Post |
How is this for detail Ian this is one of my London big hotel shoots sorry it's B&W but the client had the 4x5 transp. This is Sinar 4x5 and 16 Elinchrom Studio flash heads I just had my trusty flash mete and Polaroid film back! This is as shot scan off the original neg. This is Rank's Royal Lancaster Hotel in London shot Nov 1990. Long before Nikon DSLRs. Click here to comment on this image.
____________________ Graham Whistler |
| Posted by Eric: Thu Sep 24th, 2020 04:52 | 88th Post |
| 16 flash to position and balance!!!! I only ever used 4 (I only HAD 4 ) and that was hard enough with chair shadows on table cloths everywhere. Mind you, I never did any venues that large. Wonder how they are coping with social distancing in these establishments?
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by Iain: Fri Sep 25th, 2020 09:28 | 89th Post |
| That looks good Graham. Worked with six flashlights and that was enough.
|
| Posted by rmoser: Wed Sep 30th, 2020 12:04 | 90th Post |
| Back in the day my favorite film/dev b&w combination was Panatomic X exposed at ASA 25 and developed in Minicol. Wonder, smooth 35mm portraits. Neither still exists although I do have the formula for Minicol, so that's still doable. Naturally, I still have a bunch of Tri-X in the freeze and I sometimes give my F2's a little time out of the house. I have an F5 but I only use it if I'm also shooting with my D4s. We really are spoiled with excellent auto exposure and focus in hand these days. I stumbled on a batch of negs the other day that I took at an air show back in the middle 1970's using a Nikon F (which I still have in the safe). I just look at them and wonder how I did that. Manual focus, manual exposures, no motor drive and only 36 pictures before a re-load. I still have my 4x5 view camera and haul it out sometimes but I think I should get a digital back for it :). Sheet film, processing and scanning is a serious investment these days. Rob
|
| This is topic ID = 1838 | ||
| Nikon DSLR Forums > Photography > Photography > Film v digital | Top | |
Users viewing this topic |
||
Current theme is Blue
| A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondsl.uk Thank you. |
Hosted by Octarine Services
UltraBB 1.173 Copyright © 2008-2025 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.3586 seconds (72% database + 28% PHP). 501 queries executed.
UltraBB 1.173 Copyright © 2008-2025 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.3586 seconds (72% database + 28% PHP). 501 queries executed.