No chance my 5Dii could capture this much dynamic range in a single shot. So, post your best film shots and be sure to include film and camera info. This was with a Bronica GS-1 and Kodak Ektar 100.
intense_puppy
Posts: 832
Brighton, England, United Kingdom
My favorite film shot. Impossible project Polaroid film - excessively high contrast, terrible colours and no dynamic range.
Shot on the plastic lens 600P model (quality camera, lol)
Kaouthia
Posts: 3,080
Lancaster, England, United Kingdom
One from Tuesday; a day spent wandering around Manchester with a few models and a couple of other photographers. My first time working with male models.
Nikon N90s, Nikon 50mm f/1.8D, Ilford FP4+ - developed in Ilford Ilfotec LC-29, 1:29 for 9 mins @ 20C.
Tony-S wrote: No chance my 5Dii could capture this much dynamic range in a single shot. So, post your best film shots and be sure to include film and camera info. This was with a Bronica GS-1 and Kodak Ektar 100.
It appears to me you have put up a digital picture and tried to pass it off as film.
First extar 100 is a neg, not a chrome film.
You forgot there is a rebate edge on along the side of the pictures.
Chrome has more of a dynamic range then Neg.
So even if this pic was originally shot on film, it had to be scanned to pull in the dynamic range in the foreground shadows.
Back in the day I could maximize the dynamic range in Chrome film.
It still doesnt hold a candle what one can do in post production on a properly exposed high quality digital image.
Michael Lohr wrote: It appears to me you have put up a digital picture and tried to pass it off as film.
First extar 100 is a neg, not a chrome film.
You forgot there is a rebate edge on along the side of the pictures.
Chrome has more of a dynamic range then chrome.
So even if this pic was originally shot on film, it had to be scanned to pull in the dynamic range in the foreground shadows.
Back in the day I coyuld maximize the dynamic range in Chrome film.
It still doesnt hold a candle what one can do in post production on a properly exposed high quality digital image.
Kaouthia
Posts: 3,080
Lancaster, England, United Kingdom
Michael Lohr wrote: First extar 100 is a neg, not a chrome film.
You can scan a negative and invert it on a computer to produce a positive colour image.
Michael Lohr wrote: You forgot there is a rebate edge on along the side of the pictures.
Unless you're using 35mm in a larger than 35mm camera. If you put a 35mm back on a 6x7 camera, it's going to cover the entire film (including the sprockets).
Michael Lohr wrote: Chrome has more of a dynamic range then chrome.
Wut?
It even shows in the EXIF data that his "Camera" is "Epson PerfectionV700" (same scanner I use).
Michael Lohr wrote:
First extar 100 is a neg, not a chrome film.
You can scan a negative and invert it on a computer to produce a positive colour image.
Of course one can manipulate any scanned image. At the start of the thread the author implies this "film" shot is better than digital. As soon as one scans a image and converts it to digital, then we are dealing with a digital image..not film.
Michael Lohr wrote:
You forgot there is a rebate edge on along the side of the pictures.
Unless you're using 35mm in a larger than 35mm camera. If you put a 35mm back on a 6x7 camera, it's going to cover the entire film (including the sprockets).
Seriously? Just how many people have actually done that. And for what purpose?
Kaouthia
Posts: 3,080
Lancaster, England, United Kingdom
Michael Lohr wrote: Of course one can manipulate any scanned image. At the start of the thread the author implies this "film" shot is better than digital. As soon as one scans a image and converts it to digital, then we are dealing with a digital image..not film.
Ok, so please tell me how else we're supposed to pop up a photo he's taken on film on a forum, on the internet?
Also, you can do a fuckload of manipulation to any film image in the darkroom too, by using variously coloured filters, dodge & burn, masking, whatever. The process doesn't end when you hit the shutter.
Michael Lohr wrote: Seriously? Just how many people have actually done that. And for what purpose?
Yeah, seriously. There's 35mm backs out there for most medium format cameras if you look hard enough. I know quite a few who use them in order to be able to shoot panoramics (basically, you end up with a 3:1 image, instead of the standard 3:2).
Film is OK. Had shot Kodachrome 25 and 64 for over 25 years. Occasionally, I miss the smell of the chemicals for B/W film and prints. But I would not trade my D800e though.
Now film suddenly becomes the new cool for the new generations.
Michael Lohr wrote: It appears to me you have put up a digital picture and tried to pass it off as film.
You'd be mistaken.
First extar 100 is a neg, not a chrome film.
Where did I say otherwise?
You forgot there is a rebate edge on along the side of the pictures.
Rebate edge? What's that?
Chrome has more of a dynamic range then Neg.
No, it doesn't. Ektar is about 12 stops, Portras are about 14 stops. B&W can be even greater with proper exposure and development. The best slide film (Fujichrome Velvia 50, dmax=4.0) has about 8 or 9 stops.
So even if this pic was originally shot on film, it had to be scanned to pull in the dynamic range in the foreground shadows.
The film has that much dynamic range because of its S-curve characteristics.
Back in the day I could maximize the dynamic range in Chrome film.
It still doesnt hold a candle what one can do in post production on a properly exposed high quality digital image.
You should have tried color negative film since that would have solved your problem. My 5Dii has about 10 stops of dynamic range.
Kaouthia wrote: Unless you're using 35mm in a larger than 35mm camera. If you put a 35mm back on a 6x7 camera, it's going to cover the entire film (including the sprockets).
Michael Lohr wrote: Sorry I simply do not beleive that is not a manipulated shot
If by manipulation you mean dodging, burning and contrast adjustments, then you're right, I did all of those in Aperture. But that's the problem with color negative film - it has more information than any computer display can show, so you have to bring those within the range of the display. But at least the negative has that information. That shot with my 5Dii would have had blown highlights and shadows - it simply cannot capture as much information as film. with that said, the Nikon D800 is very close to Ektar in DR, as are many of the medium format digitals. And it will get better in the future.
Kaouthia
Posts: 3,080
Lancaster, England, United Kingdom
Tony-S wrote: It's pretty easy to run 35mm film through a 220 back. Don't do a 120 back, because you're stuck with only 10 exposures with a 6x7 camera.
I don't mind only getting 10 exposures per roll.
As far as 35mm goes, I've got 25 rolls of FP4 (recently got a 100ft bulk roll, so loaded 'em all up), a dozen rolls of Rollei Retro 100, another dozen rolls of Kentmere 100, a few rolls of HP5+ and another couple of dozen rolls of random black & white and colour film here, so I have plenty to spare.
Carioca wrote: Linhof 4x5, through a barrel lens built in 1905, shot on TXP, developped in X-tol.
Film is a hoot. It's really got its own look that's hard to nail down in digital. Especially certain non-neutral films. My favorite is Kodak ektachrome 100SW. The way it saturates skin is amazing...its warm and saturated without the weirdness of velvia. Replicating it digitally is unkind to a RAW file, and it's just not quite there. but I'm working on it, since that film is dead...so it's hard to find and expensive when you do. This was on a fuji gw690...6x9 chromes are purdy.
WMcK
Posts: 5,183
Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
Michael Lohr wrote: Michael Lohr wrote:
Michael Lohr wrote:
You forgot there is a rebate edge on along the side of the pictures.
Unless you're using 35mm in a larger than 35mm camera. If you put a 35mm back on a 6x7 camera, it's going to cover the entire film (including the sprockets).
Seriously? Just how many people have actually done that. And for what purpose?
In my early days in photography I only had a 120 camera. I had a source of free 35mm film. I uses to tape the 35mm film onto the 120 backing paper, an got a result like the above. I'm sure many others have done the same.
In my early days in photography I only had a 120 camera. I had a source of free 35mm film. I uses to tape the 35mm film onto the 120 backing paper, an got a result like the above. I'm sure many others have done the same.
On purpose of this all: not every film type that came out in 35mm was available in rollfilm (the 120/220 format).
For panoramic shots: why should you spill film? You just need the small, long stretch.
This will sound even stranger for you: use 35mm film in a 4x5" film holder. Purpose: superpanorama's! Two in one shot. Now this is done less frequent I guess...
intense_puppy
Posts: 832
Brighton, England, United Kingdom
fotopfw wrote: This will sound even stranger for you: use 35mm film in a 4x5" film holder. Purpose: superpanorama's! Two in one shot. Now this is done less frequent I guess...
Another from my Grand Teton trip a couple of weeks ago. This one also shot with the Bronica GS-1 6x7cm using Ilford SFX200 near-infrared film with a Cokin 007 IR filter. Processed with Perceptol 1+1 for 20 min at 68F.
), Rodinal 1+50:
| 
| 
| edu