Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Film Photography
Egret
Apr 18, 2021 16:25:56   #
selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA
 
Taken in 2013 with a Nikon F100, 300mm f/4.5 on Ektachrome 100.

Scanned, no post processing needed
Scanned, no post processing needed...
(Download)

Reply
Apr 18, 2021 17:15:02   #
Cwilson341 Loc: Central Florida
 
Outstanding work, Scotty! Beautiful bird captured in his Sunday best!

Reply
Apr 18, 2021 17:34:52   #
selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA
 
Cwilson341 wrote:
Outstanding work, Scotty! Beautiful bird captured in his Sunday best!

Thank you.

I was going over some Alligator Farm shots on film and digital and what struck me was that the digital stuff needed more careful exposure and PP to reach the same level as Ektachrome.

Reply
 
 
Apr 19, 2021 06:42:13   #
CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City
 
Nice! I haven't advanced into wildlife and film yet.

Reply
Apr 19, 2021 07:48:34   #
jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana
 
Nice!

Reply
Apr 19, 2021 08:15:11   #
rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona
 
Very nicely done, Scotty. I really like the tonalities and colors.
—Bob
selmslie wrote:
Taken in 2013 with a Nikon F100, 300mm f/4.5 on Ektachrome 100.

Reply
Apr 19, 2021 08:36:13   #
Jim D Loc: Lehigh Valley , Pa.
 
Beautiful image Scotty.
JimD

Reply
 
 
Apr 19, 2021 09:03:11   #
selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA
 
Thanks to all of you for your kind comments.

With film, 36 frames at a time can be a commitment. With medium format, 12 frames or less can help and you get the benefit of a much larger format.

Transparency film is a lot like digital. You still have to watch out for the highlights but film can handle the highlights better because it doesn’t blow out abruptly.

Anyone on the fence can see the difference by taking a series of matching images with both daylight slide film and a digital camera set to Daylight WB.

Reply
Apr 19, 2021 11:57:31   #
Lynn 1509 Loc: Northern Illinois
 
Very nicely captured. I like the detail.

Reply
Apr 19, 2021 15:30:08   #
selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA
 
Lynn 1509 wrote:
Very nicely captured. I like the detail.

Thank you.

That was a manual focus lens made in 1986. The images are fine but at 100% we can start to see some problems.

I have since replaced it with a Tamron 150-600 G2. It's bigger and heavier but it performs better.

Reply
Apr 20, 2021 15:09:33   #
burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC
 
selmslie wrote:
Thanks to all of you for your kind comments.

With film, 36 frames at a time can be a commitment. With medium format, 12 frames or less can help and you get the benefit of a much larger format.

Transparency film is a lot like digital. You still have to watch out for the highlights but film can handle the highlights better because it doesn’t blow out abruptly.

Anyone on the fence can see the difference by taking a series of matching images with both daylight slide film and a digital camera set to Daylight WB.
Thanks to all of you for your kind comments. br ... (show quote)


Scotty, NICE WORK!

To get a digital image that appears close to the dynamic range of film, you have to record raw images or scan to 16-bit TIFFs and post process.

On 12-bit cameras, you might capture 12 stops of detail. On 14-bit cameras, you might capture 14 stops of detail. But paper only reflects about five stops, and JPEGs and other 8-bit formats only contain a little more than that.

So... To extend the illusion of tonal range that includes bright highlights and dark shadows (that would otherwise burn out or plug up in a JPEG capture), you have to use the tools in post-processing software to compress the captured range in a raw file or 16-bit TIFF into what can be displayed or printed. The result isn't exactly real, but it is a lot more natural than SOOC JPEGs.

When I copy slides to digital with my macro lens, I do so in raw. That enables me to put everything the camera took from the slide into a printable range that looks far better than the best reversal printing processes ever did (i.e.; Cibachrome, dye transfer, Ektaflex, etc.). Printing the result on a high end inkjet printer from a 16-bit TIFF in ProPhoto RGB color space is very satisfying. It holds details a JPEG never could, too.

Reply
 
 
Apr 20, 2021 16:27:41   #
selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA
 
Thank you.
burkphoto wrote:
... To get a digital image that appears close to the dynamic range of film, you have to record raw images or scan to 16-bit TIFFs and post process. ...

It doesn't really make a difference whether you scan to a 16-bit TIFF or an 8-bit JPEG although the 16-bit path leaves you with an image that can be more successfully edited.

Both of my scanners let me record the full dynamic range recorded on the film.

The Epson V750 using Epson Scan makes this easy when using three triangles under the histogram.



If you move the black triangle to the left limit of the histogram and the white one to the right limit you will be able to record all of the DR that the film is providing. This is the Input part. If you set the Output range from 0 to 255 you will get the whole DR in the JPEG or the TIFF. Ignore the black spike on the left which represents the frame of the film carrier.

The Coolscan with Nikon Scan makes this a little more difficult but I have not had a problem getting a decent scan from Ektachrome simply by leaving the settings at their default values. It was a little harder with Kodachrome but easier with properly developed color negative film. With B&W negative film where I can control the contrast of the negative, a lower contrast negative is easier to scan.

Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Film Photography
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.