I like it. Did you do anything in post after scanning, such as sharpening?
Thank you for a lovely photo. I often wish I still had one of my Hasselblads to use for film. They are a pleasure just using them.
Dennis
I dont blow , i vacuum with a shop minivac .
nice, but logo is very distracting!
Terrific image, Kathy...The Hasse is a keeper!!
jim quist wrote:
Now you have me wanting to buy some 220 film and start using my old hasselblads.
Unfortunately, Jim, 220 film is no longer available...
jederick wrote:
Terrific image, Kathy...The Hasse is a keeper!!
Thanks, Jederick. I believe it is!
Well done. Haven't used film for many, many years now.
photon-collector wrote:
Unfortunately, Jim, 220 film is no longer available...
That's what they told me at Tempe Camera. And if you should find some, don't buy it!
randave2001 wrote:
Well done. Haven't used film for many, many years now.
Thanks. Nor have I. I have five film cameras and have film in the freezer. But I'll admit to seldom taking it with me. Something has to be "film worthy" for me to take it. The Hasse is so easy to use, it may change my mind!
AzPicLady wrote:
On Wednesday I took the new Hasselblad with a roll of Ektar 100 out to the river to see what the Hasse would do with my favorite local mountain. I got the roll developed that afternoon by TCR and came home with the negs to do the scanning. Ever since then I've been working to clean up the dust spots. (That's why I don't like scanning!) I found a spot where I could get some foreground interest in the frame for Cany143.
The resulting TIFF is 201 mg. Sort of large, no?
I think this camera is a keeper. It's easy to use and gives pretty nice results. What do you think?
On Wednesday I took the new Hasselblad with a roll... (
show quote)
I just downloaded your picture and look at the image at 100%. Unless you have weird clouds where you live, the sky should not look like that. The blue appears mottled, not even. There are broad areas of irregular white where there shouldn't be any. I don't believe that this is caused by dust. So A. Get someone else to develop your film and see if the results are the same, or B. You're creating artifacts from removing dust spots in a photo editor (seems unlikely but possible.)
I have scanned thousands of negatives and slides. Dust spots have a sharp margin. Same with hair from my dogs that got on them. These are my thoughts.
I agree, WOW! , great detail & clarity. It's a keeper! What model camera & lens? More than 1 lens? I guess you clean the scanner & blow the negative off with air before scanning. Still, I imagine after the scan, you see the things you can't see with the eye like in macro.
therwol wrote:
I just downloaded your picture and look at the image at 100%. Unless you have weird clouds where you live, the sky should not look like that. The blue appears mottled, not even. There are broad areas of irregular white where there shouldn't be any. I don't believe that this is caused by dust. So A. Get someone else to develop your film and see if the results are the same, or B. You're creating artifacts from removing dust spots in a photo editor (seems unlikely but possible.)
I have scanned thousands of negatives and slides. Dust spots have a sharp margin. Same with hair from my dogs that got on them. These are my thoughts.
I just downloaded your picture and look at the ima... (
show quote)
The mottling in the sky is from my trying to remove the thousands of dust spots! The company that developed the film is the top place in the Valley, so I don't fault them. I fault the scanner. It creates horrid dust spots!
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.