View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Kram
Joined: 06 Feb 2010 Posts: 1344 Location: Portland, OR
|
Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2011 10:01 pm Post subject: Medium Format Colour: Transparency or Negative? |
|
|
Kram wrote:
Well I started the year off right and did something I haven't done before, shot color with my SL-66 (in freezing cold). It's maybe the first time I've even looked through the viewfinder without a yellow, orange or red filter on it! The Maxwell screen made it a joy and I shot some macro images on Fujichrome 100F (220). Haven't processed it yet but this may be a new series for me and I'm wondering which way to go, color negative or transparency.
I have a lab (of unknown quality) within walking distance who run both E-6 and C-41 for good prices. My concern is that I will be scanning and perhaps it will be easier to zero in the color on E-6 images rather than C-41. I really want to work out a smooth workflow and don't want to have to start from square one on every roll. Scanning with an Epson 4990.
I think I recall someone saying that E-6 was less problematic? Any of you medium format color shooters have opinions? Rawhead? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
marty
Joined: 09 Apr 2009 Posts: 767 Location: Italy
|
Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2011 10:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
marty wrote:
I've no experience with medium format color, so I'll post just few thoughts.
The big difference from scanning slide and neg, as you may guess, is the orange mask which may be tough to remove. Epson scan (or whatever sw you're using will do that for you) but you may be happy or not with the out of the box job. It's certainly possible to do the job with your photo editing sw of choice but can be a long process to fine tune the color the way you like. This is basically why most people who use to scan find easier to work with slides, what you see is what you get . Now my experience is with small format scans. Pointed this out, Epson scan does, in my case, a fairly good job with Portra films but when I tried on consumer emulsions the things went a bit more complicated (see color casts, grain). With slides the job is easier, BUT, due to the inherent narrower latitude of slide I ended up often with blocked shadows or burnt h/l (the film is exposed right enough to project fine) . This is a limitation of most consumer flatbed scanners I understand (other than my exposure technique, maybe ). Here some medium format user may be more helpful in reporting whether this problem arises with this media too or not. In the end my advice would be try a roll of negative film
(with a pro one you start a step ahead) as well and compare yourself the result. Your mileage may vary . Hope this is of some help.
Cheers, M. _________________ Canon FD
Bodies: AT-1, A-1, T-90
Lenses: nFD 20mm f2.8, 24 f2.8, 28 f2.8, 35 f2, FD 50 f1.8 S.C., 85 f1.8, 100 f2.8, 135 f2.8, 200 f4, 300 f4
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Excalibur
Joined: 19 Jul 2009 Posts: 5017 Location: UK
Expire: 2014-04-21
|
Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2011 1:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Excalibur wrote:
Well I can't understand your problem as you can try neg and pos film and see what you prefer....my experience with scanning positive film is with the older stuff i.e. Perutz, Agfacolour and Kodachrome and find it no more difficult (using a flatbed scanner) than scanning negative film.
And for others who might read this thread:- I've found if all you are going to do is post shots on a computer screen or keep under 8X10 prints...a S/H scanner for £10 does a good job.
Members shots using different scanners @
photosig.com _________________ Canon A1, AV1, T70 & T90, EOS 300 and EOS300v, Chinon CE and CP-7M. Contax 139, Fuji STX-2, Konica Autoreflex TC, FS-1, FT-1, Minolta X-700, X-300, XD-11, SRT101b, Nikon EM, FM, F4, F90X, Olympus OM2, Pentax S3, Spotmatic, Pentax ME super, Praktica TL 5B, & BC1, , Ricoh KR10super, Yashica T5D, Bronica Etrs, Mamiya RB67 pro AND drum roll:- a Sony Nex 3
.........past gear Tele Rolleiflex and Rollei SL66.
Many lenses from good to excellent.
Last edited by Excalibur on Tue Jan 04, 2011 6:23 pm; edited 7 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Kram
Joined: 06 Feb 2010 Posts: 1344 Location: Portland, OR
|
Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2011 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Kram wrote:
Marty, thanks. Makes sense.
Excalibur, I will try both but wanted to hear others experiences. I have a fair bit of Fujichrome in the fridge and will start there.
Ektar 100 sounds interesting too. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 11015 Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2011 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
THE dilemma.
I'm a fan of Fuji color, having missed Kodachrome era.
As I understand:
E-6 costs significant more to process.
E-6 costs significant more to print.
C-41 negatives last longer than E-6 slides (arguable?).
C-41 has more exposure latitude than E-6. _________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX-A ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (151B), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Excalibur
Joined: 19 Jul 2009 Posts: 5017 Location: UK
Expire: 2014-04-21
|
Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2011 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Excalibur wrote:
Kram wrote: |
Marty, thanks. Makes sense.
Excalibur, I will try both but wanted to hear others experiences. I have a fair bit of Fujichrome in the fridge and will start there.
Ektar 100 sounds interesting too. |
Fuji Reala 100 asa is my 35mm favourite, haven't tried Ektar yet. I'm still using 120 film that I bought and had expired in 2002:-
http://forum.mflenses.com/rb67-and-10-year-old-expired-film-t32856.html _________________ Canon A1, AV1, T70 & T90, EOS 300 and EOS300v, Chinon CE and CP-7M. Contax 139, Fuji STX-2, Konica Autoreflex TC, FS-1, FT-1, Minolta X-700, X-300, XD-11, SRT101b, Nikon EM, FM, F4, F90X, Olympus OM2, Pentax S3, Spotmatic, Pentax ME super, Praktica TL 5B, & BC1, , Ricoh KR10super, Yashica T5D, Bronica Etrs, Mamiya RB67 pro AND drum roll:- a Sony Nex 3
.........past gear Tele Rolleiflex and Rollei SL66.
Many lenses from good to excellent. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Katastrofo
Joined: 26 Feb 2007 Posts: 10405 Location: USA
Expire: 2013-11-19
|
Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2011 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Katastrofo wrote:
You should do well scanning slide film with the 4990 which has a DMax of 4.
Michael (Cooltouch) has this scanner and I really like his scans from slides. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
std
Joined: 09 Feb 2010 Posts: 1826 Location: Bulgaria
|
Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2011 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
std wrote:
Negatives in my experience are much easyer to scan and also are forgiving exposure erorrs. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Kram
Joined: 06 Feb 2010 Posts: 1344 Location: Portland, OR
|
Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2011 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Kram wrote:
visualopsins wrote: |
THE dilemma.
I'm a fan of Fuji color, having missed Kodachrome era.
|
I enjoyed the Kodachrome era for a bit, but became a huge fan of Fujichrome and have shot tens of thousands (maybe more!) of images with it. Velvia is especially nice, although I've heard that it's very hard to scan. Not planning on doing much if any Velvia.
visualopsins wrote: |
As I understand:
E-6 costs significant more to process.
E-6 costs significant more to print. |
Can be true. My local lab charges $2.75 for C-41 and 5.75 for E-6 (120).
Printing... it all depends on what you want.
visualopsins wrote: |
C-41 negatives last longer than E-6 slides (arguable?).
C-41 has more exposure latitude than E-6. |
Properly processed E-6 is archival as C-41, maybe more so.
True on the exposure latitude.
Interesting discussion! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Kram
Joined: 06 Feb 2010 Posts: 1344 Location: Portland, OR
|
Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2011 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Kram wrote:
Katastrofo, thanks. Very good to know.
std, word.
I'll just try them both and report back.
Been having fun shooting my Rolleiflex SL-66 (macro stuff) and Fujichrome Provia 220. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2011 5:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
I envy you your SL-66. To me it is one of the ultimate medium format cameras. I hope to own one some day. Kinda wish their prices would have crashed the way all the others have. But nope, Rollei's prices are hanging in there across the board.
As for which color emulsion to go with, those before me have raised good points. I think that eventually it's gonna come down to personal preference. Me, I just prefer slides. They come across sharper than negs with better color saturation, and often with finer grain. But I too have gotten really nice results with C41 stuff. I picked up a tip many years ago from a wedding photographer who never shot his print film at the rated ISO. He would always overexpose by about 1/3 a stop. So ISO 400 was exposed at EI 320, etc. By this point I was shooting slides exclusively but I decided to give his advice a try, loaded my F-1 up with some print film and overexposed the roll by a third of a stop, and WOW, what a difference! All the colors were brilliantly saturated, grain was minimized, and overall it looked as if I had been shooting slides.
So my advice is, when you shoot your roll of C41, overexpose it some.
I was about to tell ya I have a 4990 also, but Katastrofo beat me to it. And yeah, I've gotten some killer scans with my 4990 and medium format slides. Not so hot with the 35mm ones, but the MF ones just really pop. But ever since I've started slightly overexposing my C41 negs, I gotta say they look good too. Here are a couple of examples:
E-6 Fujichrome, Yashica Mat 124G -- From about 25 years ago, my friend Ted, clowning around with my Canon F-1 and Sigma 600mm:
Shot in 2010: Bronica ETRSi, 75mm, Kodak Portra 160 NC, shot at ISO 100. Chances are the VC flavor would have given me even more color saturation!
_________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Kram
Joined: 06 Feb 2010 Posts: 1344 Location: Portland, OR
|
Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2011 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Kram wrote:
Michael, thanks for that.
Yes, the SL-66 is the Rolls Royce of medium format for me. I've used Hassy's and Mamiya RB/Z's, Bronica GS-1. The SL-66 has everything I want. I wouldn't own one if I hadn't have had a really bad toothache.
I'd had this toothache for three days, couldn't get in to see a dentist, was in constant pain, no pain killers would work, so finally, sleep deprived and mad with pain I drank some vodka! And then- I got on ebay! Woo-hoo!
Kinda lost my mind and won in the final seconds. $579 (about three years ago). Best camera I've ever owned. Normally, I would not have spent so much. Viva vodka!
I am used to shooting transparencies, so I'll start there as I have about twenty rolls in the fridge. Will post results withing a few weeks.
Thanks again everyone for your good advice. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2011 10:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
Kram wrote: |
I'd had this toothache for three days, couldn't get in to see a dentist, was in constant pain, no pain killers would work, so finally, sleep deprived and mad with pain I drank some vodka! And then- I got on ebay! Woo-hoo!
Kinda lost my mind and won in the final seconds. $579 (about three years ago). Best camera I've ever owned. Normally, I would not have spent so much. Viva vodka! |
Heh. Last time I did that on eBay, it was too much beer, and I wound up with a '74 Norton Commando. Didn't really mind that purchase too much either, but I wasn't expecting it. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Kram
Joined: 06 Feb 2010 Posts: 1344 Location: Portland, OR
|
Posted: Sat Jan 08, 2011 7:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Kram wrote:
First scan with medium format transparency film.
Wanted to see how Fujichrome Astia handled colour. Not bad.
More soonish in another thread.
Rolleiflex SL-66, 80/2.8 Planar, a bit of a tilt. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
marty
Joined: 09 Apr 2009 Posts: 767 Location: Italy
|
Posted: Sat Jan 08, 2011 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
marty wrote:
The colors look wonderful. I see no clipping in high lights, the shadows appear to have enough detail. The scan job works better with med format than it does with 135, I see. Looks like you found your way
Cheers, M. _________________ Canon FD
Bodies: AT-1, A-1, T-90
Lenses: nFD 20mm f2.8, 24 f2.8, 28 f2.8, 35 f2, FD 50 f1.8 S.C., 85 f1.8, 100 f2.8, 135 f2.8, 200 f4, 300 f4
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57865 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
Posted: Sat Jan 08, 2011 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
I think slide produce better images without any doubt if subject distance is far away. I like lot better output from slides than from color films. Perhaps there is some exception , but generally this is my opinion. _________________ -------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Kram
Joined: 06 Feb 2010 Posts: 1344 Location: Portland, OR
|
Posted: Sat Jan 08, 2011 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Kram wrote:
Marty, thanks. Yes, I'm pretty happy with it. I'd heard a lot of people say that transparencies and color negs are hard to scan. Maybe not so much. I know Velvia nd Kodachrome are supposed to be.
I have more to scan so we'll see...
Attila, I've always felt that way too and made my living at shooting chromes for many years.
Last edited by Kram on Mon Jan 10, 2011 2:11 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57865 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
Posted: Sat Jan 08, 2011 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
On my Epson V500 both type of film scan is easy automated process. Usually I scan them to tiff and if something not so good quiet easy to fix in Photoshop. _________________ -------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
lulalake
Joined: 22 Apr 2007 Posts: 1191 Location: Near Austin Texas
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 12:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
lulalake wrote:
Attila wrote: |
I think slide produce better images without any doubt if subject distance is far away. I like lot better output from slides than from color films. Perhaps there is some exception , but generally this is my opinion. |
I agree even if it does have less dynamic range. I think the actual size of 120 film compensates a bit for that.
Jules |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 1:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
Have to agree with the above comments as well. The two images I posted in an earlier comment didn't require any sort of special handling. The slide did require a bit of color adjustment, but that was only because it was about 25 years old, and the colors had begun to shift. And even that was just a 1-click process in Epson Scan software. In both cases, I just set my Epson Scan software to auto exposure with few, if any, enhancements, and just let the scanner run. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Kram
Joined: 06 Feb 2010 Posts: 1344 Location: Portland, OR
|
Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 6:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Kram wrote:
After scanning the Provia, Astia and Kodak color negative 160 NC, I find the transparency film far easier to scan and adjust. The 160 NC was very grainy. Maybe I should try the Ektar one day but with an E-6 lab within walking distance of my studio, I'm going with the E-6 while it's still around!
Provia III 220, Rolleiflex SL-66, Planar 80/2.8, 40mm extension tube. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 6:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
Another gem, Kram. Hopefully E-6 will be around for a long time.
I've shot a few rolls of Portra 160 NC with my ETRSi, and I thought it was actually a fairly fine-grained film. I'm headed to bed in a few minutes, but maybe tomorrow I can post a couple of 100% crops of the 160 NC and Ektar to give a comparison. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|