The OCAU "film is not dead" club

Discussion in 'Photography & Video' started by onrelas, Feb 9, 2008.

  1. OP
    OP
    onrelas

    onrelas Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,360
    Location:
    Sydney
    Ahh cool.
    Well i had an R2A ordered with Cameraquest, but they've sold out, so i was offered a R3A at the same price.
    The 1:1 viewfinder would be damn nice, but it only has 40/50 etc framelines, where the R2A has the 35 frameliens instead of the 40. I'll be using a 35mm lens..
    Decisions decisions =/
    I'm gald they're bilt well though. Apaprently they've improved heaps from the Bessa R which was a bit too plasic.
     
  2. Iscran

    Iscran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2006
    Messages:
    635
    Location:
    World Traveller
    beautiful shots peewee. I've always been told Velvia is terrible for portraits but judging from those shots above it has a great feel, especially in the shade.

    Just shot a whole bunch of Velvia up the mountains today. Odd lighting so I hope it turns out well. What scanner did you use to scan those shots above?
     
  3. sir_bazz

    sir_bazz Team Papparazi

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    9,482
    Location:
    Mentone, Vic.
    Yeah I know what you mean. I don't mind the film or development costs but finding a good, (and cheap), place to scan is a nightmare in Melbourne. I've been considering an Epson V700 for home but even thats more money than I can justify on a hobby within a hobby.

    What scanner do they use at your uni ?

    Anyway... here's another from the same roll as the previous pic. Converted to B&W in PS CS3 as it showed symptoms of strong reds in the skintones.

    bazz.

    [​IMG]
     
  4. OP
    OP
    onrelas

    onrelas Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,360
    Location:
    Sydney
    They're some terrific photos mate :)
     
  5. Takumi

    Takumi Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2003
    Messages:
    510
    peewee82: what camera are u using??
     
  6. peewee82

    peewee82 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2005
    Messages:
    900
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Epson V700 is actually what I used. :) I like it, and I like the Epson software for the most part. It can be a bit weird at times and I feel like I don't know why I end up with bogus colours when I've set the right profile etc. I need to think about it more and/or test and fix before just scanning bucketloads. Always in a hurry. Anyway the scanner is nice. When I'm printing something of a reasonable size, I scan it at the highest resolution and interpolate down in Photoshop and you get some fantastic results.

    And I'm using a Yashica LM TLR.
     
  7. peewee82

    peewee82 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2005
    Messages:
    900
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Here's one of the 5x4" sheets I shot in the studio the other day. It's Provia 100F @ 80.

    [​IMG]

    If anyone is interested here is a 100% crop from the 1200dpi scan. Could go larger still tehe but 5x4 scans get large quickly. No sharpening during scan, high pass filter in photoshop.
     
  8. scruff

    scruff RIP

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2003
    Messages:
    3,442
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Holy crap that is huge.

    What res is a full res 5x4 scan?
     
  9. peewee82

    peewee82 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2005
    Messages:
    900
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Well it's limited by the hardware. The Epson V700 I was using can scan film at 6400dpi. My 1200dpi scan is 5412x4299, 133MB. Scanning at 6400dpi would produce a 28876x22929 file with a ludicrous file size of 3.70GB haha.
     
  10. scruff

    scruff RIP

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2003
    Messages:
    3,442
    Location:
    Melbourne
    How many dpi of data is actually stored in the film though?
     
  11. chilloutbuddy

    chilloutbuddy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,494
    Location:
    Melbourne
    There is no data stored in the film, you produce data from it when you scan it. How much data you produce from it depends on the scanner.
     
  12. scruff

    scruff RIP

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2003
    Messages:
    3,442
    Location:
    Melbourne
    That's not true at all. Films don't store an infinite amount of data. I don't know much about films, but I do know that much.

    If you take a photo of someone reading a newspaper or something from 5 or 6 metres away with a 50mm lens, it doesn't matter what DPI you scan your negative at, you won't be able to read the words on the page.


    Anyways, I checked out google. It seems a 35mm film is approximately equivalent to a 20mp image.
     
  13. sir_bazz

    sir_bazz Team Papparazi

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    9,482
    Location:
    Mentone, Vic.
    And a frame from 120 film covers nearly 3 times the area of a 35mm frame.

    bazz.
     
  14. scruff

    scruff RIP

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2003
    Messages:
    3,442
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Yeah, I understand that, but with a benchmark of 35mm = 20mp, you can work it out.

    But 120 film still doesn't have infinite resolution :p
     
  15. sir_bazz

    sir_bazz Team Papparazi

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    9,482
    Location:
    Mentone, Vic.
    Not infinite but damn good compared to digital.

    And for a bit more maths, landscape frames from 617 cameras cover the area of 4 x regular 120 frames. :p

    bazz.
     
  16. chilloutbuddy

    chilloutbuddy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,494
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Sorry, I didnt make myself clear: what I meant is that film doesnt store data at all.
    Its not a digital medium to store data, film is like a print, only on plastic.
    By scanning it its like taking a photo of it and thats how data is created. You were talking about how much detail is stored on film which has nothing to do with how much data is created through scanning. You can scan something which has 2 pixels only, or a white paper, and get a 2GB file from it if you want.
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2008
  17. peewee82

    peewee82 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2005
    Messages:
    900
    Location:
    Brisbane
    The thing is, when someone asks how much data, how many dpi or how many megapixels is in film, they're asking what a digital scanner can extract from the film. I'm not trying to say film is the greatest and digital is always inferior, but in terms of making a digital file from film, the end result is limited by the digital hardware. You can go get a 35mm negative/postive drum scanned and oh my what has happened, suddenly 35mm has more than 20 megapixels. But how can that be? You can make an estimate for comparison, but the fact is the information is not stored as little dots, like with digital.

    Also, the comparisons are often done on computers with digital representations of images. To get the film on there, you need to scan it...which is effectively taking a photo of it with a digital camera. So shouldn't the comparison be in prints? Well digital's best friend in recent times is the fact these digital files made up of dots can be output onto paper using dyes. This tranforms them back into a non-digital, pixel-based image. In fact they can even be printed onto traditional photographic materials containing the dyes themselves, just like how film was printed.

    Of course the printers are still smudging the dots into each other to form this print. They do a damn good job of it, but skipping any digital steps allows for a hell of a lot more resolution than any process that relies on converting real colours into a digital represention. That includes printing scanned film.

    So to conclude, when traditional printing processes are being used, there still isn't a digital chip that can match the ACTUAL resolution being transfered to the paper. Our eyes may be hard pressed to tell the difference in some cases, but it's still the way things are. However, with traditional b&w printing being less prevalent, traditional colour printing becoming rarely practiced and cibachrome-type positive-to-positive processes nearly extinct, digital scans are becoming more common for film users.

    So comparisons between the amount of detail able to be extracted from the film with the resolution of digital camera files becomes more relevant. And it will eventually be pointless to scan film simply to get more detail in a digital file.
     
  18. burgoid

    burgoid Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Messages:
    57
    Location:
    Buderim Sunshine Coast
    Lomography Diana + and by tomorrow should have a Canon EOS 3 With PB-E2
     
  19. two40

    two40 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    3,198
    Location:
    Sydney
    continued from this thread

    too much agitation doesn't allow the chemicals to 'seep' on to the film long enough to develop the shadows. that's a real noobs understanding of it but that is basically it. so if you imagine film as having a thick layer and light being at the top with dark at the bottom, the chemicals develop the light first and work their way to the dark bits but in order to do so need the correct time. not enough agitation and you get underexposed (dark) images and too much agitation and you get overexposed (light) images. amirite? someone who knows better correct me if needed. cheers.

    original
    [​IMG]

    edit
    [​IMG]

    as you can see, the pics can be rescued but you would still rather start with something better :/ pics are kodak tri-x 400 in D-76 1:1 @ 9:45 agitated with 3 inversions every 30 seconds.
     
  20. Katunka89

    Katunka89 Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    811
    Location:
    Perth
    My understanding is that the less you develop a film, the less the overall contrast (ie negs come out looking very grey), the more you develop it the greater the contrast. Although I could be way off base... may do an experiment and get back to you on that one.
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: