Film... Still the best for subtle colours

Discussion in 'Australia Photography' started by D_Mac, Sep 4, 2007.

  1. D_Mac

    D_Mac Guest

    D_Mac, Sep 4, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. D_Mac

    uw wayne Guest

    uw wayne, Sep 4, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. D_Mac

    D_Mac Guest

    It's not velvia Wayne. It's Portra NC and Photoshop didn't do anything
    but "save for web". Epson's 4870 flatbed scanner did all the work. The
    really nice thing about this film is it's "scanning ability". I guess
    Kodak realised they had to do something to compete with digitals so
    they produced a film that scans well. 654 Pentax shot, BTW.

    Doug
     
    D_Mac, Sep 4, 2007
    #3
  4. D_Mac

    Noons Guest


    why is it that when dslr-heads see an intense colour in an image
    they automatically assume Photoshop-or-Velvia?

    Nice shot, Douglas.
     
    Noons, Sep 4, 2007
    #4
  5. D_Mac

    D_Mac Guest

    Thanks Noons,
    You probably know the waters around Fraser Island are absolutely
    pristine at this time of the year. Visibility underwater is
    phenomenal. The reflection on the water from the blue sky makes the
    sea look exactly as you'd expect the blue Mediterranean to look...
    It's right here in our own back yard! I used to use a 645 for almost
    everything prior to 2005. Today I only use it for work intended for
    coffee table books and serious sized canvas prints. Photoshop is for
    digital photographers who have to make their pictures look as good a
    well processed film does! (tongue in cheek, says he!)

    Doug
     
    D_Mac, Sep 4, 2007
    #5
  6. D_Mac

    Noons Guest


    Heh! I'm starting to carry the 645S Fuji around all the time.
    It's a great snapshot camera and the big images are absolutely
    stunning!
     
    Noons, Sep 4, 2007
    #6
  7. D_Mac

    uw wayne Guest

    I'm not a dslr-head.I still prefer my Nikon film bods and my Pentax
    6X7.
     
    uw wayne, Sep 4, 2007
    #7
  8. D_Mac

    Annika1980 Guest

    Hey Doug, here's something to consider.
    If your digital camera can't capture accurate colors then maybe you've
    got the wrong digital camera.
     
    Annika1980, Sep 4, 2007
    #8
  9. D_Mac

    Draco Guest

    Out standing shot Douglas. You really captured the whale and the coor
    of the waters. I have seen water that clear before and it does reflect
    the sky. Glad you had a beautiful blue day.
    You say it was Portra NC? It almost looks like Portra VC. Bright
    rich color with a tad white blow out. Normal for that film. To bad the
    gentle giant didn't raise a bit more, so you could have gotten his eye
    looking at you.

    Keep shooting and sharing. Nice work.


    Draco


    Getting even isn't good enough.


    Doing better... does.
     
    Draco, Sep 4, 2007
    #9
  10. D_Mac

    D_Mac Guest

    Yep... Time to ditch the Canons and get some real hardware!
     
    D_Mac, Sep 5, 2007
    #10
  11. D_Mac

    D_Mac Guest

    The difference in in the processing. I develop my own film so pushing
    or pulling the process to suit my needs is easy. Shot under exposed
    and over developed you can pretty much choose to make NC like VC.
    Reversing the process does not however give VC the look of NC. I guess
    today's shooter's don't understand the chemical reaction and how to
    manipulate it I've always had a lab.

    Just as an aside to this. I recently got some Ilford Galerie, "Smooth
    high gloss" media which when printed through an Epson inkjet with K3
    inks, looks every bit the part of a "Cibachrome" print like I used to
    make 20 years ago. Digital cameras have changed a lot about home
    photography but the technological advances in conventional photography
    have not fallen too far behind either. I can scan a film and make a
    print on this paper that no one can pick from the original Cibachrome
    I made of the same image all those years ago.

    There is no film V digital debate in my mind. Digital is just another
    (much welcomed) tool we can work with to improve our output. My first
    coffee table book in 1976 was printed with the Lithographic process
    and cost me nearly $200 each to make 5 of them. Today I make equal
    quality books using a digital (laser) printer for a fraction of the
    price. The one thing that hasn't changes is they are still created
    from film images!

    Cheers,
    Doug
     
    D_Mac, Sep 5, 2007
    #11
  12. D_Mac

    Noons Guest

    Wow! Same experience here. Got some of that paper a while ago
    for my hp8750 and it produces amazing results there as well!

    Amen!
     
    Noons, Sep 5, 2007
    #12
  13. D_Mac

    Noons Guest

    wayne, you've GOT to try the new fujichrome 400x.
    nothing else compares!
     
    Noons, Sep 5, 2007
    #13
  14. D_Mac

    uw wayne Guest

    Thanks, I'll give it a try this weekend.
     
    uw wayne, Sep 5, 2007
    #14
  15. D_Mac

    k Guest

    | Just as an aside to this. I recently got some Ilford Galerie, "Smooth
    | high gloss" media which when printed through an Epson inkjet with K3
    | inks, looks every bit the part of a "Cibachrome" print like I used to
    | make 20 years ago.


    that's 'cause it's a polyester film base not paper, just as ilfochrome (and
    incidentally, ilfoflex*, the RA4 equivalent) used polyester bases


    I've only 2x100 8x10 boxes of ilfoflex left :( :(



    aside from the cost, ilfoflex really should have done better in the market.

    k
     
    k, Sep 6, 2007
    #15
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.