Old 05-08-2017   #41
MIkhail
Registered User
 
MIkhail's Avatar
 
MIkhail is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Posts: 887
Quote:
Originally Posted by brbo View Post
No C-41 will look good with -4, but Ektar will take as much overexposure as any other C-41 film.
I don't know...
Overexposure, underdevelopment, sharpness... all of this are such an old terms... Look at work of those, who leads photography as art NOW, not in 1950-th... Are they famous because the technics is superb, sharpness is impeccable?
Who of them are concerned with blurriness or any of technical stuff? These times are gone long time ago, and to master these disciplines is, in my humble opinion of course, the same as trying to develop a best horse whip, while everyone is actually driving cars.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-08-2017   #42
Ranchu
-
 
Ranchu is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,697
Who leads photography as art now?
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-08-2017   #44
Ranchu
-
 
Ranchu is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,697
I'm sure you do, but a lot of art photography is junk these days. You want to talk about Gursky or Prince? Is medium even relevant with these? A smartphone would work. edit:actually, this is a blind alley. The standard of what makes a good looking photograph has nothing at all to do with 'art photography'. Completely different subject.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-08-2017   #45
MIkhail
Registered User
 
MIkhail's Avatar
 
MIkhail is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Posts: 887
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranchu View Post
I'm sure you do, but a lot of art photography is junk these days. You want to talk about Gursky or Prince? Is medium even relevant with these?
Medium is not relevant and never was relevant, for artist anyway. It is what artist chooses, always a vehicle but never a final thing.
I expected these names, although I did not have them in mind now.
It is very common thing (amongst photo- forum goers) to say “Prince fooled everybody”… Then usually Kandinsky comes out with his “black square”.
What people don’t even bother to think, is to actually go and see what work is done prior and post the Prince’s Marlboro Man, for example. What was he doing all his life before and after. How he moved a "vector of art development".
What people never bother to understand that Kandinsky was developing his own new art language with this black square.
It is very easy (in anybody’s mind) to be a second Gurski. Sure, I can do it easily. It is much more difficult to become a first one though. The dynamic range will not get you there…
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-08-2017   #46
Ranchu
-
 
Ranchu is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,697
I edited some onto the above while you were typing. I don't think what the 'art photographer' does is the standard for what is a good looking photograph, and dynamic range Will get you That.

Art won't, as you know.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-08-2017   #48
SaveKodak
Registered User
 
SaveKodak is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by MIkhail View Post
Got me totally confused with these scans. Is this considered a good result, in comparison to "traditional" scanning? Would be interesting, then, to see the same negative scanned both ways. Otherwise it's kind of pointless.

I have a general question though. What is the reason is this day and age to shoot film? You cannot truly seriously say- to save Kodak, can you?
No, you shoot film because you like the wonderful tonal range and smoothness of it. At least I do. So, if so, why try to get a digital results out of film? In general film will not be as sharp and detailed as digital and it does not need to be. That's not, in my opinion, is where it excels...
P.S.
Hopefully, I brought enough tact in discussion?
It's considered a great result as compared to dry scanning and it's not my job to educate you as to why if you don't already know.

I shoot film because I enjoy the process, and believe in having a tangible original as opposed to purely theoretical original. Film will outlast any hard drive by decades, perhaps centuries. Digital has no permanence beyond prints.

I'm not trying to get digital results out of film. I'm trying to accurately represent my original by scanning. Wet scanning gets me closer to an optical print than dry scanning. It's not about film being as detailed as digital, it's about a film scan being as detailed as film is. Film is by nature a high quality medium, and scanning is simply about keeping up with that.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-08-2017   #49
MIkhail
Registered User
 
MIkhail's Avatar
 
MIkhail is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Posts: 887
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaveKodak View Post
It's considered a great result as compared to dry scanning and it's not my job to educate you as to why if you don't already know.

I shoot film because I enjoy the process, and believe in having a tangible original as opposed to purely theoretical original. Film will outlast any hard drive by decades, perhaps centuries. Digital has no permanence beyond prints.

I'm not trying to get digital results out of film. I'm trying to accurately represent my original by scanning. Wet scanning gets me closer to an optical print than dry scanning. It's not about film being as detailed as digital, it's about a film scan being as detailed as film is. Film is by nature a high quality medium, and scanning is simply about keeping up with that.

Hmm..
You are saying something like “I got excellent results (considered a great result) with wet scanning, much better than regular scanning”.
I am asking “then show both side by side, for comparison, for us, newbies so we know what is what”
You are then saying “it’s not my job to educate you, if you cannot see it yourself”.
That’s not very logical, to me anyway.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-08-2017   #50
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is online now
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranchu View Post
I'm sure you do, but a lot of art photography is junk these days.
Both on film and in digital format.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-08-2017   #51
Ranchu
-
 
Ranchu is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,697
But many photos can be greatly improved by judicious use of the Dynamic Range slider in Lightroom. More is better, but not too much, lmao.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-08-2017   #52
SaveKodak
Registered User
 
SaveKodak is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by MIkhail View Post
Hmm..
You are saying something like “I got excellent results (considered a great result) with wet scanning, much better than regular scanning”.
I am asking “then show both side by side, for comparison, for us, newbies so we know what is what”
You are then saying “it’s not my job to educate you, if you cannot see it yourself”.
That’s not very logical, to me anyway.
Then your logic is flawed.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-14-2017   #53
SaveKodak
Registered User
 
SaveKodak is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 513
Delta 400 here looking pretty great. Interestingly I metered this scene with a Sony A7. I've started just using an EVF camera more and more in leu of a Sekonic, this leads to a lot less guesswork when it comes to woodland scenes like this where you had a lot of shadow and sun behind the trees. For negative film this is probably a bit much, but for chromes I've found that this has helped me nail my exposures 99% of the time. You do have to be confident of your film rating, of course.

Delta 400 by Mark Sperry, on Flickr
Rolleiflex 2.8E at arpx ƒ4.0 - Delta 400 - Ilfosol 3 - PF120 Pro Wet Scanned

100% Delta 400 by Mark Sperry, on Flickr
100% crop of above, about 48megapixels.

For a 400 speed film, Delta is remarkably fine grained. The wet scan enhanced the contrast, completely flattened the film, and most apparent to me, reduced the noise. There was also only about 2 small hairs I had to clone out, the dust was basically eliminated.

So, natively this is about 22.5x22.5" at 300dpi, a totally reasonable large size as far as my preferences go. But, what if that's not big enough for you? Well...

200% Bicubic by Mark Sperry, on Flickr

^^
That would be a 45x45" print, and it does start to get a little noisy but good detail is retained, and frankly at standard viewing distances it would look fabulous.

I really, really can't wait to scan some Delta 100.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:55.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.