Three new pics next to each other.
Click on the bicycle to enter.
O.K., new pics
-
Ulrich Rieth
...yes, this is much better...
Hi Jan!
I like that one.
But you give infos for the right pics two times...which one is correct?
Btw, is'nt it strage how different the grain comes out in the same film. Looking at the right and left pics, they show much grain, but the middle pic is nice and smooth.
Did you do different image processing with these two types of pic?
I am waiting for the next tripple.
Have fun
Ulrich
I like that one.
But you give infos for the right pics two times...which one is correct?
Btw, is'nt it strage how different the grain comes out in the same film. Looking at the right and left pics, they show much grain, but the middle pic is nice and smooth.
Did you do different image processing with these two types of pic?
I am waiting for the next tripple.
Have fun
Ulrich
-
jan lameer
Re: ...yes, this is much better...
Hi Ulrich!
Left - right unterschrift corrected, thanks!
All three pics were shot on the same type of film and developed the same way. Basic difference is the amount of exposure time I think.
The middle pic was scanned pro with a Kodak CD 6-pack (=75 MB res and expensive) and the others were scanned on a Nikon 2 or three years old negative scanner in good condition. But the images don't differ at all from the scans that I previously made of all scans with my good old (dead) 200 Euro Prime film 1800 scanner (wich had internal reflection a lot).
I think basically the difference is that both the tree images were desperately underexposed in "normal photographer" terms and that the middle image is well exposed. But even in the middle image I can see the grains change from "nearly invisible and neatly packed" at the bright green band part of the pic (which was bright that night) to grove and chaotic only five mm nearby where the sky is underxposed.
It might be a general C-41 problem even; with fast developing (?) all negatives were developed at the local one hour shop.
But yes, this grain problem is already worrying me especially since April 13; those negs were developped at a pro lab and show the same amount of grains.
By the way, I've chanced recently from Portra to Supra. Kodak says now that Supra is the best for photojournalists that want to push. Portra supposedly is only best for weddings and portraits ...
Same time Supra is offered for half price at "end of date" offer at many places. I know that it isn't good to buy "end of date film", but in case of a real 9979 X9 CME, I'd rather be caught with fresh old film from the freezer than without any film....
(In case you want to know: all three shots were from different and fresh batches, at least 2 years to go, and also fresh from the fridge of the pro dealer).
Basically I think the difference is just the amount of light that hit the negatives: compare your Scandinavian results. And left and right I had two hours of night-vision and in the middle we were jumping up and down from joy , flashlights were only used for, well, they were at no use at that time, the sky was filled with light ....
greetings, Jan Lameer
Left - right unterschrift corrected, thanks!
All three pics were shot on the same type of film and developed the same way. Basic difference is the amount of exposure time I think.
The middle pic was scanned pro with a Kodak CD 6-pack (=75 MB res and expensive) and the others were scanned on a Nikon 2 or three years old negative scanner in good condition. But the images don't differ at all from the scans that I previously made of all scans with my good old (dead) 200 Euro Prime film 1800 scanner (wich had internal reflection a lot).
I think basically the difference is that both the tree images were desperately underexposed in "normal photographer" terms and that the middle image is well exposed. But even in the middle image I can see the grains change from "nearly invisible and neatly packed" at the bright green band part of the pic (which was bright that night) to grove and chaotic only five mm nearby where the sky is underxposed.
It might be a general C-41 problem even; with fast developing (?) all negatives were developed at the local one hour shop.
But yes, this grain problem is already worrying me especially since April 13; those negs were developped at a pro lab and show the same amount of grains.
By the way, I've chanced recently from Portra to Supra. Kodak says now that Supra is the best for photojournalists that want to push. Portra supposedly is only best for weddings and portraits ...
Same time Supra is offered for half price at "end of date" offer at many places. I know that it isn't good to buy "end of date film", but in case of a real 9979 X9 CME, I'd rather be caught with fresh old film from the freezer than without any film....
(In case you want to know: all three shots were from different and fresh batches, at least 2 years to go, and also fresh from the fridge of the pro dealer).
Basically I think the difference is just the amount of light that hit the negatives: compare your Scandinavian results. And left and right I had two hours of night-vision and in the middle we were jumping up and down from joy , flashlights were only used for, well, they were at no use at that time, the sky was filled with light ....
greetings, Jan Lameer
Wer ist online?
Mitglieder in diesem Forum: 0 Mitglieder und 5 Gäste