Took this about 2 weeks ago when I was home last time. 1st roll of 120 I've gotten back, still have other rolls in other cameras... I sure like this stuff, the negatives are huge by comparisson, I did some 1200dpi scans (optical res of scanner is 4800dpi) and printed them on both my small and normal printers, and the quality absolutely puts the smack down on my D30, puts it to shame.... And I've always been amazed by the quality when shooting slide, but always too impatient to actually shoot it... going to be hard to beat this, I missed my Matrix metering, but apparently the center-weighted metering was SPOT on the entire roll (except one shot, which was a tough subject)
My scanning skill is not quite up to par (and I don't think I've ever calibrated this screen), but tried to match the slide as much as possible, used a bit of levels for color/brightness matching, bit extra USM over the scan software, otherwise untouched (as usual)
I know the flowers are basically a detailess white, just a bit too much range for the film I guess, and more than the scanner could take... there is some detail on the original slide, the viens are present, but probably needed about 1/3-2/3 less exposure to pull the detail out on the flower...
Mamiya 645E w 80mm f2.8 Lens (Polarizer? Most likely)
Fuji Velvia 100F
Exposure Unrecorded
Tripod, Mirror Lockup, Release
Scanned w/ CanoScan 9950F @ 1200dpi
FULL Frame
Posted by Mearle Gates on July 29, 2006 at 2:16 AM
Well, the 6X4.5 is one I haven't tried, but I do regularly use my Mamiya RZ67. The metering in the viewfinder is excellent on mine also - as long as the dial does not accidentally move to exposure lock - an all too easy occurance. I scan the same way, but find the scans typically run many hundreds of mb in size. That gets to the grain level of 160 film, but stays smooth with Velvia and Astia, my current favorite.
As for your image, my opinion is that the foreground and background are not working well together. Each has it's own story, and could speak better individually as separate images.
Thanks Mearle, yeah it was quite fun to get this first roll back, I'm quite impressed with the quality one can acheive (course if I owned a 1Dmk2 I'd have better, but @ almost $7k who can afford that), great to have the ability to get images the quality of a high priced camera with a $400 camera and lens, and $400 scanner, currently the price can not be beat with a digital camera, for the same resolution...
I'd love to use something more like a RZ67, they look super nice, 6x6 really has my intrest, I bought a Seagull so i could get that format, who wants to buy a hassy, or otherwise...
My scans turned out around 15-30MB @ 1200dpi (which is apparently more than enough for an 8x10, and of course way more than enough for the web) I did a duplicate scan of a highly complex image (lots of flowers) @ the max 4800dpi, and it came out around 200MB, at such high resolutions, even with dust/scratch correction they begin to be a problem, easily vissible, I also saw other problems in the shadows, a "posterized" look to them, I suppose limitations of the scanners dynamic range versus the films.
Back to my image, I never thought about it how you say...but I can see your point...I suppose there probably wasnt much angle I could have gotten to iliminate such a problem, but wont ever know till I can make it back up there... I got a similar comment on photosig in that the background was too out of focus for such unstrong foreground elements... I can't help but wonder what f stop I used and the focus distance, I'm guessing was around 4feet, or less, and at 4feet even at f/22 I only get from 3.5' to 5' DOF
Always thought it was cool to see Medium Format with the film border around it, and was dissipointed when I couldn't do it, so I scanned a strip laying directly on the platen (which made it curve a bit) and worked the curves out in PS, and removed the image to give myself a frame, I think it's just a neat look... Also reworked the colors a bit, as I did some reading that when scanning Velvia 100F on this scanner it's too blue-magenta, and needs the green added back, not the blue taken down and a little bit of red... rendered colors much more like the slide, and brightened it up some too, no PS USM this time as it was too much, overshapened the noise.
Discussion
3 repliesMy scanning skill is not quite up to par (and I don't think I've ever calibrated this screen), but tried to match the slide as much as possible, used a bit of levels for color/brightness matching, bit extra USM over the scan software, otherwise untouched (as usual)
I know the flowers are basically a detailess white, just a bit too much range for the film I guess, and more than the scanner could take... there is some detail on the original slide, the viens are present, but probably needed about 1/3-2/3 less exposure to pull the detail out on the flower...
Mamiya 645E w 80mm f2.8 Lens (Polarizer? Most likely)
Fuji Velvia 100F
Exposure Unrecorded
Tripod, Mirror Lockup, Release
Scanned w/ CanoScan 9950F @ 1200dpi
FULL Frame
As for your image, my opinion is that the foreground and background are not working well together. Each has it's own story, and could speak better individually as separate images.
I'd love to use something more like a RZ67, they look super nice, 6x6 really has my intrest, I bought a Seagull so i could get that format, who wants to buy a hassy, or otherwise...
My scans turned out around 15-30MB @ 1200dpi (which is apparently more than enough for an 8x10, and of course way more than enough for the web) I did a duplicate scan of a highly complex image (lots of flowers) @ the max 4800dpi, and it came out around 200MB, at such high resolutions, even with dust/scratch correction they begin to be a problem, easily vissible, I also saw other problems in the shadows, a "posterized" look to them, I suppose limitations of the scanners dynamic range versus the films.
Back to my image, I never thought about it how you say...but I can see your point...I suppose there probably wasnt much angle I could have gotten to iliminate such a problem, but wont ever know till I can make it back up there... I got a similar comment on photosig in that the background was too out of focus for such unstrong foreground elements... I can't help but wonder what f stop I used and the focus distance, I'm guessing was around 4feet, or less, and at 4feet even at f/22 I only get from 3.5' to 5' DOF
Thanks for the comments