ViewFinder Photography Forum

General discussion - our photography living room. Talk about aesthetics, philosophy, share your photos - get inspired by your peers! Moderated by another view and walterick.
ViewFinder Forum Guidelines >>
Introduce Yourself! >>
PhotographREVIEW.com Gatherings and Photo Field Trips >>
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26
  1. #1
    Member EastCoastHucker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Argentina - Brooklyn,NY
    Posts
    363

    back to 35mm... feedback wanted

    Hi...
    After years of Digital Im back to film... I got a Nikon F90X with a Nikon 28-85mm, 75-300mm and of course a must have 50mm f:1.8. And a Nikon SB25 flash.
    This is my first roll of film, is a KODAK 400 iso, IMO the grain looks like of a 800iso+ but after so many years what I know..!!
    Now I'm shooting a Fuji Superia 100iso...can wait to see the result of that one.



    cheers
    Juanjo

    wanna see photos !

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    All over
    Posts
    95

    Re: back to 35mm... feedback wanted

    Quote Originally Posted by EastCoastHucker
    Hi...
    After years of Digital Im back to film... I got a Nikon F90X with a Nikon 28-85mm, 75-300mm and of course a must have 50mm f:1.8. And a Nikon SB25 flash.
    This is my first roll of film, is a KODAK 400 iso, IMO the grain looks like of a 800iso+ but after so many years what I know..!!
    Now I'm shooting a Fuji Superia 100iso...can wait to see the result of that one.



    Looking good. Did you scan them yourself? Looks like there was dust on the scanner?

  3. #3
    Member EastCoastHucker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Argentina - Brooklyn,NY
    Posts
    363

    Re: back to 35mm... feedback wanted

    Quote Originally Posted by milhouse
    Looking good. Did you scan them yourself? Looks like there was dust on the scanner?
    No, I took them to CVS and I got the CD only w/o prints... maybe there scanner is dirty, they have Kodak equipment.

    I was thinking that maybe my camera or lens was dirty but I use two different lens on this roll and all the pictures seems to have the same kinda dirty look.
    cheers
    Juanjo

    wanna see photos !

  4. #4
    Senior Shooter Greg McCary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Rome Ga.
    Posts
    10,550

    Re: back to 35mm... feedback wanted

    Looks like scanner dust to me. It's rare that happens to my deparment store scans. Is this out of camera or have you post processed?
    Greg
    I am like Barney Fife, I have a gun but Andy makes me keep the bullet in my pocket..

    Sony a99/a7R

  5. #5
    Member EastCoastHucker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Argentina - Brooklyn,NY
    Posts
    363

    Re: back to 35mm... feedback wanted

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg McCary
    Looks like scanner dust to me. It's rare that happens to my deparment store scans. Is this out of camera or have you post processed?
    Greg
    is out of camera.
    cheers
    Juanjo

    wanna see photos !

  6. #6
    Senior Shooter Greg McCary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Rome Ga.
    Posts
    10,550

    Re: back to 35mm... feedback wanted

    Those are real good shots. Other than the dust. Your outside shots look fine but your inside shots look more grainy, Did you back away from your subject in no.1 and bounce flash? It looks as though you were pretty close with the flash. I stay away from CVS around my area. They have never done a good job for me.
    I am like Barney Fife, I have a gun but Andy makes me keep the bullet in my pocket..

    Sony a99/a7R

  7. #7
    Member EastCoastHucker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Argentina - Brooklyn,NY
    Posts
    363

    Re: back to 35mm... feedback wanted

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg McCary
    Those are real good shots. Other than the dust. Your outside shots look fine but your inside shots look more grainy, Did you back away from your subject in no.1 and bounce flash? It looks as though you were pretty close with the flash. I stay away from CVS around my area. They have never done a good job for me.
    I'm glad you like them...

    I was pretty close with the flash...

    is a 400iso film suppose to be that grainy!?
    cheers
    Juanjo

    wanna see photos !

  8. #8
    Senior Shooter Greg McCary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Rome Ga.
    Posts
    10,550

    Re: back to 35mm... feedback wanted

    Next time with the flash, try bounce flashing from the ceiling. Set your flash unit to manual, look at the chart on the back to calculate your settings but open your aperature two more stops to allow for the lose of light with the bounce. Zoom in on your subject and stay at least 8 to 10 feet away to give room for the light bounce to work. And watch where you bounce the flash. Keeping your distance from your subject also makes them feel a little more comfortable and you will get more candid shots. This also stops the red eye and the bright white light on your subject. It works pretty good for me....
    Greg
    I am like Barney Fife, I have a gun but Andy makes me keep the bullet in my pocket..

    Sony a99/a7R

  9. #9
    Member EastCoastHucker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Argentina - Brooklyn,NY
    Posts
    363

    Re: back to 35mm... feedback wanted

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg McCary
    Next time with the flash, try bounce flashing from the ceiling. Set your flash unit to manual, look at the chart on the back to calculate your settings but open your aperature two more stops to allow for the lose of light with the bounce. Zoom in on your subject and stay at least 8 to 10 feet away to give room for the light bounce to work. And watch where you bounce the flash. Keeping your distance from your subject also makes them feel a little more comfortable and you will get more candid shots. This also stops the red eye and the bright white light on your subject. It works pretty good for me....
    Greg
    Thanks a lot for the tip Greg... I'll def. use it in the future and I'll share the results...;)
    cheers
    Juanjo

    wanna see photos !

  10. #10
    mod squad gahspidy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    N.Y. U.S.A.
    Posts
    8,368

    Re: back to 35mm... feedback wanted

    Juanjo, these look good, especially right out of camera, although I think the b&w shot with the yellow basketball had some post process . . . These images certainly look like they have dust on the film during the scans. I'm surprised because CVs would most likely use a scanning system with dust removal. As for the grain, scanned film enhances the grain even more so. This looks about right compared to my 400 iso scans. Fuji superia100 is a fine grain film, but you will see noticeable grain with it scanned aswell. I always found Kodak UC100 and 400 to scan very well with limited grain. If your going to shoot film very often now, i would recommend the Nikon Coolscan V film scanner. It is fast and easy to use, very good quality high resolution scans and Digital Ice software that eliminates dust and scratches rather completely, with no loss of detail or quality to the image. Amazing software.
    please do not edit and repost my photos


    gary


  11. #11
    Member EastCoastHucker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Argentina - Brooklyn,NY
    Posts
    363

    Re: back to 35mm... feedback wanted

    Quote Originally Posted by gahspidy
    Juanjo, these look good, especially right out of camera, although I think the b&w shot with the yellow basketball had some post process . . . These images certainly look like they have dust on the film during the scans. I'm surprised because CVs would most likely use a scanning system with dust removal. As for the grain, scanned film enhances the grain even more so. This looks about right compared to my 400 iso scans. Fuji superia100 is a fine grain film, but you will see noticeable grain with it scanned aswell. I always found Kodak UC100 and 400 to scan very well with limited grain. If your going to shoot film very often now, i would recommend the Nikon Coolscan V film scanner. It is fast and easy to use, very good quality high resolution scans and Digital Ice software that eliminates dust and scratches rather completely, with no loss of detail or quality to the image. Amazing software.
    yeah... the B&W have that Picasa touch.
    I just got the other Kodak 100iso CD and very disappointed, looks like there scanner is dirty or something, the pictures come out with the same grain as the 400iso film and full of marks.
    I don't think I going to take my next roll to this CVS.

    I going to consider the film scanner but as much as like film for the same money that scanner cost I could get a D70 body and use all my lens with it... Unless I find that I can get better results with film and film scanner... what you think about that..!!
    cheers
    Juanjo

    wanna see photos !

  12. #12
    GB1
    GB1 is offline
    Moderator GB1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    San Diego CA
    Posts
    9,960

    Re: back to 35mm... feedback wanted

    Certainly no loss here in going with film over digital. Besides the dust, which can be corrected, the shots look great. There is a bit of grain there but it doesnt look bad to me.

    But then again, I'm still a film holdout. I think when I get a digital SLR that I'll be using both systems for awhile.

    GB
    Photography Software and Post Processing Forum Moderator. Visit here!

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Feel free to edit and repost my photos as part of your critique.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    My Site

  13. #13
    Senior Shooter Greg McCary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Rome Ga.
    Posts
    10,550

    Re: back to 35mm... feedback wanted

    Another thing you should know, if you miss exposure the the lab will push the scans and this will cause grain. You may never know how bad you missed exposure. When you shot slide missing exposure will show up even more. It's far easier to blow out a sky with slide film. When I shot slide film I tell the labs not to adjust exposure and I deal with it in PhotoShop. It's always best to bracket your shots....
    Greg
    I also posted this response in the help threads but it may be better here.
    I am like Barney Fife, I have a gun but Andy makes me keep the bullet in my pocket..

    Sony a99/a7R

  14. #14
    Member EastCoastHucker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Argentina - Brooklyn,NY
    Posts
    363

    Re: back to 35mm... feedback wanted

    Thanks...
    Brian got me thinking on getting a Scanner... I saw some nice reviews on the CanoScan CS8600F and is only $165 new at Amazon.com
    cheers
    Juanjo

    wanna see photos !

  15. #15
    GB1
    GB1 is offline
    Moderator GB1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    San Diego CA
    Posts
    9,960

    Re: back to 35mm... feedback wanted

    Quote Originally Posted by EastCoastHucker
    Thanks...
    Brian got me thinking on getting a Scanner... I saw some nice reviews on the CanoScan CS8600F and is only $165 new at Amazon.com
    They're coming down in price. I had to get one that scanned 120 mm film. Ended up buying the Nikon coolscan 9000, great scanner, but very exp at $1800.
    Photography Software and Post Processing Forum Moderator. Visit here!

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Feel free to edit and repost my photos as part of your critique.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    My Site

  16. #16
    mod squad gahspidy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    N.Y. U.S.A.
    Posts
    8,368

    Re: back to 35mm... feedback wanted

    If you get a "cheap scanner" or a flat bed type model, you may not be happy with the results, might take more time and effort to do your scans, and you will be spending lots of time cleaning up the images. I have used a Minolota dimage lll scanner that cost 250.00 a few years ago and while it made terrific scans, I had lots of cleaning up after the scans because of dust and dirt, etc. Turned out to be very time consuming. I then bought the Nikon Coolscan V and was happy as ever. The film feeds into the scanner the way a dollar bill feeds into a vending machine, and the dgital ice software ( which always gets accolades and rave reviews) cleans up completely.
    I have done the opposite from what your considering. After years of shooting film and scanning the negs I finally went out and got a DSLR (Rebel XTi) and am so happy that I don't think I will be shooting film again. The images are so clean, even at high ISO that I can interpolate the files to the same size as my 4000 dpi scans and have actually still a cleaner looking image. Also, the advantages of ISO on the fly, instant feedback of your images,and no more lugging around rolls of film wating for them to be developed is enough for me to consider selling my scanner at this point . . . .
    please do not edit and repost my photos


    gary


  17. #17
    Senior Shooter Greg McCary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Rome Ga.
    Posts
    10,550

    Re: back to 35mm... feedback wanted

    Gary is right about the dust issue. I have to keep my scanner, negatives an slides dust free for good results. I am going digital in the next couple of weeks. I am now trying to decide what I can afford. I am looking at the Nikon D50's and Canon 10D's. I love film though and hope soon to have my own darkroom. I think that I will still shot film even after I go digital. I really love my Yashica FX-103 an have tons of equipment for it that would cost a fortune to replace with digital. I will use it until it quits and then probably get another one.
    One problem with labs is they are not dealing with serious photographers most of the time. And they are dealing with 1 hour in a hurry disposable camera people. So the quality just isn't there.
    Greg
    I am like Barney Fife, I have a gun but Andy makes me keep the bullet in my pocket..

    Sony a99/a7R

  18. #18
    Moderator Didache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    London England
    Posts
    2,040

    Re: back to 35mm... feedback wanted

    But then again, I'm still a film holdout. I think when I get a digital SLR that I'll be using both systems for awhile.

    GB1


    That's what I said! (glancing at dusty 35mm slrs on the shelf!)

    Mike

  19. #19
    GB1
    GB1 is offline
    Moderator GB1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    San Diego CA
    Posts
    9,960

    Re: back to 35mm... feedback wanted

    Quote Originally Posted by Didache
    But then again, I'm still a film holdout. I think when I get a digital SLR that I'll be using both systems for awhile.

    GB1


    That's what I said! (glancing at dusty 35mm slrs on the shelf!)

    Mike
    Yeah, that's probably what will happen. THe convenience will overpower any remaining advantages that film might have....
    Photography Software and Post Processing Forum Moderator. Visit here!

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Feel free to edit and repost my photos as part of your critique.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    My Site

  20. #20
    Member EastCoastHucker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Argentina - Brooklyn,NY
    Posts
    363

    Re: back to 35mm... feedback wanted

    I still have few Digital cameras which I use for stuff that I need ASAP but I grow up with film and even tho Digital is more practic the feel of having a Film camera, the weight, the sound, even the waiting to get the rerults is something that brough me back 10+ years which IMO were the best years so no matter how more convenient is Digital I gonna keep my 35mil.

    PS, I'm thinking of getting a Canon SC8600F flatbed scanner. any word on that one!!



    PS2, my english sukks
    cheers
    Juanjo

    wanna see photos !

  21. #21
    GB1
    GB1 is offline
    Moderator GB1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    San Diego CA
    Posts
    9,960

    Re: back to 35mm... feedback wanted

    Quote Originally Posted by EastCoastHucker
    I still have few Digital cameras which I use for stuff that I need ASAP but I grow up with film and even tho Digital is more practic the feel of having a Film camera, the weight, the sound, even the waiting to get the rerults is something that brough me back 10+ years which IMO were the best years so no matter how more convenient is Digital I gonna keep my 35mil.

    PS, I'm thinking of getting a Canon SC8600F flatbed scanner. any word on that one!!



    PS2, my english sukks
    I know what you mean. I feel the same way... I guess they can't teach an old dog new tricks.

    Is a flatbed a regular document-type scanner? Those scanners, used to scan photographs, never produce perfect results... they *always* require sharpening after scanning.... film scanners are the way to go, if you can afford it. I have both but only use my flatbed about every 4 or 5 months now.

    gb
    Photography Software and Post Processing Forum Moderator. Visit here!

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Feel free to edit and repost my photos as part of your critique.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    My Site

  22. #22
    Member EastCoastHucker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Argentina - Brooklyn,NY
    Posts
    363

    Re: back to 35mm... feedback wanted

    Quote Originally Posted by GB1
    I know what you mean. I feel the same way... I guess they can't teach an old dog new tricks.

    Is a flatbed a regular document-type scanner?

    gb
    this flatbed is film scanner and have some nice reviews...I may give it a try.... if I buy it in B&H in NYC I have 14 days to use it and change my mind.

    http://syndicate.tentoe.com/Syndicat...e=FP3FUC-15645
    cheers
    Juanjo

    wanna see photos !

  23. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    705

    Re: back to 35mm... feedback wanted

    i see nothing that makes me long for the days of film.. in fact to be blunt i see some fairly poor quality pictures when the nostalgia factor is removed from the equation..

    whether or not i am missing something i shouldnt be i am not sure..

    trog

  24. #24
    banished Don Schaeffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Huntington, NY
    Posts
    5,816

    Re: back to 35mm... feedback wanted

    The highlights on the face look over-exposed to me. I found that with film whenI used it, I was always gettingtoo much contrast and burned out details in the highlight.

  25. #25
    Not-so-recent Nikon Convert livin4lax09's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    NH
    Posts
    2,776

    Re: back to 35mm... feedback wanted

    actually don, film has a much hgher dynamic range than digital sensors, so if anything you are more likely to blow your highlights when shooting digital against the same subject as 35mm.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •