One of my first RB67 photos!
Jan. 9th, 2024 02:46 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
thewayneBack on my birthday last month, I went out to White Sands with two new - to me - cameras. A Mamiya RB67 film camera, and a Canon 5DS 50 megapixel DSLR. Today I got the scans from my film back! And here's one of the photos!
It was the last shot on the roll - it's been some 30 years since I shot an RB67 and it has a bit of a learning curve, and I got some end of roll funkiness on it. There's a bit of Photoshopping on it to crop it and cut off some flare and clean up some negative yuckies.
BUT there's no Photoshopping to make it look old! That character is ALL because it being FILM! And this is why I like FILM! It has character that digital just doesn't give you. Specifically it's Ilford ISO 100, overexposed about 1.5 stops. I think it was HP5, I'll have to look at my film back when I get home and update the post. Photoshop curves darkened the area around the tree, that's about it.
I calculated out the pixels, and the scan is the equivalent of about a 25 megapixel camera! But it ain't cheap: I got six frames from that roll because of problems, and with processing that's about $7.50 a frame!
And I actually like that about film. Knowing that there's a definite cost associated with every shot, you pay lots of attention to the composition and exposure to make it count! You're not just blasting a dozen frames on a single image because there's pretty much zero cost once you buy the equipment.
As usual, click to embiggen.
This photo was shot within a minute of the film photo above with the 5DS digital. Photoshop of the color original for various tweaks and crops, ending in applying a red filter to strike it to B&W. I didn't have to do any retouching to remove any of the film processing yuckies, but I did have to remove footsteps in the sand because this had a different crop than the RB67 shot. Huzzah for Photoshop!
I don't have any filters in this installation to make it look grainy like film, and since it was digital, it doesn't have the characteristics of the image below.
Regardless, I definitely like the character of the film shot a heck of a lot more.
As usual, clicken to embiggen.
It was the last shot on the roll - it's been some 30 years since I shot an RB67 and it has a bit of a learning curve, and I got some end of roll funkiness on it. There's a bit of Photoshopping on it to crop it and cut off some flare and clean up some negative yuckies.
BUT there's no Photoshopping to make it look old! That character is ALL because it being FILM! And this is why I like FILM! It has character that digital just doesn't give you. Specifically it's Ilford ISO 100, overexposed about 1.5 stops. I think it was HP5, I'll have to look at my film back when I get home and update the post. Photoshop curves darkened the area around the tree, that's about it.
I calculated out the pixels, and the scan is the equivalent of about a 25 megapixel camera! But it ain't cheap: I got six frames from that roll because of problems, and with processing that's about $7.50 a frame!
And I actually like that about film. Knowing that there's a definite cost associated with every shot, you pay lots of attention to the composition and exposure to make it count! You're not just blasting a dozen frames on a single image because there's pretty much zero cost once you buy the equipment.
As usual, click to embiggen.
This photo was shot within a minute of the film photo above with the 5DS digital. Photoshop of the color original for various tweaks and crops, ending in applying a red filter to strike it to B&W. I didn't have to do any retouching to remove any of the film processing yuckies, but I did have to remove footsteps in the sand because this had a different crop than the RB67 shot. Huzzah for Photoshop!
I don't have any filters in this installation to make it look grainy like film, and since it was digital, it doesn't have the characteristics of the image below.
Regardless, I definitely like the character of the film shot a heck of a lot more.
As usual, clicken to embiggen.
no subject
Date: 2024-01-11 12:59 am (UTC)Your new equipment is just a license to go out and (thoughtfully, methodically) have fun! I hope you get to exercise your cameras often!
no subject
Date: 2024-01-11 03:49 am (UTC)Thank you! It was a fun excursion, I plan on going on another one soon. I just wish I had a red or polarizer filter. I don't know if you read Ken Rockwell's web site (kenrockwell.com), he's an excellent pro photographer and does great equipment reviews. He brings up an interesting point about keeping negatives: scanners improve! So right now, those 6x7 negatives, as scanned, are effectively at about 25 megapixels. And I have no idea what equipment was used to scan them. I am quite satisfied with the result, I need to do some more work on it in PS and see what else I can do with them. But in 5-10 years, assuming I'm still kicking, the scanners may make them 30-35 MP files. THEN what can I extract from them? Ken demonstrated increased scanner resolution on some 4x5 chromes that he had, it was quite interesting.
no subject
Date: 2024-01-11 04:32 am (UTC)