Jump to content

Welcome to NikonForums.com
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Why do people cross the bridge?

bridge water foliage

  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1
Tony

Tony

    Nikonian

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,242 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationBeaverton, Oregon

Site Supporter

Here is a decent shot of a foot bridge in Silver Falls, Oregon.  I even like the affects of the rippling water.  This is one of the photos I had converted over to digital format.  Thanks for looking.  When the photo is enlarged here, I can see a surprising amount of sharpness gone.

 

Tony

Attached Thumbnails

  • 11A_0143.jpg


#2
JohnRNixon

JohnRNixon

    Junior Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationBlackburn, Lancashire

Here is a decent shot of a foot bridge in Silver Falls, Oregon.  I even like the affects of the rippling water.  This is one of the photos I had converted over to digital format.  Thanks for looking.  When the photo is enlarged here, I can see a surprising amount of sharpness gone.

 

Tony

So am I correct in the reading of this, that this is a scan of either a print, neg or a slide?



#3
Tony

Tony

    Nikonian

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,242 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationBeaverton, Oregon

Site Supporter

So am I correct in the reading of this, that this is a scan of either a print, neg or a slide?

Actually, it was done both ways, by negative and print.  We wanted to see which way was actually best.  It was a difficult choice, so I went with the negative.  Thanks for viewing.  Tony



#4
alden

alden

    Nikonian

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,226 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationHiding in the hallway

Was the original this softly focused?



#5
Tony

Tony

    Nikonian

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,242 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationBeaverton, Oregon

Site Supporter

Was the original this softly focused?

No sir, it wasn't.  When I inquired as to the loss of resolution, I was informed that it was attributable to the conversion process.  It was taken with a Nikon N8008s film SLR with the AF Nikkor 35~80mm D lens.  Thanks,

 

Tony



#6
JohnRNixon

JohnRNixon

    Junior Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationBlackburn, Lancashire

Actually, it was done both ways, by negative and print.  We wanted to see which way was actually best.  It was a difficult choice, so I went with the negative.  Thanks for viewing.  Tony

I always go with the negative and at as high a resolution as I need. I have an awful lot of 35mm slides and a reasonably proficient flat bed scanner that has a 35mm negative feed. I have also been disappointed by the process and I have out it down to the automation of the scanner focusing on the emulsion. I have inverted the film in the negative carrier, removed slides from their mounts and done the same. I am seriously considering one of the 'old style' slide copier extensions for the camera. That way one can focus manually an be satisfied that you ar getting the best result. The issue with those, and probably part of the issue with scanners, is that the film does not lie absolutely flat. So it is something of a problem for the amateur.



#7
Tony

Tony

    Nikonian

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,242 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationBeaverton, Oregon

Site Supporter

I always go with the negative and at as high a resolution as I need. I have an awful lot of 35mm slides and a reasonably proficient flat bed scanner that has a 35mm negative feed. I have also been disappointed by the process and I have out it down to the automation of the scanner focusing on the emulsion. I have inverted the film in the negative carrier, removed slides from their mounts and done the same. I am seriously considering one of the 'old style' slide copier extensions for the camera. That way one can focus manually an be satisfied that you ar getting the best result. The issue with those, and probably part of the issue with scanners, is that the film does not lie absolutely flat. So it is something of a problem for the amateur.

To be perfectly honest, I had a professional lab do the work.  Primarily because I do not have a clue as to the conversion process.  I delivered over two hundred pieces to be converted, they charged me over one hundred dollars and I lost more than half to NOISE.  So when I asked them about it, the answer was,"Well, Noise is Noise."  Obviously, another intellect.  Lesson learned.  Tony



#8
alden

alden

    Nikonian

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,226 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationHiding in the hallway

Well, there are professionals and then there are "professionals" -- if you take my meaning.



#9
Tony

Tony

    Nikonian

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,242 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationBeaverton, Oregon

Site Supporter

Well, there are professionals and then there are "professionals" -- if you take my meaning.

yes sir, I do understand your meaning.  With the attitude these pseudo intellectuals have, it is a wonder they are still in business.  Thanks. tt



#10
leighgion

leighgion

    Senior Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationMadrid

I don't see what intellectualism or pseudo intellectualism has to do with it.

 

The fact is that film scanning is a very tricky, labor-intensive process even with the best equipment without a lot of profit potential on it. So, I'm afraid for the price you paid you can't really expect much of anything. The numbers you give works out to be about fifty cents a scan, which is only going to buy you fully automated scanning and probably not on the best possible scanner.

 

I never owned anything near the best hardware, but for a time I was regularly scanning negs and a few slides with an Epson 4870. I invested a little extra cash for anti-newtonian glass inserts to hold my film flat and a different holder for medium format. I could have gone deeper than I went, but I was quite pleased with my results. Learning how to deal with the scanning software and how to take more care physically with the film improved my scans by light years. Slides always remained a little troublesome, but I had great results with B&W and color negs a few favorite chromes as well.

 

I really miss working with film and my home setup. 



#11
Ron

Ron

    Nikonian

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,635 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationMagic City

 

I really miss working with film and my home setup.

 

I understand that Kodak (or rather the entity that owns the film side of that company) will be selling film again, starting with Ektachrome.

 

--Ron 



#12
leighgion

leighgion

    Senior Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationMadrid

I understand that Kodak (or rather the entity that owns the film side of that company) will be selling film again, starting with Ektachrome.

--Ron


My problem isn't the market, it's my personal circumstances. I married, moved to another country with a lot less space and had a baby. I still own all my film gear, have a stock of film and the scanner, but it's spread across two continents and just not a priority to sort out/spend money on to reacquire.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Ron likes this

#13
Ron

Ron

    Nikonian

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,635 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationMagic City

My problem isn't the market, it's my personal circumstances. I married, moved to another country with a lot less space and had a baby. I still own all my film gear, have a stock of film and the scanner, but it's spread across two continents and just not a priority to sort out/spend money on to reacquire.

 

I understand completely. I still have most of my developing and printing equipment except for an enlarger, but finding space to set up a darkroom is nontrivial. No matter what the circumstances.

 

--Ron







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: bridge, water, foliage