Advertise here

Film Users post here

Showcase your craft in our local gallery, provide reviews, seek to learn new techniques, share knowledge, and make friends.

Film Users post here

Postby shutterhero » Thu Jan 24, 2008 4:38 am

anyone here still using film(s)? well, if you lets share your shots here.
as for me i still shoot using films because film is more vibrant and lively.
but in my photos below are not vibrant; rather overcast with green color,
because i had them cross-processed. i welcome critics.

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Last edited by shutterhero on Thu Jan 24, 2008 8:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
shutterhero
 
Posts: 435
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 4:53 am
Location: 95% PJ / 5% MYY

Postby dougie » Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:08 am

any recommendations for the best ways to convert slides/ old pictures,
into a digital format?
would good quality scanner suffice?
laughter is the Best medicine
User avatar
dougie
 
Posts: 1022
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 2:24 pm
Location: Miri

Postby shutterhero » Thu Jan 24, 2008 11:30 am

dougie wrote:any recommendations for the best ways to convert slides/ old pictures,
into a digital format?
would good quality scanner suffice?


send them to the photolab to scan at 300DPI.
but from my experience photolab seldom scan at 300dpi.
Last edited by shutterhero on Thu Jan 24, 2008 8:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
XOXO
User avatar
shutterhero
 
Posts: 435
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 4:53 am
Location: 95% PJ / 5% MYY

Postby lasting99 » Thu Jan 24, 2008 1:58 pm

= deleted with apology =
Last edited by lasting99 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 1:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
lasting99
 
Posts: 1760
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2007 5:58 pm

Postby dougie » Thu Jan 24, 2008 4:41 pm

many thanks guys.

shutterhero, does the 300dpi equate to ppi?
i'm vaguely aware that good high-street scanner can give 3200, up to 4800ppi,
but that some specialists use a 'drum scanner' which can double this figure up to 8000ppi,
but where to find?!

lasting, shall make enquiries, but with the large numbers involved (several 100's),
then maybe cheaper to obtain good quality scanner..
laughter is the Best medicine
User avatar
dougie
 
Posts: 1022
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 2:24 pm
Location: Miri

Postby ian » Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:41 pm

it's rare to find people still using film, shutterhero. did you process them on your own? I heard there are people doing it as a hobby.

Your green cast over the photos is fixable with photoshop if you're converting it for digital storage.

...what's "cross-processed"?

I think ian also to this sort of thing. Wait til he respond to this post then ask him.


Yes, I do - not directly though, but through other photo studios. 300dpi is the optimal resolution for prints, but if you're scanning film to digital for your own photo collection, it's better to scan at higher resolutions like 600 or 800, then shrink it back down to 300. This way it eliminates dust marks during the shrinking process.

Higher resolutions also allows you to fine-tune the cropping or rotation of the images, but it takes a huge hit on your computer processing.
Attachments
2211896543_dac2e92ed3_o.jpg
color fix
2211896543_dac2e92ed3_o.jpg (85.89 KiB) Viewed 1328 times
User avatar
ian
 
Posts: 8549
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 2:14 pm
Location: A small box

Postby shutterhero » Thu Jan 24, 2008 8:37 pm

lasting99 wrote:Send your negative to Typhoon and they will scan a high res digital file from it. It will be expensive but I think it's worth it.
I think ian also to this sort of thing. Wait til he respond to this post then ask him.


must be expansive in Miri.
here i get to scan the film into digital with 300dpi with only RM6.
so say i have a roll to process and i want it in digital that all will come to
processing fee plus scanning that's equal to rm4+rm6.
XOXO
User avatar
shutterhero
 
Posts: 435
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 4:53 am
Location: 95% PJ / 5% MYY

Postby dougie » Thu Jan 24, 2008 8:48 pm

i think that for a 'hand-full' of slides/old pics, then lasting's suggestion for professional studio, is good.
sadly!, most of d material, is just reference for area knowledge, etc.,
& so will persever in trying to chase a quality scanner (300dpi?).

Tx!
laughter is the Best medicine
User avatar
dougie
 
Posts: 1022
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 2:24 pm
Location: Miri

Postby shutterhero » Thu Jan 24, 2008 8:55 pm

dougie wrote:many thanks guys.

shutterhero, does the 300dpi equate to ppi?
i'm vaguely aware that good high-street scanner can give 3200, up to 4800ppi,
but that some specialists use a 'drum scanner' which can double this figure up to 8000ppi,
but where to find?!

lasting, shall make enquiries, but with the large numbers involved (several 100's),
then maybe cheaper to obtain good quality scanner..


im just sharing.
yes, Nikon and Canon do sell this film-scanner. go to their official website and see the price for yourself. to me that's quite expensive. i would rather top-up a few hundred to buy a new lens for my DSLR. eerr... 300 dpi is more than enough, mate.
User avatar
shutterhero
 
Posts: 435
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 4:53 am
Location: 95% PJ / 5% MYY

Postby shutterhero » Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:30 pm

ian wrote:it's rare to find people still using film, shutterhero. did you process them on your own? I heard there are people doing it as a hobby.

Your green cast over the photos is fixable with photoshop if you're converting it for digital storage.

...what's "cross-processed"?

I think ian also to this sort of thing. Wait til he respond to this post then ask him.


Yes, I do - not directly though, but through other photo studios. 300dpi is the optimal resolution for prints, but if you're scanning film to digital for your own photo collection, it's better to scan at higher resolutions like 600 or 800, then shrink it back down to 300. This way it eliminates dust marks during the shrinking process.

Higher resolutions also allows you to fine-tune the cropping or rotation of the images, but it takes a huge hit on your computer processing.


cross-processing is a technique in photography whereby a slide film is processed with C41 chemical instead of E6. fyi, c41 is the chemical commonly use to process generic 35mm film like Kodak, Fujifilm, samsung, agfa, etc. whereas e6 is used specifically to process color slide films.

ppl use this cross-processing technique because they wanted to get the effect like above. errr not rele like mine. mine r bad examples. and that's the reason i don't fix those photos above cus what i want is the efx. u can go to flickr.com and find some amazing effect examples. sometimes it can be too bluish or reddish, slightly similar to lomography. i will upload some examples.

anyway, ian, thx for fixing it for me. most film users prefer their shots to be original or "as it is". hence, those shots above r not some kind of enhancement. but with DSLR and photoshop, one can owes create the cross-processing efx.
User avatar
shutterhero
 
Posts: 435
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 4:53 am
Location: 95% PJ / 5% MYY

Postby shutterhero » Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:50 pm

lasting99 wrote:Send your negative to Typhoon and they will scan a high res digital file from it. It will be expensive but I think it's worth it.
I think ian also to this sort of thing. Wait til he respond to this post then ask him.


gud info! *write into my PDA*
XOXO
User avatar
shutterhero
 
Posts: 435
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 4:53 am
Location: 95% PJ / 5% MYY

Postby shutterhero » Fri Jan 25, 2008 10:29 pm

more example of the cross-processing efx

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
shutterhero
 
Posts: 435
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 4:53 am
Location: 95% PJ / 5% MYY

Postby lasting99 » Sat Jan 26, 2008 12:09 pm

= deleted with apology =
Last edited by lasting99 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 1:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
lasting99
 
Posts: 1760
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2007 5:58 pm

Postby ian » Sat Jan 26, 2008 12:51 pm

nice.
User avatar
ian
 
Posts: 8549
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 2:14 pm
Location: A small box

Postby hyperactive » Sun Jan 27, 2008 4:04 am

me use polaroid film...does that count?
Disclaimer: The information on this post is for informational purposes only. The author shall not be held responsible for any damages caused resulting from this post. By reading this disclaimer you hereby agree to it.
User avatar
hyperactive
 
Posts: 989
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 7:34 pm
Location: Toowoomba, Australia.

Next

Return to Photography

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


Advertise here