Somewhat Assorted

2 Comments

…kind of like “One Night in Bangkok”.

Except that it wasn’t night…it was day.

And also not Bangkok.

(…oh and also probably two days, but who’s counting)

(FYI–the distinguished gentleman featured prominently in the photo above is a friend of mine, who had his work featured at the restaurant in question).

Hazy

5 Comments

This is what happens when you drink too many cocktails made of rum and IPA.

🙂

You’ll have to excuse the blur…even at 1600 ISO, most were shot at 1/8s or slower.

The Fun new Problem

4 Comments

See those red marks?  (Of course you do–they’re dang hard to miss).

Look closer–

What do they look like?

Like tiny bolts of lightning, actually.

Believe-it-or-not, they are discharges of static electricity on the film.

This is what happens when you shoot high speed films like Cinestill 800 in dry climates like Alberta.  It typically occurs when one winds the film too quickly.  (And, incidentally, part of the reason why most cinema films have Remjet backing on them, as they move at 30-60 fps through the motion picture camera).

Yay.

NPL Does B&W Too!

11 Comments

These two files were both scanned and processed exactly the same way–but there is one important difference:

The second was scanned using the Betterscanning holder, with ANR glass.

If you zoom in, you will note a definite increase in sharpness–but the interesting thing is the ever-so-slight difference in the actual character of the file–presumably due to the slight curvature of the film, and differing height above the scanner glass.

Holders matter, people.

Unfortunately, I may have to invest in another film scanner (? Braun–WHERE ARE YOU Opticfilm Pro??) as I think there is more in the negative here, and the Epson seems to be maxing-out.  The Epson is definitely good…but good enough, I’m no longer certain.

EDIT:

Well, here is the same negative placed right on the V600 glass, with the Betterscanning ANR Glass placed over it.  It may, in fact, be even sharper, but the difference is extremely hard to notice.  At the very least, it is certainly NO WORSE than the second scan, leading me to believe that either (1) Film flatness matters more than height; or (2) the Epson V600 is really maxed out in terms of detail resolution.

Below are crops of both images, with the Negative-on-glass on the RIGHT (Left is the Betterscanning holder)

Admittedly, these files are a tad flat (and shot at ISO 80 on finely-grained film…) so I may repeat the experiment later using something with a bit more structure.