Fuji Acros 100
Shot at the the Hill Air Force Base annual fly-in about 2 years ago with the Yashica-Mat 124G on on film. Developed in a Stand with Rodinal @ 5% with a 60 minute burn and then scanned on a Nikon LS-8000 @ 4000 dpi native.
Filtering by Tag: Yashica
JSMB - SLC
This is the back side of the Joseph Smith Memorial Building - historically known as Hotel Utah.
This was restored and remodeled, by the LDS Church in the 1980's to become an administration type building.
FFKR Architect's was hired for the original remodel and has since been involved in ongoing modifications.
YashicaMat124G - Kodak Ektar 100
Make it so.
There is a difference between Digital and Film.
- Digital is freeing - liberating - no development cost - easy - instant - shoot all you want - all you can eat.
- Film is constraining - concerning - costs more - unknown - difficult - non instant - takes chemicals
Both aspects have their plusses - but man - the digital side sounds like Crack Cocaine - I'm being facetious of course. Don't do drugs.
If you are shooting film - I’ll let you decide why you do it - as based upon what I just outlined, well; I make it sound like film is dead: Hardly.
YashicaMat124G - Kodak Portra
Here’s what I’m getting at — this whole film thing is constraining me from shooting. I feel like I need have to have some kind of special image to shoot - like waiting for the Queen of England to walk by the house or something. I’m on the porch waiting; right now — as I type this…. just kidding, no really - I am !
Ok -- never mind - I just missed the shot.
So my goal these last few months of Summer - is to burn some frames — go hog wild on the mundane - the simple; Cracks on the concrete - street signs at head level - the sky - Lola the Bulldog letting one rip - a blurred selfie.
I need to shoot 1 frame a day. Make it so.
Kodak Ektar - YashicaMat 124G
Scanning film in the Digital age
EDIT: A friend of mine mentioned to me a few things about this post of which I've decided to clarify. And they are important enough to add this edit. My vision for how I process film is just one technique - wether that's scanning, choice of lab processing or developing at home. There are many who have used different techniques, equipment, flat bed scanners, and films of which the final outputs have been received without peer. It's never been my intent to offer the opinion of end/all, be/all - please keep that in mind.
Scanning film in the digital age
Coming at this as a newbie months ago, I really schooled myself about scanning services from labs: what they offer for resolution and pricing. None of which is standardized. And the idea of scanning my own developed film. Here's a quick distillation of my findings.
Scanning film becomes a confusing subject in this recent world of digital photography - as really the only purpose of the film scanning process is getting the best resolution possible.
The photographic / scanning labs aren't dumb either - after years of getting beat up by the influx of the digital camera eating into their survivability, they have now monetized the analog/digital aka "Hybrid" workflow with pricing tired services.
And I'll get to that in a moment.
There are a few components to the idea of scanning film. The first is the scanning; getting the resolution in-order to print something bigger than a postage stamp sized print (and I'm being a bit sarcastic of course).
The second is getting the scan to look like what would be expected when you would nakedly print. Meaning - the digital representation looks like the the original film stock, i.e. Kodak Portra, Kodak Ektar, Ilford HP5+, Ilford Delta, Koday Tri-X, etc. This can be tricky - and there are certain photoshop integrated pieces of software which keep the integrity of the "look" of the film you've scanned.
The third - is the price. That's were the monetization of services from the lab comes in. Bigger scan = more cost. Color vs. BW is a price difference there also. Color is easier to scan as the dust removal is more automated - BW scanning needs to be “spotted” manually which is more laborious.
So now I'm just touching the surface - and let's not forget shipping, i.e. getting it to the lab. Ugh. That’s a part of the expense also.
One would think that the scanning sizes per price paid would all be standardized.
But as you look around at which labs are worth considering you will see that scanning resolution sizes are not necessarily tied to price.
I might also add -- that if you are a lab and you are not scanning - then I don't even consider your services. But why -- why do you want a scan ?? --- Well that's a bit of another conversation but suffice to say - that wet printing is a bit of a diminishing return for how good ink jet and how capable large format ink jet has become.
Here's a taste of the confusion -- these numbers include Development and Scanning
theDarkroom.com 35mm BW
1024x1536 - $11
2048x3072 - $15
4492x6774 - $20
theFindLab.com
2285x3035 - $22
3042x4040 - $27
3647x5444 - $32
This is an example of what I mean -- Price and Resolution - you would think this would easily be your guide, but there is no correlation between the two. One doesn’t compliment the other - and here's another curve ball -- what's the secret sauce if there is a difference of price - what is theFindLab giving you for that extra $12 bucks on their top of the line scan compared to the theDarkroom ???
Is it better dust correction - do they care more - or is a scan a scan, especially when you are talking a high volume production shop ?
I've used these two labs as I’ve gotten started in the film hybrid workflow -- theDarkroom out of CA, and theFindLab out of UT., and I'm torn. TheFindLab is probably one of the most expensive in the country - yet I've never had to second guess with what they have provided me. The DarkRoom has great resolution, is sometimes a 1/3 cheaper but I've had to send some stuff back to be re-done, 5” prints to be exact.
So what's the future hold -- Well. As I get deeper into film I've started developing BW and color C-41 and scanning myself. I've secured a Nikon LS-8000 for MFormat film getting 4000dpi and a Minolta Dimage 5400 for 35mm at 5400 dpi.
Everything I’m doing is “cradle to grave”.
Both of these scanners will give me resolution competitive if not better than standard lab offerings - but the process for me will be a time hog. So either way you are paying -- in time or in money.
And here’s the rub - the scanners producing these outputs desirable aren’t made anymore. Yep - Nikon and Minolta scanners don’t exist as new - and services to repair them don’t exist either. Yet the frustrating part is that no one makes a comparable product - yes the technology of 2000 can’t be matched - Mind blower. Expect to pay at least $1000 for a Nikon first generation LS-8000 and expect to pay $500 for a Minolta Dimage I, used.
In closing -- the only way to see how a lab treats your negs., is to try them - util you come to the point of wanting to create your own work flow.
While I’m at it — let’s keep this conversation going — what happened to the “Flatbed option” ? Good question.
Ok — if your are planning to use a flat bed — Epson 600, 650, 700, 750, 800, 850 then you will hit the wall of real resolution vs. interpolated resolution. Meaning - the flat beds really don’t resolve past 2400 dpi. And, if you are a purest in all sense of the term then that just won’t be good enough for your artwork. There are many internet posts on this subject to be searched - and this was quite an eye-opener upon researching it - as I had no idea about this aspect.
On another note, and this is the biggest reason I’m not flatbedding - the flat beds can’t adjust and focus on the film image - so you may not get the sharpness you are entitled too. The flatbeds have an arbitrary focusing point - it’s either good out of the box, or horrible.
Whew — ok — so you got all of that ?
NW Maui
A paradise in and of itself -- let alone when you are carrying a camera. Taken from the beach of the house we were fortunate to be renting for the week. Can't wait to go back. This is Ilford Pan-F 50. I'm not a big fan as the sharpness seems a bit lacking - It was a an experiment of sorts - I'm now sticking to Ilford's Delta series. Either 100 or 400.
YashicaMat 124 G - Ilford Pan-F 50
Back to the roots.
Months ago - testing the nature of film and how it works against architecture. Film is so foreign - its like putting on blinders and walking out side. Digital allows you to confirm the capture - film says, "screw you" -- I'll give it up when I want too. And that's the truth.
For a paying gig - well - that's a bit unnerving.
This is at the University of Utah. When the light is right - there are some striking areas to shoot.
YashicaMat124G - Fuji 400H
Maui Palms
More Maui - not too bore, but I just can't look away; fair warning as more will be coming.
The Yashica is a joy to use and learn from. This is Ilford's Pan f - 50 ASA. It's hard for me to compare but I would like to compare Delta 100 or a TMax and see the results.
YashicaMat 124G - Ilford 50 Pan f
Maui Backwoods
This was a part of a walk to a remote beach, and I couldn't resist capturing the jungle like feel.
YashicaMat 124G - Kodak Ektar 100
Yashica Mat 124G - Ilford Pan F 50
Lawn at the Hyatt - Maui
Whale watching in Ektar
This is Ektar 100 again -- but with great light of the morning sunrise. You have to move quickly and sort of guess at everything and hope you get something of it. And when it all comes together - you wonder if it really was a guess.
This is shot on the Yashica Mat 124G - 120 format.
DevScan by theFINDlab
Yashica Mat 124G - Ektar 100
Ektar 100
I don't have much experience with Kodak's Ektar. I've seen all the advertisements and I've heard all the hype. Everything is true -- great for landscapes on desert islands - and you can't get away from the reds in the skintones. The grain is really tight - be sure to nail your focus with great light and you may just have a winner.
This is 120 -- on the Yashica Mat 124G. 120 Format is gripping.
DevScan by theFindLab
Kodak Ektar - Yashica Mat 124G