File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
I just shot my first roll of Fuji 160C.
I expected subdued vibrant colors, high contrasts based on others' samples.
What flickr told me is not what my film scanner told me.

Anyway, here my results. Comments and criticism appreciated. Trolling is good because it is apparently now the lifeblood of /p/.

Strawberry You-Pick-It in MD.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:06:18 03:43:01
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Food porn in my kitchen.

Colors were disappointing.

Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:06:18 17:41:35
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>208362
inb4 bitching. Frames left in for posterity.

Checking black contrast.

Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:06:18 17:43:12
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Actually, where are YOUR rain shots butterfly?

Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:06:18 03:42:55
>> Anonymous
>subdued vibrant
Um, what?
>> Anonymous
>Actually, where are YOUR rain shots butterfly?
I'm still waiting for him to post his club shots, don't be surprised if he doesn't respond to this.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I am unsure if my xti has the dynamic range for this shot. Any opinions DC?
Also, no CPL. No processing.

This shot is a prime example of why you need 100% viewfinder coverage.

Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:06:18 03:45:31
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>208374
Try it in LR. Turn down saturation, turn up vibrance. That was what I was told the 160C would do.(lies)

>>208377
Also, I'm sure this would have been better resolution, and grain-less with the same film in MF.

This shots is closer the the look I was going for, but my epson scanner(4490) pulls extra grain if you try to change the white point. Any advice here?

Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:06:18 17:59:33
>> Anonymous
>>208375
She was pretty good troll-fu, so don't expect any drastic.
>> Anonymous
Butterfly is male.
>> Anonymous
>>208377
Nice blues. Can you post original? I still suspect mucking about...
>> Anonymous
>>208382

I see your 4490 has the same problem as mine with the banding lines through skys and such.
>> Anonymous
colours look ok to me.

If you want vibrant you should have shot velvia
>> Anonymous
>>208420
Have you found any way to solve this?
>> Anonymous
film is pig disgusting
>> Anonymous
>>208450

No. It's a design flaw in the scanner. The best I could come up with is to rescan the neg after moving it to the other side of the plastic carrier. It only seems to happen on one side but I can't remember which at the moment.
>> Anonymous
bump for best type of gear thread.

Try some slower speed film. You might be surprised.
>> Anonymous
>>208377
Looks like awesome to me. Need high res for wallpaper thanks.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>208483
Glad to oblige.
/p/ is grateful? The sky is falling.

Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution150 dpiVertical Resolution150 dpiImage Created2008:06:18 20:51:09
>> Anonymous
bump for film faggotry
>> OP
     File :-(, x)
Could I get some criticism concerning composition, subjects, etc?

I'm still not really sure about how to "use" lines.

Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:06:18 03:45:43
>> OP
     File :-(, x)
This is about all I have that isn't horrible at first sight.

I know that there is too much wasted space here, but how would YOU crop this?

Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:06:18 17:59:35
>> OP
     File :-(, x)
>>208912
Oh and have some flare

Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:06:18 17:49:41
>> Anonymous
>>208910
I really like this one OP
Good eye
>> OP
>>208931
Thanks, but could I get more content?
I hate to sound like a bitch, but what happened to detailed critiques, and ripping into each other's works?
>> Anonymous !SDPEsPMnww
>>208931
Seconded.
>> OP
>>209578

This was taken at the base of the Air Force Memorial in DC. I didn't want a touristy shot, even though it's a great scene if you've got lens wider than 24mm(widest I got).

I can't say I like the shot as much as you guys seem too! Can you sort of verbalize what makes this better then the others? Lines, contrast?

I'd like to be able to replicate good shots on purpose...
>> okto !.ZlrOYZhsk
>>208353
Icky dust in the sky.
Good use of DoF, but OoF top of hat is really distracting.
Like the sharpness of focus in the strawberries, amplifies their texture and holds your eye.
Overall 7/10, don't feel that the deficiencies hurt it too badly.

Except the dust, clean that shit off. Buy some neg cleaner if you have to. It's cheap and a bottle lasts forever.
>> okto !.ZlrOYZhsk
>>208910
I want to see more of that concrete in focus, as it's interesting as a whole surface; there's nothing interesting/special about that one square in the foreground.
Either that, or fill up the frame with a smaller section of concrete with more interesting geometry.
4/10.
>> OP
>>209658
Thanks you for taking the time to grade.
I'm guessing the other shots felt like snapshots and not worth mentioning?

I think you are right about>>208910, but the shot I think you're asking me to take would ask me to be directly overhead of the ground. Or on a ladder!
>> Anonymous
most peoples stuff on flickr is lab scanned , the colours on home scans of the same film hardly ever look the same