Scan From Vancouver Island

[MNglass]

This is a scan from a film negative. I believe it was Vancouver Island around 1974/75. Remarkably heavy grain.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[rick_reno]

Nice find, I like the people. Gives a size perspective to those stumps.

 

[Walter]

I like the grain in this. It adds timely character to the era in which it was taken - film.

 

[Bart]

A wonderful scene for b&w!
If I understand correctly, you digitised this with your Z6?
Very good result!

Any idea what film you used?
Should be on the negative.

 

[MNglass]

A wonderful scene for b&w!
If I understand correctly, you digitised this with your Z6?
Very good result!

Any idea what film you used?
Should be on the negative.

Yes the Z6 with the ES-2 Adapter on a 60mm Micro G lens. The film was Kodak Pan-X so I'm a bit surprised at the grain. I know I developed it myself so that may have contributed to it.

I believe I was using good amateur quality lenses (50 1.8D, 35 1.8D(?), and the old 85 1.8) but compared to modern optics and digital processing, the images simply weren't as sharp or detailed, and the slides certainly had a definite color signature. I can tell as soon as the image comes up on the screen which ones were shot with the 85 which is clearly the sharpest lens I used.

If you had showed me back in '74 the quality, consistency and color accuracy of the travel images I get now, it would have seemed truly magical. I hate to sound like an old curmudgeon (which I am) but I simply don't get the internet angst when the 100 corner pixels aren't pin sharp or the wailing when the camera focuses on the fourth and not the fifth eyelash from the left.

 

[Bart]

Yes the Z6 with the ES-2 Adapter on a 60mm Micro G lens. The film was Kodak Pan-X so I'm a bit surprised at the grain. I know I developed it myself so that may have contributed to it.

I believe I was using good amateur quality lenses (50 1.8D, 35 1.8D(?), and the old 85 1.8) but compared to modern optics and digital processing, the images simply weren't as sharp or detailed, and the slides certainly had a definite color signature. I can tell as soon as the image comes up on the screen which ones were shot with the 85 which is clearly the sharpest lens I used.

If you had showed me back in '74 the quality, consistency and color accuracy of the travel images I get now, it would have seemed truly magical. I hate to sound like an old curmudgeon (which I am) but I simply don't get the internet angst when the 100 corner pixels aren't pin sharp or the wailing when the camera focuses on the fourth and not the fifth eyelash from the left.

Thanks.
I couldn't agree more on your view of the lack of importance for the ultimate technical perfection of the image.
Although I can see why for some people that might be important, like for product images.
For me it's still all about the feel and the mood of an image. Or the message of course but images with a message are rather out of my league

 

[Minuteman3]

Like this a LOT!! I usually add grain to my B&W conversions as it just plain looks better too my eyes. I'm guessing ... film was maybe Tri-X?

Ken

 

[MNglass]

Like this a LOT!! I usually add grain to my B&W conversions as it just plain looks better too my eyes. I'm guessing ... film was maybe Tri-X?

Ken

Pan-X surprisingly enough. I went and looked back at it and I think some of the pronounced grain might have come from my PP. Still more than I expected.

 

[Mike Buckley]

Wonderful scene and composition! Was the film B&W or did you convert to monochrome?

 

[Phil K]

Great image and very nice scanning. I don't mind the grains.

 

[Binnur]

I love it. Great composition and conversion. The grain looks ok.

 

[dossy]

Wonderful perspective and b&w!

 

[andreasb]

Looks like the beach at Port Renfrew? Wonderful image btw