Lumière d’Argent

The picture above was taken with Rollei SuperPan 200. actually it was Universal 200, but Universal was SuperPan rebadged and sold cheaper. This film is the 200 ISO version of the Rollei Retro 400s (400 ISO) and Retro 80s (80 ISO). Those three films are Agfa films originally designed for aerial photography. To that purpose, they feature high definition, reasonably fine grain (no T-Max like, more APX-like) and spectral sensitivity that goes well into the infra-red.  Some use the SuperPan as an infrared film with the appropriate filter. Without going to that length, I took the above picture with a red 25 filter. Combined with the infrared sensitivity, this cuts through haze like I had never experienced before. Excellent landscape film!

Stephane :: Oct.19.2009 :: Film, Photography :: No Comments »

Reading about different film/developer combinations, I came across a post on Flicker discussion where Philip Leser mentioned that he really liked Neopan 400 in Diafine. He made extensive tests with several films in Diafine, including plotting characteristic curves. He came with this curve for Neopan 400 in Diafine:

This is very very good. So I tried and indeed, Neopan 400 in Diafine creates great negatives. Grain is moderate. Much marger than Acros, of course, but invisible on a 12×16" print from medium format.

I wonder if I need anything else for my RZ67, really.

Stephane :: Jun.14.2009 :: Film, Gear :: 2 Comments »

After about two years and a half doing 99.9% of my photos with digital cameras, I am left with mixed feelings. Mostly, it is great. I did get what I missed when I was using solely the Rollei SL66 and later the Arca-Swiss 6×9. However, as I should have foreseen, I also lost a few things:

• Ability to cope with specular highlight in an aesthetic way
• Dynamic range
• Production of a tangible, durable object
• The large viewfinder
• Flexible depth of field management

I won’t go back to everything this or that. But I started last summer to use my Leica again, with great joy and nice results too.

For Christmas I received a beautiful present: an old Mamiya RZ67 with a standard 110mm lens. It is big, heavy, slower to use than the E-3, but the large negatives are a pleasure to work with. And now that I found again a proper development procedure, I get instant quasi-HDR on every negative.

Stephane :: Jan.06.2009 :: Film, Gear, Scanning :: 1 Comment »

Last year, Colin Jago talked on his blog of an interesting software for negative scanners: Colorneg.

I downloaded the trial version and gave it a go. It did indeed produce fine results but at that stage I was reluctant to add yet another software. Moreover, at the time, I was not really using film all that much.

Since then I have started again to use my Leica and so the question of B&W film scanning and processing became current for me too.

For digital processing, depending on my inconsistency among other things, I currently use Aperture, Photoshop CS3, Bibble Pro, QuadtoneRIP and some nice PhotoShop plugins.  Still reluctant to add yet another software piece, I tried different things. Clearly, VueScan is best at driving my Epson scanner. Its B&W output is adequate but not exactly great and the control it offers does not suit me. Besides, I like the idea of scanning to RAW. I find the curves to apply to VueScan RAW files quite steep and I produced unwanted effects that way.

I then noticed the DNG option in VueScan. It produces a DNG raw file, just ready for Adobe Camera Raw. That software was designed precisely to do what I need: correctly map a gamma 1 file to the more useful gamma 2.2 or 1.8 or whatever is in QTR Lab space. It works beautifully. The trick to invert the picture in ACR is to use the point curve, select the Linear setting and invert its slope. The controls in ACR allow to produce a very good starting point for further finishing in PhotoShop.

Stephane :: Oct.19.2008 :: Film, Scanning, Software :: No Comments »

Lurking around some film forums, I find a number of threads about airport X-rays fears. I would have thought the matter was settled a long time ago.

In a word: they are harmless.

The films will get more rays in the cabin during the flight than from the inspections. Heck, they even get more ray just sitting on the ground.

That’s for carry-on luggage. Checked-in baggage gets scanned by much more powerful rays and they are deadly for film. So, always carry your film with you and it will be safe.

Protection cases are a bad idea. For carry-on luggage the operator just increases the power until he/she sees through the case. For checked-in baggage it will most likely result in manual baggage inspection.

Stephane :: Aug.13.2008 :: Film, Locations :: 2 Comments »