Hey Guest!
but were afraid to ask: 
STOP!! Never post your email address in open forums. Bots can "harvest" your email! If you must share your email use a Private Message or use the 
smilie in place of the real @
Pretty Please - add it to our Events forum(s) and add to the calendar! >> 
Share this page
OP
Offline
Absolutely. This emulsion is supposed to be compatible with the Kodak T-Max developer, we'll see what happens. It's likely I'll soup it one roll at a time, anxious to see how it reacts. Only a couple more frames to go in the FE, should shoot those today at the azalea blossoms, close-up, with the 55mm Micro, to set side-by-side with the digital shots.
OP
Offline
Well, the results are less-than impressive. Grain is an issue, it seems awful compared to an equivalent T-Max 400 emulsion. Scanned these at max res. with the Epson. The cat shot shows the grain best in the tile background. The azalea shows a nice range in gradation from highlights to deep shadow but again, the grain is objectionable (to me at least). And these are reduced considerably as well, but full frame included.
It's back to Kodak for me.
It's back to Kodak for me.
Offline
Yeah, I think I'd cross that one off the list.
OP
Offline
I've the FE loaded with some T-Max 100, thinking I may trundle over to Ybor City with that and a DSLR to shoot some street scene "comparables" before the week is out. The remaining roll of Arista 400 can stay in the box...
...or I can send it to one of you guys. Freebie if ya want it to putz with. But unless you have processing capability, it's likely it wouldn't be worth th' cost.
...or I can send it to one of you guys. Freebie if ya want it to putz with. But unless you have processing capability, it's likely it wouldn't be worth th' cost.
Offline
Thanks but the only processing equipment I have is digitalI've the FE loaded with some T-Max 100, thinking I may trundle over to Ybor City with that and a DSLR to shoot some street scene "comparables" before the week is out. The remaining roll of Arista 400 can stay in the box...
...or I can send it to one of you guys. Freebie if ya want it to putz with. But unless you have processing capability, it's likely it wouldn't be worth th' cost.
OP
Offline
The plan would include an ISO set at 100 for the digital, to match (at least "on paper") equivalency. As for the optics, the "old" AiS 35~70mm ∱3.5 Nikkor on the film camera (actually the F-2 has the T-Max loaded), and a close approximation with the DX 17~55mm ∱2.8 on the digital. Another option would be the 50mm prime on the F-2 and a 35mm prime on the digital. But with the zooms it would be simpler to keep horizontal angle-of-acceptance the same between the two though, considering the different frame size ratios.
Should be a good sharpness comparison, a "real world" one as opposed to test charts and the like. And it gets me out-and-about a bit.
And a question WRT the digital: should I set it to record in-camera monochrome or convert later in post? It would seem to me doing the post-process conversion may add some image degradation?
Thoughts?
GregW
Yoda
Offline
I forgot about the crop sensor changing your focal length. If I was doing a test, I'd use the AiS lens on both cameras setting it to 35mm on the 7500 and 50ish on the F2.
Since I always shoot RAW, I don't do B&W in camera. RAW still records all the color channels regardless. At least Canon did with some shots I worked on in post. Personally, I feel I have more control working with a color image before converting to B&W. Also, the options are greater for the final image in Darktable (or Lightroom) than what a camera's internal processes hand you.
As far as degradation, I think the scanning process is where that has the greatest chance of happening. If the film holder doesn't keep the negative completely flat, there could be sharpness issues.
Since I always shoot RAW, I don't do B&W in camera. RAW still records all the color channels regardless. At least Canon did with some shots I worked on in post. Personally, I feel I have more control working with a color image before converting to B&W. Also, the options are greater for the final image in Darktable (or Lightroom) than what a camera's internal processes hand you.
As far as degradation, I think the scanning process is where that has the greatest chance of happening. If the film holder doesn't keep the negative completely flat, there could be sharpness issues.
OP
Offline
Hmm. My concern with swapping a lens between bodies in the wild is it's a bit of extra juggling. If the primes were on them respectively, would that not be an equivalent? Or there's also a DX 18~149mm DX to use on the digital to set at 35mm.
Makes sense WRT in-camera vs. software. Thanks. The shots will be in RAW with the D7500, so they will be converted to B&W with Darktable.
Certainly agree about scanning issues, the filmstrip holders with the Epson don't exactly please me. There's always a bit of a "curve" to the film in them, edge-to-edge sharpness has to be somewhat affected. Haven't tried to find a good work-around yet, it hasn't been a critical issue with the few scans to this point.
Makes sense WRT in-camera vs. software. Thanks. The shots will be in RAW with the D7500, so they will be converted to B&W with Darktable.
Certainly agree about scanning issues, the filmstrip holders with the Epson don't exactly please me. There's always a bit of a "curve" to the film in them, edge-to-edge sharpness has to be somewhat affected. Haven't tried to find a good work-around yet, it hasn't been a critical issue with the few scans to this point.
OP
Offline
The weight issue is probably less so than the difference in optical characteristics. May do it both ways. Right now we're hearing thunder, so not likely to try today.For tests, I just like to remove as many variables as possible. For instance, I notice a difference between my 50 and my 58mm on the same camera. Plus you can save weight on the trip with only one lens.
And my lack of proof reading has shown up again: No such animal as a DX 18~149!! Rather it's an 18~145... ack.
GregW
Yoda
Offline
Here are a couple screen grabs showing the basics of the Monochrome filter to show how it is better than in-camera B&W. The first is a before. Second is the default setting and probably close to what the camera would choose. Third is using the mouse wheel to narrow the filtering range and leaning into the blue. Notice that the shadow on Rebecca's face becomes blotchy. The last shot is more in the red range. The shadow on her face has evened out some and her left side is brighter. One cool thing is using multiple instances of any filter with drawn masks. So here, you could monochrome her face in a redder range and green for the background.
OP
Offline
Well, didn't yet get to Ybor, but did shoot a "down the street" shot with both bodies using the AiS at 50mm on the F-2 and 35mm on the D7500. Did the B&W conversion with Darktable as Greg illustrated. Scanned the film neg at 12.8K DPI. Reduced both to post here. Both shots were with ISO 100, 1/125th at ∱8.
NO comparison!!!
NO comparison!!!