scenic outlook

[photobug]

Shot this a couple hours after the waterfall pic.

Looks a bit different than the green half of the state.

By the way- this is the roll of Velvia (ASA 50) that I exposed at ASA 400 by oopsident.

Hard to believe this was 3 stops underexposed and push processed 3 stops to compensate. The slide looks much better than this digital dupe does.

I'll have a couple more from the same lookout Thursday after I get home from work.

 

[oriecat]

That's really nice, photobug. Slides always look better than anything. It's so disheartening to get a print made of your gorgeous slide and it just never compares. I have a beautiful slide of Crown Point on the Columbia Gorge that has a lot of those nice blues and purples like yours does. I don't think I even tried to get a print, knowing it wouldn't satisfy me.

 

[manda]

wow those amazing colours!

 

[e_]

 
...nice recovery of your film in the development, photobug

Kewl

I agree with oriecat - prints from slides are often a disappointment

However, that is often due to the process used in modern labs: the transparency is scanned to a digital file before printing (yuk!)

In such cases one would be better off shooting colour negative because of the increased exposure latitude available

The best transparencies-to-print results are achieved with the "Ilfachrome" (spelling?) process

Make enquiries: slightly more expensive but there may still be a lab in your area which will do this

Cheers!



e_

 

[plove53]

That's really a great photo!

-phil :shock:

 

[mrsid99]

That's just too good!
How'd you manage to Photoshop a slide?

 

[MDowdey]

awesome jim! just awesome...



md

 

[voodoocat]

Very nice Jim :thumbsup:

Good thing you realized you had shot at ASA 400.


Regarding prints from slides, I've only seen a print from digital which doesn't compare. There are 2 other ways of doing it that work well. Either make an internegative and some other process that prints it directly from the slide. Don't know what its called and most labs don't do it.

 

[photobug]

That's just a dup using the slide duplicator for the Nikon 4500. It's really pretty crappy, which is why the pic is so small.

Prints from slides can be accomplished by making an internegative and printing that (bleech results mostly), or making a Cibachrome or Ilfachrome and printing that (not exactly sure what that process is, but it's supposed to be much better than the interneg), or scan it with a film scanner and create a digital print.

Digital printing is making leaps and bounds of late. The lady that developed this for me showed me a 11x22 digital print of her cat's face that I could count individual hairs on. It was amazing! We'll be talking when she gets set up next fall.

Jim

 

[voodoocat]

Was it done using a drum scanner?

This place has 3 different types of scans. The price for a 35mm drum scan is $30 :shock:... each slide.

 

[mrsid99]

Now why would you want a hairy print?

 

[photobug]

VDC- nope, shot the slide with the Coolpix & slide duplicater. Here's a bigger version requested on another forum:

mrsid- Mostly because it would be different, and I like to be different!

 

[mrsid99]

OK, I admit it...it's absolutely gorgeous!
It's amazing the difference the size makes, so much more detail becomes apparent and somehow makes the colors richer.
I'd like to see what an 8x10 looks like.

 

[photobug]

I think it would start to fall apart at 8x10. The film was pretty abused & the shadow detail isn't there & there's some grain visible. Makes an okay web shot though.

One of these days I'll go back & reshoot this with some decent glass & properly exposed film to see what happens. I also left the polarizer at home that weekend, so that's something I'll add next time.

Jim

 

[voodoocat]

Actually, I was talking about the cat shot that you could count the hairs on.