A home

[aRolleiBrujo]

so b and w is easier.
Nikon F100 Nikkor 28mm 2.8 AIS by a.rodriguezpix, on Flickr

 

[aRolleiBrujo]

VIA VUESCAN!
Americo J Rodriguez-15 by a.rodriguezpix, on Flickr

 

[aRolleiBrujo]

Americo J Rodriguez-18 by a.rodriguezpix, on Flickr

 

[aRolleiBrujo]

UGH, Why are my photo's this odd!

Americo J Rodriguez-21 by a.rodriguezpix, on Flickr

THIS ONE BELOW IS CLOSER TO ORIGINAL MINUS A CROP ONLY!
Americo J Rodriguez-20 by a.rodriguezpix, on Flickr

 

[aRolleiBrujo]

Americo J Rodriguez-29 by a.rodriguezpix, on Flickr

 

[frank]

On the positive side, you are developing a recognizable style.

 

[aRolleiBrujo]

On the positive side, you are developing a recognizable style.

Frank, Thank you very much, I appreciate it! I really do love the local architectural offerings, the have so much character! Photographing them is a joy, I just really wan to capture their uniqueness in a justifiable method! I was shy of a few weeks from owing my very own Tudor, before we landed our humble Modern styled home, built in 1952! I have not yet gave my own a worthy photograph, however, I am working on it! I can't wait to do more, before they perish as well!!

 

[aRolleiBrujo]

Americo J Rodriguez-34 by a.rodriguezpix, on Flickr

 

[aRolleiBrujo]

Frank, Thank you very much, I appreciate it! I really do love the local architectural offerings, the have so much character! Photographing them is a joy, I just really wan to capture their uniqueness in a justifiable method! I was shy of a few weeks from owing my very own Tudor, before we landed our humble Modern styled home, built in 1952! I have not yet gave my own a worthy photograph, however, I am working on it! I can't wait to do more, before they perish as well!!

lol, it seems Google shot my house better than I!
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.650...ata=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sWABPUCeB2rA_7TWPKfNofQ!2e0

 

[aRolleiBrujo]

"RAW" cropped only via LR4 SOC film Scanned via Epson V500 Photo scanner using VueScan Software 9.2.23 OSX









Americo J Rodriguez-65 by a.rodriguezpix, on Flickr

 

[MattKing]

"RAW" cropped only via LR4 SOC film Scanned via Epson V500 Photo scanner using VueScan Software 9.2.23 OSXAmerico J Rodriguez-65 by a.rodriguezpix, on Flickr

You need to work on your scanning

 

[aRolleiBrujo]

You need to work on your scanning

That is true, but, I guess what I was trying to do, is achieve a look that was pure film, however, I don't think it is working!

 

[aRolleiBrujo]

I did try though, lol!

Americo J Rodriguez-66 by a.rodriguezpix, on Flickr

 

[pbromaghin]

That is true, but, I guess what I was trying to do, is achieve a look that was pure film, however, I don't think it is working!

I tried, but MattKing succeeded in showing you what a "film" look is.

I hate to say this. The whole Lomo thing is cool, but I'm too old and uncool to enjoy it or participate. I have to tell you that what you think is a "film" look, overexposed and excessively blue, is a look made by people shooting film 50 years ago who didn't know what the fuck they were doing. People like me who received a Kodak Instamatic kit, with 6 flash bulbs and a 12-exp B&W cartridge for Christmas when I was 6 years old because I was interested in my mom's bakelight Brownie. Or like my mother who, as a retired, widowed school teacher, travelled the world and came back to our little hamlet of 1200 people in Nowhere Northern Minnesota to show her slide presentations including upside-down shots of Iguacu waterfall to the Tuesday Evening Garden Club Ladies. She never did know what an ISO, F-stop, or shutter speed were.

I don't know why you think those awful images are the way they are because you shot them on film. They are perfectly good images and are the way they are because you don't know what you are doing when you scan them.

 

[aRolleiBrujo]

I tried, but MattKing succeeded in showing you what a "film" look is.

I hate to say this. The whole Lomo thing is cool, but I'm too old and uncool to enjoy it or participate. I have to tell you that what you think is a "film" look, overexposed and excessively blue, is a look made by people shooting film 50 years ago who didn't know what the fuck they were doing. People like me who received a Kodak Instamatic kit, with 6 flash bulbs and a 12-exp B&W cartridge for Christmas when I was 6 years old because I was interested in my mom's bakelight Brownie. Or like my mother who, as a retired, widowed school teacher, travelled the world and came back to our little hamlet of 1200 people in Nowhere Northern Minnesota to show her slide presentations including upside-down shots of Iguacu waterfall to the Tuesday Evening Garden Club Ladies. She never did know what an ISO, F-stop, or shutter speed were.

I don't know why you think those awful images are the way they are because you shot them on film. They are perfectly good images and are the way they are because you don't know what you are doing when you scan them.

Well, I'm an amateur however, I tried the best possible way to make these appear as they were. I do know that if I use LR4 with preset's the above image is the result. I also know that when Walgreens scanned some they did look really nice, and therefore, I sucketh at scan.



i like 120 b and w much more!
Americo J Rodriguez-7 by a.rodriguezpix, on Flickr

 

[pbromaghin]

I apologize for jumping on you so hard. I do like what you are doing and I'm not all that great at this either. I only object to saying it is the look of film. Film can look a lot of ways.

 

[Nodda Duma]

Hi Americo,

I see you're using vuescan. Vuescan is good but you can get into a garbage in - garbage out situation with settings. This isn't a knock against you it's just a fact of life with any device with a million features. I don't use vuescan anymore because I would screw it up easy....scanning was especially critical for astrophotography and I just wasn't having luck. Try Epson's default scanning tool with its default color adjustment settings..I use that and it works just fine. Resist the urge to make drastic changes: a few percentage here and there should be all you need. If the color is still not satisfactory or doesn't match what you'd expect (think slide film) even with default settings, perform an IT8 calibration via SilverFast.

Finally, calibrate your monitor. Use SpyderPro or similar.


In photoshop, I find the auto color routine (in CS 5 at least) works really well.... Fixes color in dated film with very little adjustment in balanced fresh film photos.

 

[aRolleiBrujo]

Hi Americo,

I see you're using vuescan. Vuescan is good but you can get into a garbage in - garbage out situation with settings. This isn't a knock against you it's just a fact of life with any device with a million features. I don't use vuescan anymore because I would screw it up easy....scanning was especially critical for astrophotography and I just wasn't having luck. Try Epson's default scanning tool with its default color adjustment settings..I use that and it works just fine. Resist the urge to make drastic changes: a few percentage here and there should be all you need. If the color is still not satisfactory or doesn't match what you'd expect (think slide film) even with default settings, perform an IT8 calibration via SilverFast.

Finally, calibrate your monitor. Use SpyderPro or similar.

The issue is that Epson's default made the scans look horrendous, so I tried VueScan, and it seemed to look very decent, although, I really have no clue how decent looks like, therefore, I rely on posting here, and the member's letting me know! I can't calibrate my monitor at this moment, but, I will once I am able too! I appreciate everyone's advice, I really do! Thanks everyone, and happy photography! -Americo


Americo J Rodriguez-53 by a.rodriguezpix, on Flickr

Americo J Rodriguez-57 by a.rodriguezpix, on Flickr

 

[frank]

You could try B&W to sidestep the colour problem.

 

[aRolleiBrujo]

You could try B&W to sidestep the colour problem.

That would conquer my quest though. I aim to demonstrate what film has to offer, especially to the novice as myself, and to also refrain from digital use, not that I am against it, I simply cannot afford it at the moment! It isn't as if digital will solve my problem, its just that I think the ability to pop off hundred's of rounds, to get that one keeper, might help a person as myself, or not! xD I shall carry on, until I defeat my problematic area's! I would profit off a book or two as well! :confused:

 

[aRolleiBrujo]

Americo J Rodriguez-65 by a.rodriguezpix, on Flickr

 

[frank]

You may find this helpful: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=145397

 

[aRolleiBrujo]

Americo J Rodriguez-26 by a.rodriguezpix, on Flickr

 

[pbromaghin]

Alright! Looks really good.

 

[aRolleiBrujo]

Alright! Looks really good.

Thank you very much, I appreciate the response!