Yikes! Wasn't how I meant to say that... I'd have a kickin' digital setup if I had the money. I just meant real vs. digital... is there a PC term like snail mail is to email?


Well, I know that scala is only processed by three or four labs in the whole country. I do mine through B&H which sends it down to Miami via a mailer. I'll have to check if they'd burn a disk for me -- I'm sure it'll be pricey. If you've never tried scala (from Agfa) you absolutely should if you like B&W... B&W slides are incredible. You get near medium format images with a plain old 35. You can push & pull it a little, but it's just incredible. Very edgy, art kind of stuff even if you aren't really that great... you must pick up a handful of film (and mailers) and try it old (it takes a couple of rolls to get used to). I haven't used Costco for regular velva in a long time, but maybe they use a better lab now. It used to take 3 weeks which is ridiculous. I'll have to figure out if anybody does good quality negative scanning around here.

 

film :smile: vs. digital :smile:

 

Thanks, Dave! As usual, succinct and to the point!


Clover

 

Out here in SoCal, Main Photo (out of Santa Ana) can process that film for you AND scan it onto disc, but you're hunch about it being pricey is correct. I've used them in the past for color negscans.

 

Have you had scala processed? Any idea on the cost, quality and cost to get scanned to disc?

 

When I was shooting with a 6006 I had very good results with Penn Camera. I sometimes used the one down town, recently it moved to 9th and E or F NW - near FBI HQ. More often used the one on Rt. 7 in Tysons Corner. To hold down processing cost instead of asking for prints I just as for a proof sheet and a Disk, and yes you still get your negs.

 

Sorry, it's been a year since I had the color negatives scanned so I can't recall the prices but do remember it wasn't cheap.

As for the scala, I've not used it but know that they are one of the few that do process it, along with infrared film if you're into that.

 

A fellow MINI owner submits a pic, they, perhaps, would like feedback. The teacher in me has me commenting on quite a few entries.

Come on guys, let's help each other out. Take a moment and post a comment on some pics.

I know it's a competition and we're hoping our own photographs get recognition, but the registered users that've submitted images so far seek the same- some kind of acknowledgement of their entry. Receiving any critique might motivate the masses.




Or am I off target here?

 

I'm right there with you (RE: critique of calendar submissions).

I'll be submitting this one for sure. We've hashed this one over a bit already, but additional critique is welcome. The version below is actually a composite of two different brightness adjustments of the same picture on two different layers in photoshop to get the MINI a little brighter while preserving the nighttime feel of the sky.




I'm also planning a photoshoot in October for the calendar, so there should be a couple more pics that get submitted from that.

 

None of my prior pics fit the requirements. In addition, I'm out of room in my gallery so I can't upload anything new.

Hopefully I'll have time next week to do a photoshoot...I'm travelling weekly and it's REALLY difficult to find the the time to do this. I may have a week of next week though that I could use to shoot with.

 

Try it anyway.

Read this post-> https://www.northamericanmotoring.co...0&postcount=10

 

When layering, did you mask anything? (the MINI, the sky, etc.)
You've done an excellent job with the composition and exposure. Like I said before, the utility lines help in leading one's eyes toward the car. The star trails add an ethereal quality to the photograph.

If you're planning on driving on dirt during your photo shoot, you might want to take along one of those small detailing tools- the kind with a bristle brush on one end and a dash duster on the other- you can get at Target. I used one to clean off the tires that would show in the photo below. (ignore the twigs in the foreground )

 

What ISO did you shoot that picture with? I love the composition but the grain/noise is really noticeable.

 

ISO 200 Kodak film
Nikon FE 80mm lens

I'm hoping the grain is due to poor negative scan.
I should get an enlargement to check it out eh?

 

ok so what if an image is 2158 x 1126 or 2258 X 1804...I have alot of images that are odd shapes....like anamorphic or 16:9 shapes...like this:

 

The image needs to meet the 2272 by 1704 image size. That's the minimum acceptable size in both width and height.

 

These are great shots! For all submissions they have to be a minimum of 2272 by 1704. If they are larger along either of these dimensions that is fine. We have to have these dimensions to get both good looking prints and use the most of the area we have available in the calendar.

Mark

 

ok so what if I take an image and add the pixels needed in white....say the image is wide enough but is not tall enough...can I add white to the top and bottom...since it wasn't meant to be square...or are you only excepting square images


And thanks for the compliment!!!

 

They don't have to be squarish, but if they aren't the aspect ratio Mark needs to fill the calendar space available, then he needs enough image to crop to 2272 by 1704. So if your picture is 2500 by 1704, that's fine, because it could be cropped to size, but if your image is smaller, just adding deadspace in all black or all white pixels wouldn't be acceptable since it doesn't permit the full use of the space available.

 

The contest ends in less than a week (5 PM Mountain Time 10/31).

How's everyone doing with their picture submissions?

 

I should've paid better attention to zone system discussions a long time ago . . .

Also, I wish I had started using Scala film back when it was introduced.

 

Oh yeah . . .

How'd you light this one?


Something overhead, on account of the shadows, but what else?

It's a clean shot- very elegant.

 

This shot came about through a bit of chance. I had my car parked there originally to "get it out of the way" for another shot I was setting up. Then I looked back and saw the lighting on it. I moved my car out and had the car I was shooting move into position. We tweeked the position of the car a little bit to work with the lighting, now that we were intentionally trying to stage the shot.

There are two overhead lights illuminating the parking lot. They are approximately 30 feet above the car and spaced about 20 feet apart. Both lights point out toward the parking area, not directly down, so the brick wall behind the car isn't that well lit. The car is parked between the two lights.

If you look at the shadows on the ground you can see the very dark "composite" shadow from the two lights both being blocked out. Then there is a zone where the light toward the rear is casting a shadow, but that is also lighted by the light above and toward the front of the car.