Видео

4x5は中途半端だ どうせなら8x10

Great video. Thank you RS. Canada

The HUGE elephant in the room is of course that there is something called Post... and with a good program you can tweak ANYTHING...Almost no pro will just use the images right off the negative. so honestly, your 25MP digital camera pics can be made to look like a 100MP X2D and the Rollei 3.5 pics can look just like the 2.8. Just tellin the truth.

Contax 139, Mon premier boîtier,et c’etait un bonheur, depuis,je n’ai pas quitté le concept,des optiques merveilleuses,précises,avec un piqué formidable, bref, c’est pour la vie ! Que la légende perdure !! On attend juste la suite 😊😊.tchuss, pierro de Bourgogne.

Kyle! Did you know Davy Crockett Used one of these Yashica cameras during the siege of the Alamo in 1836!? Using just one roll of Kodak Eastman 5222 black and white 35mm motion picture film he shot enough sprocket holes to stave off General Santa Anna and his army of 2000 men for THIRTEEN DAYS! Thank you so much for sharing! More people need to learn about the Yashica and its rich AMERICAN history of nearly 200 years. Learn more in my new youtube short "the untold history of the Yashica Mat 124G" Though he was a battle hardened bad ass, I don't think his frames would compare with yours. Sadly only a few negs have survived the passage of time, and the Smithsonian keeps them locked away from the public.

I am looking at Pentax 645A lenses for my GFX50R, which has got me interested in getting a camera too! I used to shoot film back in the 90s so it's been a while, but since I will be buying some of the lenses I figured maybe getting the camera is worth it too (I always drool over images taken with large format so this would be a good compromise for me). My only dilemma is between the 645 and the 645N. Which one would you recommend to start with?

Shame on you. This is not acceptable. One must be blind to look at film photos nowadays. You want a film look, just apply countless filters to digital processing of RAW data. “ film community” I have not enough words of disapproval for your consumerist hedonistic approach to global resources. You want all this chemical dirt back? What for? For your wasteful pleasure of getting on good frame per film? Which you will the scan any way to treat in your PC? “Film community” you must be out of your minds .

Thank you Kyle this is great -I have a GFX 50S and am interested in doing this. Can I ask, how have the results been for you for printing these captures? For instance, how big have you been able to print your 50R film scans and how do these prints compare to an Imacon or Drum scan print in your opinion? Would love to know your thoughts on this! Thank you!

Same experience: had 2 GS645 (S), one had the known shutter issues and on the other one, the rangefinder was unadjustable somehow

Wow… 🤑

just starting 4x5...what i normally do for landscape are actual 2 or more photo kinda panos....can i achieve that with front tilt??

Don’t understand why film shooters edit scans. Just shoot digital

The way you operate the Yashica here reminds me a bit more of my Rolleiflex Automat, which is the next step up in price among the Rollei cameras. Mine has a new focusing screen though.

Thank you so much for the endless amount of simplified education. Cheers.

I tried this lens but could not get a single sharp image (was not using a tripod). It's a monster of a lens so I think I'll go with a vintage Pentax instead.

Great review. I want to get lighter lenses for the GFX! That Pentax is very tempting.

This is a super helpful video. I particularly liked your discussion about re-sizing the image, in my case the part about upsizing to a larger size was helpful. Thanks.

Very helpful video Kyle! Just wondering though, what is it exactly with home scanning that gave better results? Do you adjust the exposure of the camera when scanning on individual frames, to adjust for the brights or darks that may be extreme in that individual frame? (I’ll look through your videos to see if I can find one on your scanning techniques). Thank you.

My career included shooting weddings on color negative film, working as a lab technician at National Geographic where I did CYMK color separations with contact screens, managing offset printing and working with the earliest digital scanners like the Hell DC300 which used magnetic donut ‘core’ memory, and transitioning to a completely digital workflow. I started out in B&W using the Zone System for twenty years and also made my own color prints. The limiting factor color negative was the dynamic range of the print paper. For example if shooting weddings in sunlight it was impossible to get detail in white dress and black suit on the print in ambient light. Monte Zucker, the photographer I worked for introduced the idea of using two flashes, one over the lens and head of the subject as FILL to expose the shadow in black suit, overlapped with KEY flash 2x as powerful at 45° angle from the nose for flattering 3D modeling and correctly exposed highlights. Knowing how to fit scene range to film using lighting and color correcting with cc filters when shoot was even more important when shooting transparencies for things like catalogs where exact color matches were needed. To reduce color separation costs and increase consistency a procedure used for catalogs in the 1970s - 1990s was to make a sized to page layout duplicate transparency on an enlarger on a type of Kodak dupe film with a strippable emulsion. The images for a page in the catalog would be stripped of the dupes then floated into position on a sheet of mylar and then that entire page layout would be scanned on a laser drum scanner. Both of the scanners here are reproducing more of the density range of the negative than print paper could, the Nikon better than the Plustek because it has the greater DR. Regarding the difference in revealing flaws, I would suspect that is a function the processing algorithms in the scanner and perhaps bit depth.

With what chemistry you are working? And how many 120 film you get from 500ml? 🖤🖤🖤

Love that focal length, love that camera!

Great video, thank you for sharing your knowledge. A new episode would be wonderful. I could stay for hours watching you editing the images.

did he really just waste 20 dollar on film for this experiment @w@

daaaammmnnnn it looks awesome!! thanks for this video. i´m excited to try it!

I was given one of these back in the 1980's. A friend of mine had bought one years earlier, but he hated it so ended up giving it away. I think I hated it even more than he did. Half frame cameras had been common since the 1930's and they always sold on the appeal of reducing costs, plus having more shots for going on vacation. However, only the most miserly cheapskates loved them, because most cameras went the portrait orientation route. Portrait orientation is more popular now than it was back then. There were some cameras that engineered a vertical film transport in the 1980's, which worked well and gave the landscape orientation that people preferred, but it came too late. The format was dying by then. It was killed by AF point and shoots, and the automation of film processing which meant the cost of developing became really cheap, and there was less incentive to want a half frame camera. By the mid 90's half frame was essentially dead, with no new cameras, and then digital put the final nails in the coffin. We can thank our friends at Lomography for generating renewed interest in the format in recent years. And we can thank the iPhone for getting people used to shooting portrait orientation photographs. Suddenly half frame is cool, and the increasingly high cost of film and processing has brought back a desire for increasing the number of frames on a roll. One day I will dust off my Pen EES-2 and run some film through it again. I don't expect to like the portrait orientation any more than I did in the late 80's, however. It is just not my thing.

man that must have been a pretty expensive camera in 2004 huh

6:15 Here you're showing a very common problem for many beginners I think. The fear of not capturing shadows carries over to the way people scan, so they frequently blow out the highlights in the scan. They sort of forget the second part of "expose for shadows, develop for the highlights" even though I'm more talking about scanning/printing here. I once delivered a large format negative to a lab for scanning, and due to experience with them I told them "there's plenty of detail in the lights, DO NOT blow the lights in the scan. I don't think the shadows are as important aesthetically". The people in the lab were so unsure of themselves that they scanned it twice, one pretty much like I wanted and the other with blown highlights, like they were used to doing. :D

I like red filter❤

HASSELBLAD. THE BEST OF THE WORLD.❤.

Epson is definitely more natural, True to life. With a flatbed you can get good results with a smaller file size than a film scanner. Great for creating slide shows that don't take forever to load. For my purposes the flatbed works better. Film scanners are better for photo labs doing detail work.

That is a sick camera!

ah, kids these days using studio cameras in the field. well i guess they are keeping film alive, even at the expense of rambling directionless youtube videos

when Hasselblad calls you... you say yes ! I would have said yes too😆 nice work!

Linearly, the half frame is 3/4 the size of full frame. Not a big deal. Also, half frame is very nearly 5x7, the format I use when having prints made. Full frame requires chopping some length in order to fit 5x7.

Great review, thank you!

Thanks. Great video. Any advice about calibrating a screen for black and white images, specifically brightness and contrast on the monitor. I’ve calibrated mine with a SpyderX, and previously a Hueypro and have always struggled getting lab prints made at the same brightness as my monitor displays (usually the prints are too dark). Darkening the monitor manually , or brightening the files before printing seems abit low tech! Thanks.

That film cutter looks like something I need 😸

to see this in 120 would be incredible

What F stop do you end up using the most?

It's good but you need a digital camera and lens to do it :(

This was awesome

Fantastic video. Thanks - lots to think about!

Is the x2d better?

Nice to see you wear gloves 👍nice job

What scanning software did you use?

when we make a documentary video, where can we find the original footage that we talk about in the video?

I love your work, but I'm not clear which is your 3:2 or 4:3 ratio images. If you would be so kind as to clarify this for me? Regards.

I have a question about the PENTAX 67 Kyle. I have the 105, 55 and 75 all SMC pentax. For some reason, with the 105 and the 75, when I stop down the aperture in manual mode, it also stops down the lens. So if my lens is at 22, I can't even see what I'm trying to get in focus because it's too dark. The only lens that doesn't stop down is the 55 - I can see a bright screen at all apertures. Do you know why this happens to the 105 and 75 but not the 55? i have to focus wide open and then fix my fstop its pretty annoying. Do you have this issue or is my copy defective? the viewfinder is only bright in all apertures if i ahve the lens in automatic mode once i switch to anything lower than f11 i basically cant see anything in the viewfinder its wayyy too dark.

Gold seems to have more grain, unless you removed it from your portra shots.

I don’t know much about scanning, but I’m trying it out for the first time on an Epson scanner. I’ve got some photographs, mostly Kodacolor 400 which are probably 40 years old. The negatives look like they’re in pretty good shape, but all of the colors seem to gravitate to green and blue. Is there some way to get that out of there? Thanks for your help. Michael