Analog film photography and cameras

Ektachrome can look amazeballs. Super neutral.

I wonder if Kodak will do some scan-optimising magic on this one.

Way more happy about this than if they'd brought back Kodachrome, Ektachrome is better. I have a big freezer stash.

And people who like cross processing will be happy, Kodak slide films get way less weird colour shifts.

I wonder what exactly they're bringing back or if it'll be a new emulsion?

And people who like cross processing will be happy, Kodak slide films get way less weird colour shifts.

Hey, I thought everybody likes 'weird colour shifts' that come with the cross-processing?
: ]

A question for people experienced with Fuji / Frontier scanners -

Found a place in Berlin that scans medium format for a reasonable price (yay!).

Got my first roll / the scans back from them, then realised one thing that is weird:
All the files (coming via WeTransfer in a folder named "Export TIFF 16Base") are excactly the same size -
they're 8 bit .TIF files, 2433 x 2433 px (can deliver detailled raw specs from PS if necessary), all of them exactly 16.9 MB - no matter the content; some images are basically black, some very detailled and colourful.

Asked a guy working there about it and he basically couldn't tell me what's up as he's new to frontiers.
(It's like one of these, maybe an older model)

There's basically two options in the scanning software for what he calls "full quality" scans - one being this "export TIFF 16 base" (if I recall correctly) - the other being "lossless".

I figured since apparently the files I got were all somehow compressed (in comparison the 35mm scans give ~25 MB tiffs for some reason) I would be better off with that "lossless" option - alas these "can't be opened with photoshop or anything else, only with specialised Fuji software".

Can anybody tell me what's going on / how to open these "lossless" (.RAW) files?
He gave me one of these so I could try myself, they do open up in PS, but just showing weirdness -

1 Attachment

Hey, I thought everybody likes 'weird colour shifts' that come with the cross-processing?

maybe but usually it's green... just everything is green...
sometimes I like it on rainy cloudy days tbf

Indeed, a lot of green.
Depends a lot on the light, what you're pointing the camera at, and the film.

The last years I think I only bought Agfa CT Precisa when I got slide film for crossing, which gave me a lot of green here in Berlin, but super reddish-brown / turquoise stuff on Mallorca.

While it was still available I bought some no-name drugstore slide film that gave the weirdest pink hues when cross-processed..

On the topic of redscale I just finished my first roll and gave it to the shop for developing, telling the guy about what I did so the piece of tape would not end up in the machine.
He told me it's actually possible to pull all the film out in changing bag / darkroom, and not cut and flip it, but simply twist it, and rewind it back in.
Hard a hard time believing this but he seemed sincere, said he did that back in the day, with slide film - which he then cross-processed!

I guess twisting it would be good too, suppose you only need to flip it around at the end of the day... looking forward to what you get out of it.

on Kodak cross processing I always found I got bright blue and yellows. provia film was always quite green. heres a couple of Kodak Xpro snaps from an Olympus trip where it was all yellow/blue

heres a couple of Kodak Xpro snaps from an Olympus trip where it was all yellow/blue

..haha, wtf.. those colours! Fantastic!
You and your triangles though.. ;-)

Hey, I thought everybody likes 'weird colour shifts' that come with the cross-processing?

: ]

Ektachrome gives the colours I like in E6. It can look very realistic, almost a bit like ... erm ... digital but obviously not.

I like Sensia for xprocessing, because again it's sometimes subtle (if you overexpose a bit). Precisa is usually bolder I find.

I guess twisting it would be good too, suppose you only need to flip it around at the end of the day...

I just tried this with a strip of film, seems impossible to me.
Either it takes a really long strip to twist it all the way to the other side or it just tears.
No idea how that guy did it.

I just tried this as well, it took a really long strip... I'll shoot it tomorrow and see how many frames it wastes

..did you manage to wind the twisted film back into the canister with your hand?

yeah but I had to squeeze and push the first bit in with my other hand

Regarding Frontier scans:

My experience is as a customer. I've never used the scanner myself.

To me it sounds like your files have been through a process by which their output file size has been specified, like in Lightroom.

Did the lab perhaps increase file size to 'spec' after noticing those particular, low-detail images had created relatively small file sizes? You can probably tell ... is the resolution now huge, and different for each?

Some perspective: If your files were created at the sufficient resolution and saved as a .tiff (even with LZW or another lossless compression) then you're files are effectivley as good as possible. You can't see lossless compression.

Sunlight-through-curtains is super-nice.

..still astonished it's possible shoving the twisted film in..

Curious to hear how many frames it wastes! Guessing 10 or more..

To me it sounds like your files have been through a process by which their output file size has been speccified

..yeah that was my first thought as well, it would make sense.

Resolution is the same for all though - all are 16.9 MB, 2433 x 2433 px, no matter if almost black or very detailled and colourful..

In that case you have totally compression free scans. Not even LZW.

I guess they do this to ease the minds of untrusting photographers!
:-)

Going off what @miro_o is saying, it looks as if the image dimensions are incorrect. I did a uni project last year where I was researching tiff formats. From what I understood, pixel data in digital files are saved in a string of data, so when the computer draws it out, it does it row by row according to the dimension of the image. If the dimension data is changed compared to the pixel data, all the pixels end up skewed. From the looks of your image, the width of the dimensions have been increased and so there are more pixels per row then there should be. Which is why there is the black bar at the bottom where there is no pixel data at all.

When you open the raw files in photoshop, does it ask you to specify dimensions?

Rolleicord, HP5 rated at 1600, dev in DDX. Scans were a bit low contrast so a tweak in Lightroom to get them into this state.

3 Attachments