Bbnp

stirinthesaucestirinthesauce Major grinsRegistered Users Posts: 293 Major grins
edited September 21, 2012 in Landscapes
Was out in Big Bend National Park last month for a couple days camping in the Chisos Mtn's. I was resigning myself to shooting morning and late afternoon/evening light as I new the harsh desert sun would wash out the colors. However I knew due to my lack of time in my visit and having never been to Big Bend, I would want to shoot during the long daylight hours. So my solution was to shoot ektar100 in my old minolta srt201 as I knew ektar has great saturation in harsh light. I was not dissapointed. Here a few that I scanned on my lowly ep4690. I will post up the digital shots at a later time (when I get around to post processing).

leaning rock
2012-08-12ektar35mm027-XL.jpg

road leading towards chisos mtns

2012-08-12ektar35mm032-XL.jpg

santa elena canyon
2012-08-12ektar35mm024-XL.jpg

another of the chisos
2012-08-12ektar35mm031-XL.jpg

view from my tent
2012-08-12ektar35mm022-XL.jpg

mule ears
2012-08-12ektar35mm019-XL.jpg

who says film is dead :D

-Jon

Comments

  • JCJC Major grins Registered Users Posts: 768 Major grins
    edited September 17, 2012
    These do have a nice dynamic range, spread across the whole gamut. User skill with the exposure probably had something to do with that too. I'd be curious to see a digital-film comparison side by side of shots taken at the same time.
    Yeah, if you recognize the avatar, new user name.
  • stirinthesaucestirinthesauce Major grins Registered Users Posts: 293 Major grins
    edited September 17, 2012
    I was viewing some of my 5dmkII files from santa elena canyon and I can tell you that the ektar shot captured more useable dynamic range. I had to blend multiple images to get a useable result. The sky was extremely bright and the canyon extremely dark in comparison. You wouldn't know it by looking at the above example. All of these were processed minimally.

    Film is just different, especially shooting negatives. To me, the "feel" is different. Can't describe it but I can see it. I have used in the past those LR film simulation plugins and they just don't do actual film justice. I would like to get a few of these negs drum scanned one day to see what real detail I can get a 35mm negative.

    I'm not pro one format or another as I shoot both. I just enjoy different mediums..
  • EaracheEarache Unsharp and Oversaturated SO CALRegistered Users Posts: 3,533 Major grins
    edited September 18, 2012
    Nice work........film certainly has a "look" - a look one can (almost?) create in digital with a very judicious use of HDR.
    Eric ~ Smugmug
  • stirinthesaucestirinthesauce Major grins Registered Users Posts: 293 Major grins
    edited September 19, 2012
    Earache wrote: »
    Nice work........film certainly has a "look" - a look one can (almost?) create in digital with a very judicious use of HDR.

    Thank you
  • Doug SolisDoug Solis Major grins Registered Users Posts: 1,190 Major grins
    edited September 21, 2012
    Nice work, these cover a pretty large dynamic range and you seem to have covered it well. Nice comp
  • stirinthesaucestirinthesauce Major grins Registered Users Posts: 293 Major grins
    edited September 21, 2012
    Doug Solis wrote: »
    Nice work, these cover a pretty large dynamic range and you seem to have covered it well. Nice comp

    Thank you Doug.

    I am working on the digital files and hope to post some up in the not so distant future. I found Big Bend a most beautiful and desolate place. I look forward to returning again and spending more time there.
Sign In or Register to comment.