Opinions Please

[The Vulcan]

I've been shooting film as of late and am experimenting with Kodak Ektar E100G slide which is a new product to me and I'm trying to "agree" the rendition

Here's a couple of examples for which I'd appreciate your observations

What I'm seeking is your opinion of look and feel as opposed to artistic element

Thanks for your time

p.s. Contax G2 - 21mm Biogon, polariser, scanned at 4800 dpi with Minolta Multi Pro

Edited November 25, 2009 by The Vulcan

[TallForeigner]

I feel that the white balance of both photos might be slightly off to the blue or cooler side. Both images might profit from a slightly higher exposure and a less contrast. A higher exposure in the first image will render the trees and houses on the right side better but might hide details in the clouds - depends what is more important to you. Especially the contrast in the second image is too strong; the dark foreground and the very dark sky are not appealing. The polarizer works well in the first photo but it destroys the second photo and lets the sky appear far too dark on the right upper side.

[The Vulcan]

I feel that the white balance of both photos might be slightly off to the blue or cooler side. Both images might profit from a slightly higher exposure and a less contrast. A higher exposure in the first image will render the trees and houses on the right side better but might hide details in the clouds - depends what is more important to you. Especially the contrast in the second image is too strong; the dark foreground and the very dark sky are not appealing. The polarizer works well in the first photo but it destroys the second photo and lets the sky appear far too dark on the right upper side.

Thanks, that's exactly the sort of feedback I'm looking for. I deliberately went for the "dark" look as it seems that the agencies I supply are into this. Personally I was suspicious of the effect.

I'll re-vamp accordingly

[phetaroi]

I like the first one, as is. It certainly does have that "film look"...almost made me a little nostalgic. The clouds are what make the photo, so that would be an important emphasis for me.

I am guilty of using a polarizing filter way too much, and on shots like the second one I have had little luck "fixing" it on the computer. Perhaps for a title slide?

[bkkjames]

I like the first one, as is. It certainly does have that "film look"...almost made me a little nostalgic. The clouds are what make the photo, so that would be an important emphasis for me.

I am guilty of using a polarizing filter way too much, and on shots like the second one I have had little luck "fixing" it on the computer. Perhaps for a title slide?

Agree, the second one (due to the polariser?) seems over saturated and a bit unnatural for my eyes.

[lifeincnx]

Love the grain here but agree both shots are on the cool side. The polarizer works well with the water shot but really wasn't needed for the other as it almost ends up looking like a cropped, forced vignette. The look really reminds me of Kodak Etachrome 64 Pro or Fujichrome Velvia back in the day - beautiful.

[The Vulcan]

Thanks to all for the feedback - much appreciated.

Ektar is a blue "inclined" emulsion and I think I'd better buy an 81B to warm it up a little.

Also, it's pretty hit and miss shooting with a pola filter and a rangefinder - no TTL of course! I haven't a clue of the effect until development.

What I have to do is rotate the pola and watch the EV reduce. I figure I'd better open up 1/2 a stop in future. I'd forgotten just how saturated slide film can be.!

All good fun though - I'll get there (one day)

Thanks for your help

[Mousehound]

My thoughts are that the water shot has some great tones in the relsction on the water and that the shot might have been better with the horizon at the top third 0- thus still including the dramatic clouds in the back ground.

Both shots look too saturated and dark but I can understand that mags and such love this over use of filters - see any travel programme on television and this is just what they like. And in the end the client is paying.

Only my opinion though.

[yumidesign]

I feel that the white balance of both photos might be slightly off to the blue or cooler side. Both images might profit from a slightly higher exposure and a less contrast. A higher exposure in the first image will render the trees and houses on the right side better but might hide details in the clouds - depends what is more important to you. Especially the contrast in the second image is too strong; the dark foreground and the very dark sky are not appealing. The polarizer works well in the first photo but it destroys the second photo and lets the sky appear far too dark on the right upper side.

Thanks, that's exactly the sort of feedback I'm looking for. I deliberately went for the "dark" look as it seems that the agencies I supply are into this. Personally I was suspicious of the effect.

I'll re-vamp accordingly

The above comments are load of waffle.

In a broad sense there is no such thing as a better result, as these ‘happy snap’ images clearly show, by using either any kind of film or capturing pixels. It depends on the subject and the idea that you want to translate. It certainly is preferable not to use film for environmental reasons, which I totally support. Having said that, I am devoted to photographic images produced from film as the continuous tone produces a different and unique effect but as most shots from film are now scanned and translated into images from pixels most of this ‘feeling’ is lost.

The use of polarizing filters, or filters of any kind is an outdated notion as the effects can be easily achieved by using computer graphics.

[Mousehound]

To some extent yumidesign is correct. A pity he is so abrasive with his opinion - and that is all it is.

[TallForeigner]

The use of polarizing filters, or filters of any kind is an outdated notion as the effects can be easily achieved by using computer graphics.

I agree with you regarding most filters. There are two exceptions. I fully embrace the digital age and don't use any film. However I still use a neutral density filter in rare situations: Let's say I shoot the water flowing down a river or waterfall and I want to have the water seem to be smooth and white like milk. If the bright daylight doesn't let me shoot at a long exposure time even with the smallest ISO I need a neutral density filter to take away a couple of stops. No software can replace this.

Now show me the program that can produce the effect of a well adjusted polarizer! A polarizer can reveal details out of clouds and water that are not visible without it. As far as I know there is no magic software that can reveal such details out of photos that have not been shot with a polarizer.

Thanks for contributing to the load of waffle.

[phetaroi]

I agree with you regarding most filters. There are two exceptions. I fully embrace the digital age and don't use any film. However I still use a neutral density filter in rare situations: Let's say I shoot the water flowing down a river or waterfall and I want to have the water seem to be smooth and white like milk. If the bright daylight doesn't let me shoot at a long exposure time even with the smallest ISO I need a neutral density filter to take away a couple of stops. No software can replace this.

Now show me the program that can produce the effect of a well adjusted polarizer! A polarizer can reveal details out of clouds and water that are not visible without it. As far as I know there is no magic software that can reveal such details out of photos that have not been shot with a polarizer.

Thanks for contributing to the load of waffle.

I agree with you.

The problem with a polarizing filter (and as I have mentioned previously, I use one too often), is that while it does produce those almost-magic results so often. Yet, every once in a while I have arrived home only to find the wrong color cast or nearly black sky due to the polarizer. I realize this is my own lack of skill, but the polarizer is not the easy tool some think.

And, Yumi might want to remember that another purpose of polarizers is to cut down on reflection on glass-like surfaces.

I rather like waffles...particularly with real maple syrup...although I still prefer French toast with the additional of a little powdered sugar on top!

[lifeincnx]

I feel that the white balance of both photos might be slightly off to the blue or cooler side. Both images might profit from a slightly higher exposure and a less contrast. A higher exposure in the first image will render the trees and houses on the right side better but might hide details in the clouds - depends what is more important to you. Especially the contrast in the second image is too strong; the dark foreground and the very dark sky are not appealing. The polarizer works well in the first photo but it destroys the second photo and lets the sky appear far too dark on the right upper side.

Thanks, that's exactly the sort of feedback I'm looking for. I deliberately went for the "dark" look as it seems that the agencies I supply are into this. Personally I was suspicious of the effect.

I'll re-vamp accordingly

The above comments are load of waffle.

In a broad sense there is no such thing as a better result, as these 'happy snap' images clearly show, by using either any kind of film or capturing pixels. It depends on the subject and the idea that you want to translate. It certainly is preferable not to use film for environmental reasons, which I totally support. Having said that, I am devoted to photographic images produced from film as the continuous tone produces a different and unique effect but as most shots from film are now scanned and translated into images from pixels most of this 'feeling' is lost.

The use of polarizing filters, or filters of any kind is an outdated notion as the effects can be easily achieved by using computer graphics.

While most filter effects can be achieved in Photoshop and the like, making a blanket statement that a polarizer is an "outdated notion" is the real waffle here. This optical filter produces an effect which can only be simulated but not duplicated. Period. Light falling on subjects is unpolarized and modulates in all directions around the line of its travel. A polarizing filter allows light to pass through which is modulated only on one axis and absorbs light modulated on all other axes.

An annoying reflection from glass, water, etc., can't be removed in post except by cloning from adjacent areas, etc. as the information "below" the reflection is simply not there, whether the image was captured in RAW or otherwise. Only a polarizer can filter out all or most of that reflection - Photoshop, Lightroom, NIK, ACDSee can't (as of yet).

Pass the butter and syrup.

[aeon]

I agree with who says that the cool tone is too dominant, warming up some tones would help. Also I feel the shadows a little too dark, what I feel is that there is not enough contrast between the bright areas and the dark area to justify those almost black areas (a more stylized high contrast photo would justify that). Polarizer I think give a nice saturation and intensity. Are you using any filters as UV or skylight?

[Mousehound]

I feel that the white balance of both photos might be slightly off to the blue or cooler side. Both images might profit from a slightly higher exposure and a less contrast. A higher exposure in the first image will render the trees and houses on the right side better but might hide details in the clouds - depends what is more important to you. Especially the contrast in the second image is too strong; the dark foreground and the very dark sky are not appealing. The polarizer works well in the first photo but it destroys the second photo and lets the sky appear far too dark on the right upper side.

Thanks, that's exactly the sort of feedback I'm looking for. I deliberately went for the "dark" look as it seems that the agencies I supply are into this. Personally I was suspicious of the effect.

I'll re-vamp accordingly

The above comments are load of waffle.

In a broad sense there is no such thing as a better result, as these 'happy snap' images clearly show, by using either any kind of film or capturing pixels. It depends on the subject and the idea that you want to translate. It certainly is preferable not to use film for environmental reasons, which I totally support. Having said that, I am devoted to photographic images produced from film as the continuous tone produces a different and unique effect but as most shots from film are now scanned and translated into images from pixels most of this 'feeling' is lost.

The use of polarizing filters, or filters of any kind is an outdated notion as the effects can be easily achieved by using computer graphics.

While most filter effects can be achieved in Photoshop and the like, making a blanket statement that a polarizer is an "outdated notion" is the real waffle here. This optical filter produces an effect which can only be simulated but not duplicated. Period. Light falling on subjects is unpolarized and modulates in all directions around the line of its travel. A polarizing filter allows light to pass through which is modulated only on one axis and absorbs light modulated on all other axes.

An annoying reflection from glass, water, etc., can't be removed in post except by cloning from adjacent areas, etc. as the information "below" the reflection is simply not there, whether the image was captured in RAW or otherwise. Only a polarizer can filter out all or most of that reflection - Photoshop, Lightroom, NIK, ACDSee can't (as of yet).

Pass the butter and syrup.

Ha Ha! Your comments are right on and I find that the IR filters give me (for my taste) a different look that I have not found I can get with PS.

[aeon]

"The use of polarizing filters, or filters of any kind is an outdated notion as the effects can be easily achieved by using computer graphics."

please show how "easily" can be done