Flutterby #3 by Misha883
Close
Hover over top left image to zoom.
Click anywhere to exit.
Members remain the original copyright holder in all their materials here at Renderosity. Use of any of their material inconsistent with the terms and conditions set forth is prohibited and is considered an infringement of the copyrights of the respective holders unless specially stated otherwise.
Description
Another from the 1600 test.
Comments (4)
Michelle A.
Which 1600 film did you use.... there is a big difference here between this and the other... what was it that changed?...was it postwork? I prefer the other over this....and I'll tell you why. Here the colors while warm (orange, red) seem flat....almost as if it needs more contrast? or something... this doesn't PoP like the other... still beautiful in compo, etc....
Misha883
I think I remembered incorrectly in the first post. The film is Fujicolor Superia 1600. Both this and the other were from the same negative scan. During scanning, I needed to boost the curves very slightly, as the straight image was a bit dark. This one is then just sharpened in Photoshop. No further adjustment. This image looks fairly close to reality on my monitor. For the really colorful one, I pulled an eartho, (remember him?). I converted to LAB mode, and increased the contrast of each of the color channels by about 40. I think it works well for a fantasy bytterfly.
funkandjazz
Years ago I tried a roll or two of Kodak's Royal Gold 1000 print film as a means to achieve extended DOF without a tripod. I got the DOF but a whole lot of grain (and fairly washed-out color) too. Now I rarely use anything greater than 400 ISO. This shot, however, looks relatively smooth for such a high ISO. Maybe I'll have to give the newer high-speed films another try. Thanks for the photo and for sharing the interesting technical details. :)
dtp
the other I prefer better. Thank you for the tip :)