I use an OM System OM-5 mark 2 and the Olympus 30mm macro lens for scanning. The OM-5II has a high resolution mode where it shifts the sensor to combine multiple images into a 80MP raw file. Now obviously that's 4:3 and not 65:24, so I had to crop a bit but it's still enough. I did size down the images a bit to be able to upload them, but I don't think that that extra resolution really contained any more detail.

The detail of medium format film is pretty crazy though. Previously I used an Olympus E-M5 Mark II whcih could do about 50MP in this mode, and when filling the frame on normal medium format square photos there was still detail missing. If I moved the camera closer and scanned the center of the frame at the closest distance, there was still plenty of detail left that wasn't kn the big scan, at least with Kodak Gold. With 35mm negatives I will usually get all the detail, though a few rolls like Ektar 100 and Ilford Pan F 50 did have me doubting whether I got everything.

The resolution is insane! What did you scan the images with?

You didn't mention what kind of camera you're using, but if you want real control and slowdown, get a 4x5 view camera! I've never used one but have a buddy who did that for a while. I think you can get that stuff super cheap now. They also exist in 6x9 cm so you can use 120/220 roll film.

Hmm, I didn't think about the lens, but that makes a lot of sense. A dimmer bulb seems like a cheaper place to start though.

For me, the fun of prints is the fully physical process. I want fewer hobbies that involve a screen in front of my face, and each print feels like a puzzle to get lost in. When I take a photo, knowing that my editing options are limited to what I can achieve with two hands and a timer, has helped me to slow down and try to get things right before I open the shutter.

I don't remember doing that back in the day, and don't see ND filters on bhphoto.com right now, just multigrade. Maybe you can use a less bright enlarging bulb, or a longer focal length lens with higher f-numbers that you'd use at greater height. Typical enlarging lenses are set up for 8x10 prints so if you're printing smaller, the extra focal length can help you anyway.

If you're having fun enlarging then hey, go for it, but it's a very retro, expensive process with nasty chemicals and stuff, that's hard to justify unless you're trying to make serious art prints with high-silver, fiber based paper and all that. Of course that's even more expensive and uses a ton of water. Next stop after that is probably platinum prints ($$$$$$$$). Otherwise, you can do really well with monochrome ink jet materials.

Its in Boston. There is only one South Station in the English speaking world.

Could you please be more vague with the place description?

My guess from the white balance and saturation would be 500T

Thanks! You're right about the cool tones.

Here I adjusted the black point and took a tiny bit of blue out of the scan

Thanks! I was pleasantly surprised with how well it turned out myself as well.

Also wrote it in the text on the post, but it's scanned from a negative with a cheap(-ish) dedicated film scanner, and converted to positive digitally. I use NegPy which very closely mimicks the workflow of RA-4 printing (color fotosensitive paper used for printing photos in an analog minilab) in terms of how it calculates contrast, color balance etc.

Very cool. Well done how the white didn’t get too saturated. Nice contrast!

Is this a printed picture or was scanned by something like agfa raw scanner. I am curious how did you digitalize it

I prefer the edit, the original feels too muted and cold. Maybe due to the white balance of the original scan? Although I do feel like the edit could do with a little bit more aggressive a black point, which the original achieves better.

Otherwise love the composition and the dominance of the blossoms. A great shot!

These old formula emulsions are so full of silver, it's amazing the beating they can take.

Brighter and punchy, for the cherry blossom one it brought out even more of that pinkish cast and I like it, looks good! I'd love to do my all my own lab work someday, when I have the time and some cash maybe I will! Its probably even cheaper long term since developing and getting scans is about the same price as the film itself for me.

thanks! yeah, im fortunate to have a good job that allows me to do the whole process of analog photography myself. I develop at home, too, to save some money. plus it allows me to have full control over everything.

but now, Im going back looking at my most recent roll, and im thinking to myself...these are kind of dull. even this scan i posted here... im not sure, something is off about it. so ive gone back and looked at the histogram and my graphs arent pushing all the way to the right. I originally had wanted to retain some contrast, but im thinking its just making my images a little duller. so ive just increased the dmax value on most of the roll, which essentially sets the white point... im thinking this looks a bit better ... anyways, as you can see the tradeoff of doing things manually makes this a bit of a never ending process....

(i also updated my cherry blossom post, if you're interested)

South Boston actually

is this chicago?

You've got good tastes 😉, love yours!

That's awesome you scan your own negatives. Something I've wanted to try but haven't because I don't have a nice digital camera. I just get back TIFFs from my lab and sometimes don't change anything, and if I do, it's pretty much just adjusting the tone curve before exporting to a more compact format. Doing all the color editing and stuff sounds pretty stressful to me though lol. Probably harder to perfect than shooting on film by itself.

I think the vision 3 shots you have posted so far are a tiny bit more muted vs this porta shot, and have a bit of a pinkish "Etheral" vibe to them. If that makes any sense haha.

we've got similar styles! one of my early shots

thank you thank you.

and to be completely honest, i actually can't see much of a difference between the two films. I'm not color blind, but either i have some issues recognizing colors, or i spend so much time color grading each shot that after a while i find it difficult to tell how it looks. like if you put two of my shots side by side, one 500T and one portra 400, i dont think I'd be able to tell you which is which lol

i use darktable's negadoctor module to invert the negative, then do manual adjustments from there by eye. once im full into color fatigue territory and think it looks good, i export everything and upload to my immich server. then over the next few days i go back to admire them and find, huh, these have a pretty serious green/blue/red/whatever cast -- should probably fix that.

so yeah my color work maybe could use some improvement, if only for consistency's sake. but i think im getting better!

edit: actually, i can really tell the difference handling the negative. 500T is way thicker than portra. but otherwise its a crapshoot to my eyes

Cool! Interesting how different the overall tone is compared to your Kodak Vision 3 500T shots. I've never actually shot on anything but Porta, but I should try some others cause I dig the vibe from your vision 3 photos you posted recently.

Ahh I gotcha. Reason I ask, I have a Pentax 50mm 1.4 that i sorta struggle to focus with wide open. Just gotta practice I guess!