cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/248265

Photo taken with a Lomography Simple Use Reloadable Camera(f/9, 1/120s, 31mm) on Lomochrome Metropolis ISO 400

By Ali Raheem (@ali@lemmy.sdf.org, @ali@social.sdf.org, ali@sdf.org)

i'm writing to have the community weigh in on their thoughts regarding film speed with a location.

i'm going to be traveling to a location that has relatively sporadic forest-shade and large areas of sunlight, making the choice of using a lower ISO film stock (100-400) the "easier" choice. When i experimented with higher ISO film like 800, during a a light snow and found that the grain issues with 800 speed film in daylight are less severe, than i had anticipated. i'm leaning into using 800 speed on my trip instead of the normal preference of using 160 speed.

what are your ideas or views on this kind of thing and what might you choose to use in my situation?

I've been wanting to get this shot for months, finally had a day off to catch it at the right time of day with minimal traffic about. Standing on a fairly slim concrete median was a little hairy, but worth it.

I got a home scanner, a Reflecta Crystalscan 7200 (known as Pacific Image PrimeFilm 7200 in the U.S.). It's a dedicated 35mm film scanner that should be a bit on the lower-end of the spectrum. I have been using it to re-scan some negatives, on the left you can see (a small part of) a scan I made with SilverFast SE 9, without doing any post production. On the right you can see the scan the lab sent me.

To be honest I am quite blown away and find it it very unexpected that the home scanner seems to do a much better job. The colors seem accurate to me (on an auto profile). The resolution appears quite a bit higher, even though both images have the same dimensions and the image seems sharper! And I haven't even used this scanner at the highest resolution, this is a 2400 dpi scan.

What do you think?

Canon II-B rangefinder, Canon 50 mm f:1.8, Fujifilm Superia Premium 400