Silverstone GT pics - Brazzi's effort

[luca brazzi]

Posted on here as there were only a couple of comments on the GT Motorsport section.

Here's my effort.
.
[pic]http://www.sleepy-fish.com/images/mosler_140805/Mosler_Silverstone_059.jpg[/pic]
.[pic]http://www.sleepy-fish.com/images/mosler_140805/Mosler_Silverstone_085.jpg[/pic]
.
[pic]http://www.sleepy-fish.com/images/mosler_140805/Mosler_Silverstone_048.jpg[/pic]
.
[pic]http://www.sleepy-fish.com/images/silverstone_gt_0805/GT_Silverstone_068.jpg[/pic]
.
[pic]http://www.sleepy-fish.com/images/silverstone_gt_0805/GT_Silverstone_099.jpg[/pic]
.
[pic]http://www.sleepy-fish.com/images/silverstone_gt_0805/GT_Silverstone_083.jpg[/pic]
.
And the rest here:
Broadband: http://www.sleepy-fish.com/silverstoneGTJune05.htm
Dialup: http://www.sleepy-fish.com/d/silverstoneGTJune05.htm

Comments?

LB:)

[LongQ]

Wiper on the Mosler seems to be doing its own thing - or is it some sort of aero tweak?

Cracking quality as the shots were loading (perhaps a benefit of dialup when there are several frames - the first to load are available for view at full resolution until the compresion kicks in when the last one is loaded.) PH compression does for them though.

Is the vignetting effect on some of them intentional?

I've been getting it naturally but randomly on some 35mm stuff but can't quite see why it is not very consistent - not every frame and in some cases just odd frames from the same camera/lens/location/subject matter combination.

I suspect the camera/lens/commercial scanning equipment and want to try to narrow it all down to something I can understand.

[luca brazzi]

The wiper must be from a TVR , as mine do that at speed.

I think in future I'll resize the ones to display on PH to 750 wide so they're not cropped.

As for the vignetting....its completely deliberate. All done in software, after shooting a raw picture, its one of the options available in raw converter.

My preference is to increase shadow content, pump up the contract, add a little on saturation, then adjust the size and strength of the vignette so I can de-emphasise the surroundings while getting the subject to really stand out. I like it, but many disagree.....just my style really. I think the best one for that is the Scuderia Ecosse Ferrari shot above.

LB

[LongQ]

I have taken to resizing to 750 - not always a good way to demonstrate image quality but at least it makes it consistent.

I recall reading some comments on the vignette style before somewhere. I quite like it where the total image works with a very obvious central subject - but not as a random effect!

It's very odd in my case. Trying to eyeball the negatives I have decided that some of the problems (in addition to the vignette effect) seem to relate to darker edges on one side of the image, I get the impression that that is not a factor on the original image but something introduced in the scan. (I did not ask for full prints and it's not easy trying to assess the results based on index prints!) Interestingly the images affected seem to those where the negatives have been cut into strips and the blank edge of the film is very narrow - almost like the scan starts on one exposure level and then adjusts.

The vignette effects does appear to be on the prints (again difficult to be sure) which suggests also on the negatives, though the films were processed at 2 different outlets and were selected at random for each.

Could be a lens problem I suppose. I may need to repeat the exercise and try to keep a record of which film was in which camera. It appears to be just the zoom that has the problem but not consistently unless I have missed something in the pattern.

What fun this historic form of photography can be!

I must buy a dedicated scanner.

[luca brazzi]

I would either get a roll of 12 (if they're still available) or shoot the first and last frames of a roll, to photograph a consistently bright subject, such as a patch of sky or a wall at both full zoom and wide angle etc....where you absolutely know the edges should be as bright as the centre and review the prints and negatives. It'll give you more of an idea.

What lens is this occuring on, and is there any filter or lens hood involved? Obvious questions I know.

LB

[LongQ]

I think you're right - or at least the test was exactly what I was intending to do though also checking shutter speed and aperture combinations. Bought the films last week after a Canon service agent assured me that the almost ubiquitous 'cough' that A1's suffer from would not affect images in that way. Which is fine - it was a long shot thought on my part anyway.

However, reviewing the negatives, as best one cam, and comparing the digitised images and the index prints seems to suggest there is no clearly evident pattern. Whilst certain types of shot don't have a problem at all (that is discernable in any viewing medium) others, consecutive on the film, (therefore same time (more or less) same location, same sort of subject matter) have significant variations from nothing to slight to quite obvious vignetting.

To be fair I don't expect much from the lens Canon FD 75-200 f1:4.5-5.6 but the quality seems pretty good considering having to use a relatively fast film stock. The only annoying feature of the lens is that banging the focus to infinity sets everything out of focus so one can miss a few shots by forgetting to pull the focus back a tad, but for 16 quid off ebay I figured it was worth a punt! It owes me nothing and if it is the root of the problem I won't be too worried. (Having just obtained a 2x extender I could use a bit more lens speed anyway!). However I would like to understand the problem for future reference especially under what circumstances it occurs if it turns out it is consistent!

Anyway, sorry LB, I didn't mean to hijack your thread.

Here's a heavily compressed image that shows the effect.



Or this one -