A few from the (new to me) Leica IIIc

[Gary R. Smith]

These were taken a few weeks ago and processed by a lab in California. Film was HP5+ and the lens was a 50/2 Summicron. I ran the scans through a denoise which (obviously) smoothed out the graininess.

​

 

[Stevenson Gawen]

It works! And good pics of some interesting scenery. I especially like the last two of the shipwreck (?).

Interestingly, I don't think I've ever considered denoising film scans - but why not after all? I do various tweaks to exposure, contrast etc. it's not as if I'm a purist or something. But just didn't consider it. Thanks for the thought provocation. (if that's a word...)

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Instant Old World photography, meaning 1950s. I really like these shots. Well done. I hope you are pleased, and I look forward to viewing more.

 

[Ralph Turner]

Superb shots, particularly the last three. Like Rob, I look forward to seeing more.

 

[Gary R. Smith]

It works! And good pics of some interesting scenery. I especially like the last two of the shipwreck (?).

Interestingly, I don't think I've ever considered denoising film scans - but why not after all?

Thanks! Yes, the last 2 are of the Peter Iredale which has been sitting there is the sand near Warrenton, Oregon since 1906.

Here's a shot showing the natural grain.

 

[Gary R. Smith]

Instant Old World photography, meaning 1950s. I really like these shots. Well done. I hope you are pleased, and I look forward to viewing more.

Thanks Rob! I'm very pleased! The Leica is very nimble when compared to the Mamiya (which I still have yet to put film through).

 

[Gary R. Smith]

Superb shots, particularly the last three. Like Rob, I look forward to seeing more.

Thanks Ralph! Here are a couple more from the roll. The Red Shed has been "de-noised" while the shot looking north at the coast shows the HP5's grain.

 

[Gary R. Smith]

I don't think I've ever considered denoising film scans - but why not after all?

Here's those 2 shots side by side. On the right it's been run through NEAT IMAGE.
I think part of the reason that I did a de-noise was that after 50 years of wanting a Leica (and why want one if not for the Leitz glass) I wanted to see what was there behind the film grain. I'd never de-noised a film shot either. Now I'm curious what an enlarged print would look like. I like grain don't get me wrong, but these were my first encounter with Leica glass.

So, Stevenson - which do you prefer?

 

[Ralph Turner]

Thanks Ralph! Here are a couple more from the roll. The Red Shed has been "de-noised" while the shot looking north at the coast shows the HP5's grain. View attachment 18766
View attachment 18767

Great stuff. Interesting how the grain in this beach image is a lot finer than the previous one. Are these lab scans?

 

[Gary R. Smith]

Great stuff. Interesting how the grain in this beach image is a lot finer than the previous one. Are these lab scans?

Yes. I had these processed by The Dark Room in California and these were scanned at their highest resolution. Yes, I'm somewhat confused by the different grain visibility. Different lighting conditions? Different exposures?

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Neat Image seems to work very well. The grain on the original scan looks frightening, but Neat Image cleared it up very nicely. I'll investigate it.

 

[Ralph Turner]

Yes. I had these processed by The Dark Room in California and these were scanned at their highest resolution. Yes, I'm somewhat confused by the different grain visibility. Different lighting conditions? Different exposures?

How do the two coastal negs look when next to each other? Similar or quite different exposure/density-wise?

 

[Stevenson Gawen]

Stevenson - which do you prefer?

The denoised version! The grain is a little over the top on that one. All very interesting...

 

[Brian Moore]

Nice set of shots. When you mentioned film processing in California I was going to ask if it was The Darkroom. I was on a tour of their facility some years ago. Cool place. Grain: Some people claim they can tell the emulsion or brand of a film by the grain, colors etc. I'm not one of them. However, if someone were to have challenged me to guess what film this was I would have said HP5 (based on the non-de-noised image you posted). Again, nice set of shots and congratulations on the camera.

 

[Gianluca Drago]

Here's those 2 shots side by side. On the right it's been run through NEAT IMAGE

When I first looked at the third photo (27-small-jpg.18760) I wondered why it was so soft, so lacking in detail and contrast. Now you have made it extremely clear why by putting the original shot and the edited Neat Image's shot side by side. Indeed, the original was too noisy even for me, but the edited one? Maybe Neat Image has a setting that allows you to choose a middle ground, I don't know, I have yet to find a photo of mine where this software was able to help me with extreme noise.

Thank you for the real life test and for having shared with us the results and details.

Great shots, BTW.

The last one is the one that strikes me the most. Under those circumstances I would have focused on the background, but your choice to focus on the foreground is much better.

 

[Gary R. Smith]

Maybe Neat Image has a setting

It does however I've gotten used to using it a certain way with digital shots. I'll need to be more careful with film adjustments.

 

[Gary R. Smith]

The last one is the one that strikes me the most. Under those circumstances I would have focused on the background, but your choice to focus on the foreground is much better.

I'm guessing you're talking about the shot of the Peter Iredale skeleton? I wanted the barnacles in focus.

 

[Gianluca Drago]

I wanted the barnacles in focus

Yes, I would have been focusing on the barnacles too. Right choice in my opinion.