• Film! Who still uses it?
    2,511 replies, posted
[QUOTE=MisterM;35138745]Thoughts on these? first ever film scans. Cropped a bit because when I scanned (at 3200dpi woah 400mb files) it showed thin black bars at the side. I'll get a hang of it eventually. Have a lot more MF but they weren't very good. Lots of 35mm to scan. [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/kelvinharron/6836725790/]IMG1[/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/kelvinharron/6836722802/]IMG2[/url][/QUOTE] I quite like the second one, it's cool because it's sort of symmetrical with the fences on the sides and the bench in the middle while the shadow of the fence and the trees on the right kinda throw it out of the symmetry.
The shots look very good and are very detailed as far as i can see. I have to ask: What scanner and software do you use for scanning them?
Thanks guys. I used an Epson Perfection V750 Pro with the Epson Scan software.
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/6837086986/][img]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7061/6837086986_b7fb993556_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/6837086986/]Untitled[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/edwinquast/]edwin.quast[/url], on Flickr I said goodbye to my housemate at the front door, ran around the back and waited for him to walk past the back yard on the way up to Uni. He jumped in surprise from the sound of the shutter, haha.
[QUOTE=BoSoZoku;35134593] [B]WHAT IS THIS![/B] [T]http://www.emanuelemonaco.com/images/naikon_ef_eighty/04_damn_criminals_they_will_pay_for_this.jpg[/T][/QUOTE] £40 mate, thats a steal! [QUOTE=Pickwickian-;35141426][url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/6837086986/][img]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7061/6837086986_b7fb993556_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/6837086986/]Untitled[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/edwinquast/]edwin.quast[/url], on Flickr I said goodbye to my housemate at the front door, ran around the back and waited for him to walk past the back yard on the way up to Uni. He jumped in surprise from the sound of the shutter, haha.[/QUOTE] dude this is fucking awesome the backstory makes it
I just found a Canon EOS-650 in my basement, good camera? Im new to photography, but I enjoy a good challenge.
[QUOTE=BlazeFresh;35142656]£40 mate, thats a steal![/QUOTE] It was a steal indeed! The guy who sold it said he didn't use it much and it shows, the camera is 10 to 12 years old and looks, smells and works like brand new. [QUOTE=Awt2 x;35144811]I just found a Canon EOS-650 in my basement, good camera? Im new to photography, but I enjoy a good challenge.[/QUOTE] I'm not an expert by any means but it seems like a nice camera, the cool thing is that it has an EF mount. What's that? Basically if you like it and maybe some day you want to move onto digital you will be able to use the same lenses. You could get say a couple of nice lenses (as long as they are meant for full frame) for the camera and you will be able to buy them new if you want to and then use them on any new DSLR made by Canon from their Rebels to the 1D. It also has auto focus so you can use manual focus if you like or leave it in auto if you don't want to focus yourself or maybe if you are shooting something important while you are learning how to focus you can simply switch it in auto just to be on the safe side.
[QUOTE=Awt2 x;35144811]I just found a Canon EOS-650 in my basement, good camera? Im new to photography, but I enjoy a good challenge.[/QUOTE] The EOS 650 is the very first EOS system camera introduced back in 1986. It's kitlens was the EF 35-70mm f/3.5-4.5, which is quite a capable lens (very prone to flare though). I have a EOS 650, and i must say that the autofocus does it's job, but it just has 1 focus point (in the middle). In general it's a very good camera with all the functions you will need. I mean, it even has a Auto mode(which i really hate because the underexposure beep cannot be turned off), but also P, Av, Tv and M. Continuous burst rate is 5 fps and that's quite fast for a film camera. Sometimes this old eos series have sticky shutters, and you can notice that if there's some grease inbetween the shutter curtains. If that's the case you will get half/not properly exposed pictures and such. But it's fixable though (i have instructions on how to do that, but theyre in dutch).
[QUOTE=frag4life;35147560]The EOS 650 is the very first EOS system camera introduced back in 1986. It's kitlens was the EF 35-70mm f/3.5-4.5, which is quite a capable lens (very prone to flare though). I have a EOS 650, and i must say that the autofocus does it's job, but it just has 1 focus point (in de the middle). In general it's a very good camera with all the functions you will need. I mean, it even has a Auto mode(which i really hate because the underexposure beep cannot be turned off), but also P, Av, Tv and M. Continuous burst rate is 5 fps and that's quite fast for a film camera. Sometimes this old eos series have sticky shutters, and you can notice that if there's some grease inbetween the shutter curtains. If that's the case you will get half/not properly exposed pictures and such. But it's fixable though (i have instructions on how to do that, but theyre in dutch).[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure it does "only" 3fps. ([URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_650"]Wiki[/URL], [URL="http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/eos/eoscamera/650/index1.htm"]Mir.com[/URL], [URL="http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/film/data/1986-1990/1987_eos650.html?p=2"]Canon Archives[/URL]) [SUP](just saying, not trying to be rude or anything)[/SUP] Which is plenty enough for normal use and similar to entry level DSLRs. For the single auto focus point you can simply move the camera to focus on what you want and then move it again to frame. (of course try to maintain the same distance otherwise your shot will be out of focus) By the way does it have a split prism focus screen?
If your business or wesbite needs advertising then why not apply for a free advertisment at [url]www.freeukadvertisment.co.uk[/url] If you fancy being entered into a Competition ware you could WIN £1000 then go to [url]www.freeukadvertisement.co.uk/​competition[/url]
[QUOTE=BoSoZoku;35148015]I'm pretty sure it does "only" 3fps. ([URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_650"]Wiki[/URL], [URL="http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/eos/eoscamera/650/index1.htm"]Mir.com[/URL], [URL="http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/film/data/1986-1990/1987_eos650.html?p=2"]Canon Archives[/URL]) [SUP](just saying, not trying to be rude or anything)[/SUP] Which is plenty enough for normal use and similar to entry level DSLRs. For the single auto focus point you can simply move the camera to focus on what you want and then move it again to frame. (of course try to maintain the same distance otherwise your shot will be out of focus) By the way does it have a split prism focus screen?[/QUOTE] All i typed there was at school without any source at all, so yeah, i think i must have mixed up the Canon T90 and EOS 650 with eachother. But thanks for the heads up :wink: The EOS 650 really looks simmilar to the T90 if you put them next to each other, just look: [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/leevmeister/5564808282/][img]http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5100/5564808282_805f8f0bb5_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/leevmeister/5564808282/]New meets Old[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/leevmeister/]Leevmeister[/url], on Flickr Because it's a film SLR you won't be using the burst rate a lot i guess, so it's nice to know, but i wouldn't use it anyway. It does not feature a split prism focusing screen, as it's meant as a AF camera, so they didn't bother to put in the split prism anymore. The screen is not replaceable too AFAIK.
Film still blows digital out of the water 9/10 times, but it's so difficult to accommodate. My old highschool got rid of their photolab and now does digital only, most photolabs only do digital, and a home dev lab is expensive.
[QUOTE=Dr. Fishtastic;35148980]Film still blows digital out of the water 9/10 times[/QUOTE] [B][MY OPINION][/B] Well now, each format has it's place, at least fullframe DSLRs have a similar if not slightly better (in some the newest cameras) dynamic range compared to negative film. (slide/positive has a narrower dynamic range of course) Digital has ISO capabilities that film can't even dream of even in cropped sensor camera nowadays. Convenience and a faster workflow are also usually an advantage of digital cameras. Honestly film today is more for the look and the romantic aspect than performance, unless you go to large format for huge prints to have the most resolution possible but even then I'm not sure how they will compare to an high end digital MF camera. It's like a car, an old classic car is beautiful, sounds nice and makes you smile while driving it, a modern car can do the same while being more refined, practical and safe. Sure most newer cars are boring compared to older cars but you can still find some that are exciting. My point is let's not generalize, film or digital are neither the end all be all, it's just a preference. [B][/MY OPINION][/B] [QUOTE=Dr. Fishtastic;35148980]a home dev lab is expensive.[/QUOTE] Doesn't matter if you are shooting B&W, C41 or E6, unless you want to print at home (which will require an enlarger) developing 135 and MF at home is not very expensive at all, actually if you shoot regularly it will probably cost you less than having a lab do it for you.
[QUOTE=BoSoZoku;35149594][B][MY OPINION][/B] Well now, each format has it's place, at least fullframe DSLRs have a similar if not slightly better (in some the newest cameras) dynamic range compared to negative film. (slide/positive has a narrower dynamic range of course) Digital has ISO capabilities that film can't even dream of even in cropped sensor camera nowadays. Convenience and a faster workflow are also usually an advantage of digital cameras. Honestly film today is more for the look and the romantic aspect than performance, unless you go to large format for huge prints to have the most resolution possible but even then I'm not sure how they will compare to an high end digital MF camera. It's like a car, an old classic car is beautiful, sounds nice and makes you smile while driving it, a modern car can do the same while being more refined, practical and safe. Sure most newer cars are boring compared to older cars but you can still find some that are exciting. My point is let's not generalize, film or digital are neither the end all be all, it's just a preference. [B][/MY OPINION][/B] Doesn't matter if you are shooting B&W, C41 or E6, unless you want to print at home (which will require an enlarger) developing 135 and MF at home is not very expensive at all, actually if you shoot regularly it will probably cost you less than having a lab do it for you.[/QUOTE] you forgot about medium format, that gets better-than-full-frame performance at a tiny fraction of the cost. also B&W is easy at home, but C41 / E6 is quite difficult and also rather dangerous, I wouldn't recommend someone to try those unless they have a real reason to.
[QUOTE=H4Z3Y;35149749]you forgot about medium format, that gets better-than-full-frame performance at a tiny fraction of the cost. also B&W is easy at home, but C41 / E6 is quite difficult and also rather dangerous, I wouldn't recommend someone to try those unless they have a real reason to.[/QUOTE] Not really. Medium format can give more resolution (if the lens is good enough) but what other performance are you talking about? Dynamic range may be a bit more and ISO is about the same as 135. It might have more detail (that depends too) and smoother tones because of the larger negative but will you notice the difference in standard prints? If you scan it's even less useful because you can't even look at an entire 6mp at 100% zoom on a monitor. If you do plenty of huge prints chances are you are a professional so the cost becomes less of an issue anyway. (or you could go for large format) Not that any of this would make better photos either way, film or digital as I said it's more a matter of preference than anything else. As for C41 and E6 dev what are you talking about? You just have to be more careful with the temperatures and times compared to B&W. What would make it more dangerous in your opinion?
[QUOTE=BoSoZoku;35149947]Not really. Medium format can give more resolution (if the lens is good enough) but what other performance are you talking about? Dynamic range may be a bit more and ISO is about the same as 135. It might have more detail (that depends too) and smoother tones because of the larger negative but will you notice the difference in standard prints? If you scan it's even less useful because you can't even look at an entire 6mp at 100% zoom on a monitor. If you do plenty of huge prints chances are you are a professional so the cost becomes less of an issue anyway. (or you could go for large format) Not that any of this would make better photos either way, film or digital as I said it's more a matter of preference than anything else. As for C41 and E6 dev what are you talking about? You just have to be more careful with the temperatures and times compared to B&W. What would make it more dangerous in your opinion?[/QUOTE] Some of the chemicals for C41/E6 are (I think) more hazardous than those for B&W. Really not that dangerous still so long as you have proper ventilation and such, the bigger problem is actually disposing of them.
[QUOTE=Killerelf12;35153817]Some of the chemicals for C41/E6 are (I think) more hazardous than those for B&W. Really not that dangerous still so long as you have proper ventilation and such, the bigger problem is actually disposing of them.[/QUOTE] Well as with anything I think that just threating them with proper respect and the necessary precautions would make them as safe as anything. I know of people who developed color film at home for decades and never had any problem with fumes or the chemicals themselves. Of course C41 and E6 have less if none post processing options in the developing so you might as well have them developed by a lab while with B&W if you do it yourself you have more control over the negative with times etc. while a lab will just develop it one way and that's it. But yeah I realize I'm being a bit too "anal" with my posts here so... ehrm sorry! :smile:
[QUOTE=BoSoZoku;35154132]Well as with anything I think that just threating them with proper respect and the necessary precautions would make them as safe as anything. I know of people who developed color film at home for decades and never had any problem with fumes or the chemicals themselves. Of course C41 and E6 have less if none post processing options in the developing so you might as well have them developed by a lab while with B&W if you do it yourself you have more control over the negative with times etc. while a lab will just develop it one way and that's it. But yeah I realize I'm being a bit too "anal" with my posts here so... ehrm sorry! :smile:[/QUOTE] I had a friend who tried to develop c41 this one time and DIED. not even once.
Some recent-ish stuff: [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/6983348899/][img]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7197/6983348899_9dbd2110e3_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/6983348899/]Untitled[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/edwinquast/]edwin.quast[/url], on Flickr [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/6983353285/][img]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7043/6983353285_fb8283f26b_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/6983353285/]Untitled[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/edwinquast/]edwin.quast[/url], on Flickr [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/6837234164/][img]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7209/6837234164_f9e437f782_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/6837234164/]Untitled[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/edwinquast/]edwin.quast[/url], on Flickr [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/6837238280/][img]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7185/6837238280_b86a588e02_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/6837238280/]Untitled[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/edwinquast/]edwin.quast[/url], on Flickr [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/6983367851/][img]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7047/6983367851_9c0274589a_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/6983367851/]Untitled[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/edwinquast/]edwin.quast[/url], on Flickr [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/6840010404/][img]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7193/6840010404_f9131bbac0_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/6840010404/]Untitled[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/edwinquast/]edwin.quast[/url], on Flickr [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/6983364175/][img]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7208/6983364175_97ff77d990_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/6983364175/]Untitled[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/edwinquast/]edwin.quast[/url], on Flickr [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/6840020324/][img]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7187/6840020324_5b7b540212_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/6840020324/]Untitled[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/edwinquast/]edwin.quast[/url], on Flickr [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/6986137193/][img]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7180/6986137193_18147c8baa_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/6986137193/]Untitled[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/edwinquast/]edwin.quast[/url], on Flickr [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/6840013444/][img]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7053/6840013444_9a9d75e32e_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/6840013444/]Untitled[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/edwinquast/]edwin.quast[/url], on Flickr [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/6986143769/][img]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7054/6986143769_3d5f49253a_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/6986143769/]Untitled[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/edwinquast/]edwin.quast[/url], on Flickr
Got three rolls of film to get developed all 800 iso, two of them were shot with a Chinon CM-3 and the other I have no idea what it was shot in, I believe it may have been my Zenit TTL 2 of the rolls are mainly Urbex and the other one I have no idea about.
Just learned that film could go bad. I'm an idiot. Things that were on those three rolls [release]1. My first Civil war Reenactment 2. Vintage car show 3. A lot of practice shots in which I wrote down what I did so I could see the effect 4. Pictures for a biology project (presenting tomorrow) 5. Some pictures of the moon(on that night something was special in the heavens and it was very clear or something).[/release]
I've heard of 20 year old film being used and developed without any major issues...
[QUOTE=GraniteMouse;35193981]I've heard of 20 year old film being used and developed without any major issues...[/QUOTE] Apparently mine went bad, and if it didn't, then I hate CVS with a burning passion. They didn't say it went bad, but that's the conclusion I went with. Looked fine when I fed it into the camera, but what they gave back to me was very transparent film with no visible pictures. It was violet if that means anything.
some kodak portra 400, I've been switching between that and superia 200 alternatively. Also Been enjoying taking landscapes when i've got the opportunity. [URL="http://www.flickr.com/photos/oscarjones/6994226041/in/photostream"][IMG]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7063/6994226041_82bf323414_z.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [URL="http://www.flickr.com/photos/oscarjones/6847179642/in/photostream/"][IMG]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7194/6847182074_b043853b86_z.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [URL="http://www.flickr.com/photos/oscarjones/6993303085/in/photostream"][IMG]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7190/6993303085_9dbf79f0a6_z.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [URL="http://www.flickr.com/photos/oscarjones/6847182074/in/photostream"][IMG]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7189/6847179642_ef83741755_z.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
I really like how solid the shadow is that the car casts. Also stars.
Im sorry to disappoint you but they aren't stars, they're dust particles in my scanner
[QUOTE=credesniper;35194505]Apparently mine went bad, and if it didn't, then I hate CVS with a burning passion. They didn't say it went bad, but that's the conclusion I went with. Looked fine when I fed it into the camera, but what they gave back to me was very transparent film with no visible pictures. It was violet if that means anything.[/QUOTE] what type of film was it because if it wasn't C-41 (color negatives, including kodak's black and white BW400[b]cn[/b] film which you sometimes find at CVS/walgreens), then it probably had zero business going through the color process machine they had there.
[QUOTE=daijitsu;35201413]what type of film was it because if it wasn't C-41 (color negatives, including kodak's black and white BW400[b]cn[/b] film which you sometimes find at CVS/walgreens), then it probably had zero business going through the color process machine they had there.[/QUOTE]Kodak 400 tx film.
[QUOTE=credesniper;35202501]Kodak 400 tx film.[/QUOTE] you mean tri-x? or t-max? (both would get fucked at your average C41 lab)
[QUOTE=H4Z3Y;35202511]you mean tri-x? or t-max? (both would get fucked at your average C41 lab)[/QUOTE] Tri-x. Also fuck.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.