• Film! Who still uses it?
    2,511 replies, posted
[QUOTE=no_aloha;35642447]Yeah, I suppose you're right. Cheers mate, you're more optimistic than I am, haha. What B&W film would you recommend picking up? One of the C-41 pseudo-monochrome films or a proper Ilford roll or something? I've never shot B&W before. Pickwickian, those are brilliant shots. I really like the second to last photo.[/QUOTE] I'd take Ilford XP2 Super imho. It's a C41 B&W which any lab can develop no problem and it has a very wide latitude so you can get away with some exposure miscalculations or just play with it intentionally once you get to know how this film works. If you want color I'd go for Portra 400 (the new one) which also has a huge latitude and very lovely colors. I did some tests with Portra 400 and I found that you can shoot it even 5 stops over (and develop it normally at box speed) and still get a usable image without blowing out too much stuff. (I have made a comparison image I can post it if you are interested) By the way definitely don't abandon photography just because you first two rolls weren't good, it takes time to get used to a certain film. (and to film in general) You could also have had some self induced pressure while taking the shots (film costs money you don't want to waste it and that sort of stuff) which might have "stiffened" you a bit while taking the shots. (I'm just guessing here as I don't know you)
give neopan 400cn a try as well i love neopan
-
[img]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8018/6958860784_eec7459691_z.jpg[/img] [img]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7132/7104930799_1fb386e70d_z.jpg[/img] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/samhaberman/7104936677/][img]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8008/7104936677_6afc5eff49_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/samhaberman/7104936677/]Me[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/samhaberman/]samhaberman[/url], on Flickr Getting back into using my 50mm f/4 macro for the MX, been too long. This lens still has some of the nicest bokeh I know of - it doesn't have massively soft edges, but it's soft enough to create pleasing soft tones, but has enough clarity to define highlights.
[QUOTE=ctlilc;35660050]Got my first roll of film back today. Since I'm just taking photos for about two months I would appreciate criticism! [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/75451007@N08/6952745924/][t]http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5469/6952745924_447391d58e_b.jpg[/t][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/75451007@N08/6952745924/]untitled[/url] von [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/75451007@N08/]Kaizari[/url] auf Flickr [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/75451007@N08/6952745856/][t]http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5451/6952745856_ae5101cbb8_b.jpg[/t][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/75451007@N08/6952745856/]untitled[/url] von [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/75451007@N08/]Kaizari[/url] auf Flickr [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/75451007@N08/7098815971/][t]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7260/7098815971_967d9ee097_b.jpg[/t][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/75451007@N08/7098815971/]untitled[/url] von [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/75451007@N08/]Kaizari[/url] auf Flickr Quick question; is this more of a discussion thread than a post your pictures thread? Because I saw a lot of people posting their images also in the general thread.[/QUOTE] I love these ones mate. It's a bit of both with discussion and posting pictures. I often switch between posting between the two threads.
[img]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7044/7120471487_3104fbb722_z.jpg[/img] Minolta 7000 50mm 1.7 Kodak max 200
his right eye looks crazy, his left eye looks lazy :P
haha that's because of reflections on the glasses :p
i use film, black and white too. i develop my own shit as well. i'm not really good at developing, i always severely fuck up the borders so i always have to crop if i want to mount the photo. if i can get my hands on the old scanner i'll probably do a mass scan of the like 300 photos i printed in the last two semesters
I've started using film a lot, I develop and print the images using an enlarger by hand, which tends to give the images quite an old and dirty look which can be nice. (probably because I'm not good at it) So far I've only shot black and white, because developing and printing it is so so much easier. Film I've been using is Ilford HP5 Plus 400. I've only posted my film shots in the Creative photography thread so far though, might post the next ones here too
the images i get from an enlarger always seem to turn out gritty/ old n dirty. they have this tool you can use that basically magnifies the grain in the photo so you can focus it super sharp. i never learned how to use this implement and probably never will, but it's probably why everyone else's photos are turning out sharp. but really with my style of photography i think focusing by hand and without the magnifier adds to the tones i try to convey.
"Tone" is comparable to the characteristic curve of film, describing the falloff in sensitivity at the high (shoulder) and low (toe) ends of the curve and the steepness (gamma) in the middle.
[QUOTE=FoodStuffs;35751875]i never learned how to use this implement and probably never will, but it's probably why everyone else's photos are turning out sharp..[/QUOTE] Make sure the wire is 'sharp' to your eyesight, then put it under the enlarger and look through it, when you can see the individual grains of the film, then you've focused.
[QUOTE=bopie;35751915]"Tone" is comparable to the characteristic curve of film, describing the falloff in sensitivity at the high (shoulder) and low (toe) ends of the curve and the steepness (gamma) in the middle.[/QUOTE] yeah but in this case it's a euphemism for emotion/feeling. i get enough bullshit mumbo jumbo at school. and i gotta say, it's hardly mandatory to learn most of the photographer's lexicon. [editline]29th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Kill coDer;35753846]Make sure the wire is 'sharp' to your eyesight, then put it under the enlarger and look through it, when you can see the individual grains of the film, then you've focused.[/QUOTE] it's not that simple, someone has to show me how to use that shit. it seems so fucking illogical because you're putting a fucking mirror right inbetween the enlarger and the easel so the bright light shines right into your eye. honestly, no fucking clue how to use one. one day i spent the entire time trying to do it. i placed it upside down and tried to get it to work. thankfully it was in a darkroom. that's the great thing about a darkroom. you can be around people but they hardly see you. so many advantages to being in a darkroom.
-
and?
[QUOTE=BoSoZoku;35645947]I'd take Ilford XP2 Super imho. It's a C41 B&W which any lab can develop no problem and it has a very wide latitude so you can get away with some exposure miscalculations or just play with it intentionally once you get to know how this film works. If you want color I'd go for Portra 400 (the new one) which also has a huge latitude and very lovely colors. I did some tests with Portra 400 and I found that you can shoot it even 5 stops over (and develop it normally at box speed) and still get a usable image without blowing out too much stuff. (I have made a comparison image I can post it if you are interested) By the way definitely don't abandon photography just because you first two rolls weren't good, it takes time to get used to a certain film. (and to film in general) You could also have had some self induced pressure while taking the shots (film costs money you don't want to waste it and that sort of stuff) which might have "stiffened" you a bit while taking the shots. (I'm just guessing here as I don't know you)[/QUOTE] I may go for Portra 400 then, considering monochrome film already costs a fair amount. I can always do a monochrome conversion after I scan them digitally, right? Thanks for the advice, I'll give it another go. That'd be great if you could post the shots you're referring to. Cheers for the recommendation, Uber noob. Is this the new Portra 35mm film? [url]http://www.ebay.com/itm/5-KODAK-PORTRA-400-135-36-COLOR-400-135-FILM-2013-/400294227387?pt=US_Camera_Film&hash=item5d33652dbb#ht_1208wt_881[/url]
[QUOTE=no_aloha;35781413]I may go for Portra 400 then, considering monochrome film already costs a fair amount. I can always do a monochrome conversion after I scan them digitally, right? Thanks for the advice, I'll give it another go. That'd be great if you could post the shots you're referring to. Cheers for the recommendation, Uber noob. Is this the new Portra 35mm film? [URL]http://www.ebay.com/itm/5-KODAK-PORTRA-400-135-36-COLOR-400-135-FILM-2013-/400294227387?pt=US_Camera_Film&hash=item5d33652dbb#ht_1208wt_881[/URL][/QUOTE] You can and that's what I'd do too. If you want color you shot it in color and if you want it in black and white you can just convert it so you have the best of both worlds. I'd go with traditional black and white only if you want to try some developing tecniques. Yes that is the new Portra, the old ones were either Portra 400 VC or NC and had different boxes. [t]http://www.emanuelemonaco.com/images/random/comparison_bw_and_peaks.jpg[/t] [SUP]Click for 5000px by 4100px[/SUP] Now a quick explanation of what I did. I tried to shoot the widest range of lighting conditions I could find, basically here you have indoors in the shade (lights off and back lighted), outdoors in the shade, outdoors normally lit and a piece of sky, unfortunately I forgot to take a reading to see how many stops of difference there were but they cover a very broad range for sure. As you can see I also compared Portra 400 with my D700. Basically the center shots (0 [zero]) are the "correct" exposure, the average of the whole frame. I shot them at ISO 400, 1/250s and f2.8 the other shots have the same setting apart from the shutter (and I stopped down the aperture in the -5 because I couldn't go faster than 1/4000 with the F80). +5 (1/8 f2.8 Equivalent of ISO 12) +4 (1/15 f2.8 Equivalent of ISO 25) +3 (1/30 f2.8 Equivalent of ISO 50) +2 (1/60 f2.8 Equivalent of ISO 100) +1 (1/125 f2.8 Equivalent of ISO 200) 0 (1/250 f2.8 ISO 400) -1 (1/500 f2.8 Equivalent of ISO 800) -2 (1/1000 f2.8 Equivalent of ISO 1600) -3 (1/2000 f2.8 Equivalent of ISO 3200) -4 (1/4000 f2.8 Equivalent of ISO 6400) -5 (1/4000 f4 Equivalent of ISO 12800) I also made a black and white version so you can judge more easily the tones and one with peaks only. (reds are blown out and blues are the blacks) To me it looks like film deals better with overexposure and digital (well the D700 at least) deals better with underexposure. I scanned the film as flat as possible by the way. Hope it helps.
Cheers for going to the effort to post that BoSoZoku. Interesting how Portra doesn't handle underexposure too well- still produces beautiful tones though, as always. I'll go ahead and order those 5 rolls from amazon, fingers crossed my next shoot won't go so awfully. Thanks again mate.
Hey everyone I have a roll of Provia 400x and I was wondering if I should get it developed as a slide film or cross processed. (also I put 4 rolls of color neg film in for development today so expect photos next weekend)
Damn... Just picked up two developed rolls of film that I've taken on my mamiya NC1000 that I got a couple of weeks ago. These were the first rolls of film i took with it so i didn't know how they would turn out. Turns out there probably is some kind of crack or something in the camera so both rolls got overexposed to shit.. There were a few shots (5-6) that turned out normal, but all of they were double exposed by some reason.. Oh well, i've learned my lesson. Next time i won't shoot two rolls before developing the first i shot.
I do man! Nikon FG-20!
Right I just got 4 rolls of film bck 2 were shot in an Olympus Trip 35 and the other 2 in a Praktica Super TL1000 Starting with the Trip 35 Its a small camera and it works brilliantly, I had to look at the negs several times to figuire which set was took with which camera [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/communistwolf/7165728914/][img]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7095/7165728914_f2d5f5f99f_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/communistwolf/7165728914/]Hartlepool[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/communistwolf/]CommunistWolf[/url], on Flickr [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/communistwolf/7165742350/][img]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8024/7165742350_af829a6b7d_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/communistwolf/7165742350/]Hartlepool[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/communistwolf/]CommunistWolf[/url], on Flickr [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/communistwolf/7165740474/][img]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7244/7165740474_9b7a1cd060_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/communistwolf/7165740474/]Hartlepool[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/communistwolf/]CommunistWolf[/url], on Flickr Now this was the first time I had took a Praktica out properly, luckily they are rather simple and are similar to what I'm used to. I didn't listen to the lightmeter for this picture so it was rather heavily underexposed so a quickauto touchup in photoshop later [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/communistwolf/7165646482/][img]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8005/7165646482_c5d59a5b43_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/communistwolf/7165646482/]Tunstall[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/communistwolf/]CommunistWolf[/url], on Flickr I think this picture might be better if there was a subjecct such as a person. [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/communistwolf/7165647008/][img]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7222/7165647008_83eb71b438_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/communistwolf/7165647008/]Tunstall[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/communistwolf/]CommunistWolf[/url], on Flickr I really do like the ornate wooden stairs, I'll go back one day, hopefully with a model to capture better pictures of the stairs [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/communistwolf/7165647462/][img]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8020/7165647462_310a9e4c81_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/communistwolf/7165647462/]Tunstall[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/communistwolf/]CommunistWolf[/url], on Flickr Then we headed to the beach it was a mile or two walk away with a stop off at aldi we continued on. This was one of my colleagues for the day [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/communistwolf/7165649292/][img]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7223/7165649292_57f3a75004_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/communistwolf/7165649292/]Curtis[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/communistwolf/]CommunistWolf[/url], on Flickr [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/communistwolf/7165651178/][img]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7221/7165651178_eeaa210348_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/communistwolf/7165651178/]Curtis[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/communistwolf/]CommunistWolf[/url], on Flickr [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/communistwolf/7165650156/][img]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7085/7165650156_9d4e4df7bf_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/communistwolf/7165650156/]Steetley Pier[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/communistwolf/]CommunistWolf[/url], on Flickr I was told that the pier was a bit unsafe but I still climbed onto it (with the help of a sand mound) Now which of these two photos looks better: [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/communistwolf/7165650426/][img]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7233/7165650426_f092ef9c57_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/communistwolf/7165650426/]Steetley Pier[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/communistwolf/]CommunistWolf[/url], on Flickr [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/communistwolf/7165650644/][img]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8020/7165650644_4bff5fe7c4_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/communistwolf/7165650644/]Steetley Pier[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/communistwolf/]CommunistWolf[/url], on Flickr And a bit later I took a photo of a lighthouse [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/communistwolf/7165654884/][img]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7244/7165654884_6b63f68670_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/communistwolf/7165654884/]Hartlepool[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/communistwolf/]CommunistWolf[/url], on Flickr There is quite a few more photos on my flickr [url]http://www.flickr.com/photos/communistwolf[/url]
Need a 120/35 scanner for under £100 (used or new), any recommendations?
[QUOTE=B-hazard;35902706]Need a 120/35 scanner for under £100 (used or new), any recommendations?[/QUOTE] Buy extension tubes and use a DSLR.
[QUOTE=B-hazard;35902706]Need a 120/35 scanner for under £100 (used or new), any recommendations?[/QUOTE] apparently the epson v500 is 90 pounds on B&H. I'd buy it from there and get it sent for free to someone in the US *cough*bopie*cough*, then ask them nicely to send it to you in the UK (with you paying for that shipping).
I'd be too worried about it getting damaged in transit that way, the last scanner I ordered got broken while being shipped.
[QUOTE=B-hazard;35904014]I'd be too worried about it getting damaged in transit that way, the last scanner I ordered got broken while being shipped.[/QUOTE] B&H fill the box with plastic bags of air, and then the scanner itself is locked in place with chunks of foam; it should be fine. your choice though.
I think I might do it then, any US members willing to help me out? (bopie hint bopie)
I'm willing, shipping might be more from me because I'm hella west coast
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.