Film SLR help please!

Grantsteve

Grantsteve

Suspended / Banned
Messages
54
Edit My Images
Yes
After seeing a lot of PJ stuff recently, I fancy a go and getting some grainy B&W shots with a film SLR.

I've got my eye on a 2nd hand Nikon F75, and after checking that it'll work with at least one of my lenses I think I might go for it.

Trouble is I don't know the first thing about buying or processing film :embarrassed: - these young whipper snappers eh?!

If I want to get that grainy B&W style of shot am I right in thinking I need to buy high speed film? What should I be looking for, brands etc and where does one buy it?!

Secondly, if and when I manage to fill a roll of film how do I go about getting it processed - do I just hand it in to Jesspos?! Do they even process film these days?!

Feel free to poke fun at me :lol:
 
ive used ilford 3200 and fuji neopan 1600 film, gives a nice grain, im still trying to find my fav, have also tried ilford400 film whcih gives a much finer grain to it but i didnt like the toning of the prints from it (whether this was the lab i dont know).


just try lots of different films to decide, ive had black and whites processed at both colab, ilford and jessops

jessops can develop some b+W films in store, but otheres (true black and white films) need to be sent away which takes 2 weeks. ive sent ilford film to ilford whcih took about 8 working days, and the prints come back in a nice box, and colab which costs a bit more but is very quick and good quality service :)
 
whitewash said:
ive used ilford 3200 and fuji neopan 1600 film, gives a nice grain, im still trying to find my fav, have also tried ilford400 film whcih gives a much finer grain to it but i didnt like the toning of the prints from it (whether this was the lab i dont know).


just try lots of different films to decide, ive had black and whites processed at both colab, ilford and jessops

jessops can develop some b+W films in store, but otheres (true black and white films) need to be sent away which takes 2 weeks. ive sent ilford film to ilford whcih took about 8 working days, and the prints come back in a nice box, and colab which costs a bit more but is very quick and good quality service :)
Click to expand...

Thanks - just what I was looking for. Is it worth getting stuff scanned to CD and then printed at places like photobox after a crop here and there in photoshop?

whitewash said:
oh and film is great fun :D
Click to expand...

I'm hoping I find it fun!
 
depends, ive had film2cd done on one film and ive not actually done anything with that one once ive got it on the computer, i just shoot film for fun so its not the end of the world if my shots dont get any further than a pile of prints
 
The Kodak 3200 is extreme, quite dark with thick grain, interesting results. For processing try Monolab in Brighton, they do a postal service and turn around is a couple of days. He's a great hand printer too so will bring the best out in your film prints.

What has prompted your interest in film, may I ask?:thumbs:
 
J Gordon said:
The Kodak 3200 is extreme, quite dark with thick grain, interesting results. For processing try Monolab in Brighton, they do a postal service and turn around is a couple of days. He's a great hand printer too so will bring the best out in your film prints.

What has prompted your interest in film, may I ask?:thumbs:
Click to expand...

do you have a link or a price sheet etc?
 
I've been looking at a lot of black and white photography lately, kind of urban, gritty sort of stuff - if that makes sense :thinking:

I really quite like the style and and fancy a go myself. I'm guessing that film would be the best way to capture that sort of stuff :embarrassed:
 
Films definately the way to go imo it can be just stunning. Current fashion is for colour even at the top end of Magnum, but for me it's black and white all the way.But then I'm just a luddite so what what I know...:D
 
with b+w i always get better results if i set the camera manually . take a light metre reading from grey tarmac or even the grass and set camera that way . a friend of mine could never get any contrast from his nikon in matrix always a dull grey but when he set it as above decent contrast , ( unless you want dull grey that is ) what part of the world are you grantsteve and how much you looking at paying for the f75 ( if the lenses work on the d80 they should work on the 75 ) Andy,,,,,,,,
 
For what it’s worth I’ve just bought a couple of lenses for my old Nikkormat FT so I can return to film. I’m shooting Fujichrome 400X (colour slide film) but will be scanning the slides in order that I can have B&W and or colour at the same time. I’m still on the first roll so I can’t tell you what it will be like and I’ve still to buy the film scanner, but I’m hopeful of good results.
A few years ago I shot some fireworks on film and the prints were good. I then scanned the negs with a coolscan and had prints made from the digital files and these had far more detail in them, even down to some smoke being evident in the sky which was not apparent on the film prints.
P.S. anyone got a Nikon coolscan there not using anymore? I could be interested.
 
donutagain said:
with b+w i always get better results if i set the camera manually . take a light metre reading from grey tarmac or even the grass and set camera that way . a friend of mine could never get any contrast from his nikon in matrix always a dull grey but when he set it as above decent contrast , ( unless you want dull grey that is ) what part of the world are you grantsteve and how much you looking at paying for the f75 ( if the lenses work on the d80 they should work on the 75 ) Andy,,,,,,,,
Click to expand...

I going to try manually exposing with the D80 too. I read in Bryan Peterson's book Understanding Exposure to meter off a blue sky for good results. I've seen others' results and it seems to do a great job.

I'm in Birmingham and waiting to hear back on an offer of £30 for a F75 ... the only thing is its silver! :gag:
 
That's an incredibly good price for a very reasonable camera. Hard to believe they were selling in their hundreds £ not so long ago. Bag a bargain sooner than later. I saw an F5 going for £300 yesterday, unbelievable hat Nikons flagship SLR is so cheap now, I paid more than that for an old F90x which is a very tasty camera indeed.
There are gift horse mouths everywhere it seems if you have the budget. At £30 bite his hand off!:D
 
Deal is done now!

At £30 its cheap enough for me to not to feel too bad if I don't get into the film thing! .... even if it is silver:gag:
 
Hmmm, I know what you mean. Silver is just plain WRONG. :lol:
Don't let it put you off film tho.
 
I'll get my black felt tip marker out :lol:
 
cant go wrong for thirty quid really can you . once you get a few decent pics in mono you'll be looking for an fm2n. hah nas strikes again ! ( second the black marker ) says he with three silver nikon bodies , although they seem to look better in metal .
 
donutagain said:
cant go wrong for thirty quid really can you . once you get a few decent pics in mono you'll be looking for an fm2n. hah nas strikes again ! ( second the black marker ) says he with three silver nikon bodies , although they seem to look better in metal .
Click to expand...

So "NAS" strikes again. Well I suffer from it all the time.
Film especially mono I find very rewarding when you get right, I think you see more in black & white photo because the colours don't get in the way,If that makes any sense.
 
depending on the effects/results you want i would think metering off a blue sky and then taking a pic of something on the ground would give you quite an underexposed image .
 
try some slides too, fuji astia and provia for some magazine look, velvia for landscape. some infra red film too.
 
A better way to get grainy images (and still have a useful film stock rather than 1600 or 3200 film which might be hard to come by) is to underexpose your film i.e for 400, rate it at 1600 or 3200 and then extend the processing time or 'push-process' it... not diluting the dev further than the manufacturer's basic mix will make it a tad grainier as well...(finer-grained images were achieved by diluting the dev 1:3 or more and extending dev times accordingly).
There's a huge amount you can do in the rating/development side of things to achieve different effects, that to try and detail them all here would take ages...try and find a copy of Jack Coote's book 'Monochrome Darkroom Practice' he worked for Ilford, and if it's not in that book, you don't need to know it...
 
I think it was Agfa that used to produce a b+w slide film. Only used it once or twice, very subtle tones on the actual slide but never got great results in the final prints. Kodak TX is a great film, forgiving in low light etc, versatile and relatively cheap, still widely available.
 
agfa scala , . i'll go along with arkady , get some ilford hp5plus and rate it at 1600 then get it overdeveloped , if you dont develope it yourself tell whoever does it ,its been pushed two stops
 
F100's seem to go for about £100 now. I like my F80 but... Very tempting!
 
Guys thanks for all the hints and tips. I've got myself two rolls of B&W film (Ilford 3200 and Fuji 1600) to see how I get on. I'll perhaps progress to some of the more 'advanced' techniques if I get into this film lark.

... just need the flippin' camera to turn up now :lol:

Cheers
 
Does anyone know if scala is still available? So many fine films lost. Kodak also used to produce a Tungsten balanced film which was spot on. You had to step up and down around the meter reading, but invariably got the shot in very testing lighting circumstances. The other tungsten trick was to use a blue filter which was imo less effective than the kodak film.
 
got a feeling they stopped making scala a year or so back jg, and as far as i am aware it was the only b+w slide film left .
 
I believe you are right on that one ahem, donut. There were stories at one stage of Kodak dropping a particular film until everyone complained and they introduced it.....unlikely to happen with the Scala I fear.
 
mind you havnt ilford started making sfx the imposter ir again ? and jg i dooo hope you have a nice day this saturday , when others will be on the shingle at dungee-nesss .
and grantsteve have you got that camera yet ?
 
Yes! It arrived this morning with two fresh batteries so I'm all set.

I'll try and get out at the weekend and fill a film.
 
Hey! Donut! That was uncalled for and below the belt!:D
 
yeah go grant , and dont forget to meter from the mid tone / shadows, grass or tarmac ,not so sure about using the sky though !
and yes mr gordon sir not called for , unreserved grovels to you ( whilst sniggering through rotten teeth )
 
Thanks mate - not my idea, blame Bryan Peterson!
 
try both and see what you get . as half the saying goes , expose for the shadows......not sure if im preaching to the converted here but, if you underexpose a negative it will be very thin , with hardly any detail left on it , but if you overexpose it slightly it will be more dense ,but will at least have more detail on it even though some burning in will be needed to get it out onto the print .
andy
 
I think that Arkady's suggestion will provide some great results, I used to photograph football at night using ilford 400 and pushed it to 1600, really nice grain.
 
donutagain said:
try both and see what you get . as half the saying goes , expose for the shadows......not sure if im preaching to the converted here but, if you underexpose a negative it will be very thin , with hardly any detail left on it , but if you overexpose it slightly it will be more dense ,but will at least have more detail on it even though some burning in will be needed to get it out onto the print .
andy
Click to expand...

I need all the advice I can get my friend! Thanks for your help.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top