OFFICIAL I HAVE A NEW (FILM RELATED) TOY THREAD!!

Very nice.
 
Good choice.
 
Olympus 35 RC arrived lunchtime today.

It's just too cute for words.

The Nissin i40 flash I use with my Fuji X100s works on it too. I've made a little chart with all the guide numbers. Can't wait to get out and try it tomorrow.

I've taken a picture of it with the FA. Should get round to deving it tomorrow as well.
 
Danones said:
That strap is awesome
Click to expand...

Looks like a Cordy, look it up on the evil bay, inexpensive and very good (if a bit long for a wrist strap, perhaps?). Nice cam, Simon...
 
Yeah.....I know what you mean, I don't do grain, its what I'd expect from cheap print film.
I'd like to be able to say it could be the scanner searching for detail in under exposed blacks and introducing its own noise, but you can see it clearly in the Costa signage, so I doubt its that.
I don't know enough about the scan or your adjustments to be able to "more than likely" it, I wouldn't have thought iso 200 print film would be that grainy as cheap as it is, but it could be if it was poorly developed/scanned/adjusted..
 
Agfa Vista 200 s a bit grainy, shame we can't get Agfa Vista 400 which from the results I've seen is better. (well it's re-labelled Fuji superia 400 while the Vista 200 is basic Fuji C200)
 
Its basically......?!?.........not going in my camera, is what it is..:)
 
I've never noticed a particular problem with grain on Vista 200... although maybe I'm not so particular! Try a different processing place (eg Photo Express)?
 
Well film likes to be correctly exposed...is the neg thin or dense as you don't get something for nothing when it's well under or over......exposed.
 
I've used Epson flatbeds from the 3200 (or something like that) days; my most recent scans were with a V700. I've also used a Nikon Coolscan II for 35mm and didn't think much of it. I've just got a V850 (for 5x4) and a Plustek120 for smaller formats. So I suppose these last two are actually new film related tools (sic).
 
I'm using a v500 for mf and now have a proscan 10t for 35mm. The proscan is great - very impressed with it. I also used a coolscan 4000 before which was also very good.
 
Danones said:
Street Cycling - Totton by Diogo Sousa, no Flickr

One of the first photos I have from my PEntax ME Super.

1st film used. AGFA 200.... I mean you can obviously see the grain, and I only adjusted a bit the exposure.
Click to expand...

The grain in Agfa Vista is not too bad and it's appearance is not only dependent on exposure but also the developing. I tend to use Asda and there can be some variation, I guess related to where the chems are in their life cycle. Also from shooting 74 rolls of Vista 200 it doesn't IMHO work that well in dull overcast weather. In bright sunlight I think it is a not a bad film, particularly when using a polarising filter. I know this is heresy in some quarters though, and just to add to that heresy, after all the hype I have found the Agfa Vista 400 results really disappointing, about10 decent shots in five Rolls. A much lower hit count than with Vista 200. Perhaps time for another Vista challenge?

Vista 200- Asda dev and scan
15564501754_cf0076fce3_b.jpg


15297479241_71ffea278f_b.jpg


Vista 400 Asda dev and scan
16124450253_255a84a2ab_b.jpg


16603644402_11335ef64a_b.jpg
 
Nice shots Adrian supporting Vista, it's all horses for courses for using film for the subject......e.g. I wouldn't use Vista 200 for scenic\landscape shots as I know by experience that superia 200 or Reala give better results...haven't tried Portra or Ektar yet.
Also if you are going to take snaps of guys at a meet why use expensive film.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jao
db247 said:
What scanners you all using?
Click to expand...

I have an Epson 4870 which is great for medium format and 5x4 but not brilliant for 35mm. I recently took the end from an Ohnar 35mm slide duplicator and built an adaptor to fit tit to my Nikon P6000. In macro mode I can just photograph the negative.

http://stevesmithphoto.webs.com/M1.JPG

http://stevesmithphoto.webs.com/M2.JPG

This also shows a polyester sleeve I made in order to hold a negative in the same way as a slide is held.

This works well for black and white negatives and colour slides but I haven't tried colour correcting a colour negative yet.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
excalibur2 said:
.......why use expensive film.
Click to expand...

Good question..

Its tough to comment without tearing a new bumhole in Vista
Vista doesn't deserve that really whilst ever its a quid a roll at the pound shop.
No matter how trivial the photo I'm about to shoot, it would never be on Vista, but we all shoot what we shoot for different reasons so I do enjoy Vista pics that get posted here regardless of my opinion of the film.
 
On the off chance that you'd like to see the effect of scanning 120 FP4 with an Epson V700 scanner at maximum resolution (6400) you can download the scan here. The camera was a Mamiya RZ67. What you're getting is the scan straight from the scanner with no sharpening (software used: VueScan).

NB. Windows explorer reports the file size as just under 475,000 KB
 
Last edited:
db247 said:
What scanners you all using?
Click to expand...
Normally a V500 but I recently got hold of a screen cezanne elite, still to put anything through it yet. Does anyone have a scanner test resolution target they are prepared to lend out?

So technically still on track with a new things thread.;)
 
Last edited:
Danones said:
I want to try a more expensive film like tri x to see the difference and also to see if this developer is really the problem. Because I am only paying 5.99 to develop and scan
Click to expand...

Tri-X is b/w film developed in b/w chemicals at room temperature, Vista is colour negative film is developed in C41 chems at 38 degrees, and probably by a machine at Asda, so if you want to compare films souped by the same processor, best stick to colour neg, you could try Asda with some Porta.
But before you do that, you ought to consider what you are comparing.
You don't know whether your Vista was correctly exposed, and you won't know the status of the Porta either.
You don't know the condition of the chems in Asdas machine, they may have been old for the Vista and be new for the Porta.
You don't know the competency of either the processor nor the scanner operator.
You don't know what that operator did to recover (or not) detail lost as a result of under/over exposure or processing errors during scanning.
In short, you have little control over what you get, Asda scans are probably low res and don't give you much file content with which to correct them yourself.
So you either have to take control by developing and scanning yourself, or......not worry too much about what comes back, it is what it is and don't be too disappointed if occasionally you get iffy pictures.
I think using good quality film is the way to go but if you hand over control to somebody else, there is no guarantee you'll like what they produce, there is no guarantee a roll of "expensive" Porta will come back looking better than Poundland Vista.:)

If its any consolation, I'd get C41 deved at Asda no problem, and not worry too much about the negs, but I'd have to do the scanning myself, that's troubleshooting by inspection, at least then I could decide if I'd cocked up, or Asda did.
 
erm sorry John but the last bit is not good advice:- It cost £1 extra to get scanned negs up to 38 exp onto a CD, once you view your shots on the monitor then you decide what are the winners then if necessary do your own scanning for those frames.
 
You waste a quid on preview scans Bri..?


lol...:D


Its your prerogative to think its bad advice, it takes allsorts but no, its not actually advice, its what I'd do, I'd personally not bother with scans because..

joxby said:
You don't know what that operator did to recover (or not) detail lost as a result of under/over exposure or processing errors during scanning.
Click to expand...

and..

joxby said:
.......but I'd have to do the scanning myself, that's troubleshooting by inspection, at least then I could decide if I'd cocked up, or Asda did.
Click to expand...

and by inspection, I mean inspection of the neg..:)
 
Last edited:
Well how can you have a view if you haven't tried it...go on splash out for a roll of Vista and try Asda.
 
Okay first of all have you really read what I Wrote? I appreciate your answer and time spent to help however next time read carefully what I wrote.

I didn't went to ASDA because in Southampton asda doesn't develop films. Dunno why they don't do it here but the fact is that they dont

I went to a store called city photograph or something like that. They are a very small store but they sell a lot of old cameras and they process a lot of film there and the price is so good. I pay 5.99£ and I get it developed and scanned.

All that I have just said, I mentioned it before that's why is important to read before writting.

i know that tri x and vista are completely different, but to be honest I don't think I am going to be shooting vista long time. I don't shoot only film so because of that reason I feel I can invest a bit more on the films I pick.

But it really disappoints me, knowing that all of that variants are not under control. I will never have the guarantee of having a good developed and scanned picture unless I do it by myself. Which I am not going to do it for now. Too much work, I don't have the time and rather spend the time shooting another roll than spending it developing film.

So I'm going to try different films and different stores. I will take another vista do be developed on the same store and if the results are the same I will try boots. It's a bit more expensive but maybe that will do the trick....or not
 
Danones said:
But it really disappoints me, knowing that all of that variants are not under control.

I will never have the guarantee of having a good developed and scanned picture unless I do it by myself.
Click to expand...

At the moment, the best way for you to have tighter control over all of the variables involved in film photography is to send your film to a good, reliable lab for development and scanning.

You might be left to continue scratching your head in the short term, if you do it yourself, as you are currently inexperienced, or if you continue using high street labs, whose quality may be unknown and potentially inconsistent.
 
Last edited:
db247 said:
What scanners you all using?
Click to expand...
Historically, for 35mm, a Nikon LS2000. I've enjoyed it and it's been productive. You can boost the light level for dense originals and it'll do multi-pass scans as well to reduce digital noise.

But - it requires a scsi connection. I actually got the associated Adaptec scsi card to install on W8, and whilst I managed to load the well-featured Nikon Scan it couldn't recognise or operate the scanner. Vuescan did, but I haven't managed to get on with Vuescan to any extent.

So - currently I have a legacy computer set up with Windows XP and an aspi layer to run Nikon Scan and the scanner.

MF is another avenue that I now need to explore ...
 
StephenM said:
On the off chance that you'd like to see the effect of scanning 120 FP4 with an Epson V700 scanner at maximum resolution (6400) you can download the scan here. The camera was a Mamiya RZ67. What you're getting is the scan straight from the scanner with no sharpening (software used: VueScan).
Click to expand...
Is that 6400 resolution genuine? Or is it interpolated by the scanner driver / software?
 
Still awaiting my Hasselblad 1000F.

In the meantime my new IPhone takes a nice snap if you allow for shutter lag :rolleyes:
 
Blasted said:
It says they have an actual resolution of 2300dpi here http://www.filmscanner.info/en/EpsonPerfectionV700Photo.html
Click to expand...
So if that's true (?) the native resolution of such a scanner is less than that of an average dslr ... in which case one might be better off digitally photographing the film images?

Alternatively, if one knew the scanner's native resolution and could choose that for the scan (so that no interpolation occurred), any upsizing could be done post-scan using Photoshop's engine, and the results compared.

At what point do camera lens and film grain respectively become the limiters?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top