Show us yer film shots then!

H'mm on my computer screen there is just a slight yellow cast in Andy's one and too yellow in John's.....I guess it's what monitor you have and how you prefer the shot to look.
 
Asha said:
Tbh I didn't notice much of a cast until joxby posted his adjusted version, which, for me is too "warm"

Somewhere between the two versions is needed I think.
Click to expand...

I've got Velvia eye, the doctors say there's no cure...:)
I would say its too warm too but the tarmac and fence look ok, take out the red and they are so cool they nearly blend to the same colour, this doesn't help with the rest of the picture.
I used to have this problem with colour scans with an epsom flatbed, in that everything needed mixing, couldn't just find a bit of grey and let it mix itself, adjusting for one cast created casts in other areas.
I don't have that difficulty with the minolta.....I dunno why, I do know my days of fannying about with mixing channels for yonks are over...:)
 
Wanted to finish the film up in my F90x and Nikon 28mm-80mm zoom so walk in the churchyard, all Vista and Asda.

Memorial to Australians who died in the nearby hospital in WW1


Just had to take this shot as it was so pretty


..and next door's tree that crashed into my garden..............have cut away the branches that were squashing my apple tree and alsothe tree lopped a bit off my new fig tree on the right :(

 
Last edited:
Another shot from the same night shoot at Kenilworth Castle as my first night shoot, taken on the other Pentax MX loaded with Vista 400. 5 seconds, the slowest of the 3 exposures I made. @steveo_mcg was right, the longer exposures blow out on the right, so I think it was brighter than the LV1 I guessed.

R1-04670-0022 by Chris Rusbridge, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Ok, here's one I did convert to black and white, along with the original colour version. Rolleiflex and OOD Portra VC400 again.

The-Joiner2 by Andy, on Flickr
The-Joiner1 by Andy, on Flickr

And a couple bird shots, only possible of course when they are tethered !!!
An Aplomado Falcon.
Aplomado-Falcon by Andy, on Flickr

A Chilean Blue Eagle, only a juvenile so it hasn't got its blue feathers yet.
Chilean-Blue-Eagle by Andy, on Flickr

But hang on... this bird isn't tethered, what a brilliant all around camera is the Rolleiflex. :D
Harris-Hawk2 by Andy, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
@Andysnap Your policeman shot that I replied to suits b&w better than colour imho, however the joiner in the above post is more pleasing to the eye in colour imo although had you you only posted a monochrome version, it wouldn't have disappointed ;)

Edit, Looking again, I think the reason is the shadows....for me,.they need lifting a tad to match the luminosity that is in the colour version.

Another edit lol Just to add, I realise this is not a c&c thread so tell me to bog off if I'm getting on your T###, oops I mean chest :D
 
Last edited:
Well I've got something to do..either this is the crappiest 28-80mm zoom (Nikon) ever made or the house is this crooked..OK at 28mm you'd expect the edges to go in but the centre corner of the house is bent and the bottom windows are leaning in :eek: So I'll reshoot with some 28mm primes maybe another zoom.
 
excalibur2 said:
Well I've got something to do..either this is the crappiest 28-80mm zoom (Nikon) ever made or the house is this crooked..OK at 28mm you'd expect the edges to go in but the centre corner of the house is bent and the bottom windows are leaning in :eek: So I'll reshoot with some 28mm primes maybe another zoom.
Click to expand...

I've seen some very crooked old buildings, so I can easily believe it looks like this. What did it look like through your eyes?
 
FishyFish said:
I've seen some very crooked old buildings, so I can easily believe it looks like this. What did it look like through your eyes?
Click to expand...

Well I've past the house many times and taken quite a few shots of it's position in the village but never looked at it at all angles close up, and because of parked cars getting in the way it ruins the shot for a longer lens to remove distortion.....but looking at this shot it does seem crooked more than I've noticed by eye.

 
Last edited:
Given the age of the building I am not surprised that the corner lines are crooked. If you get a chance, have a look Google street view of the main street of a town called Lavenham in Suffolk and you'll see what I mean.
 
David_H said:
Given the age of the building I am not surprised that the corner lines are crooked. If you get a chance, have a look Google street view of the main street of a town called Lavenham in Suffolk and you'll see what I mean.
Click to expand...

Forgot all about street view, and the house looks just as bad with their camera.. so it looks like the Nikon 28-80 AF zoom is not so bad after all.
 
You don't say where you are Male Badger
Is that somewhere in Brum
I have a friend on another forum who posted pics of a wonky building with windows like that, they were all shot from the inside though, never saw it from the outside.
He's in Brum somewhere and he doesn't travel well so it could be the same place
 
Mr Badger said:
So you think your house is crooked then? :whistle:



;)

Oh, and no, it hasn't been 'Photoshopped' other than a bit of sharpening and lighting adjustment to improve a rather old and poor early digi-camera photo!
Click to expand...

Ah The Crooked House a pub where you feel drunk even when your only drinking Orange Juice !!
 
ChrisR said:
Another shot from the same night shoot at Kenilworth Castle as my first night shoot, taken on the other Pentax MX loaded with Vista 400. 5 seconds, the slowest of the 3 exposures I made. @steveo_mcg was right, the longer exposures blow out on the right, so I think it was brighter than the LV1 I guessed.

R1-04670-0022 by Chris Rusbridge, on Flickr
Click to expand...


I've not had much experience with long exposures on colour negative so I'm not sure how well my crib sheet stands up. It really depends on the reciprocity of the film you can easily blow out the highlights while trying to get enough light for the shadows on some films. On the other hand working out what LV1 is relative to others shots is largely practice and I bet I'd mess it up more often that not now I'm out of practice.
 
steveo_mcg said:
I've not had much experience with long exposures on colour negative so I'm not sure how well my crib sheet stands up. It really depends on the reciprocity of the film you can easily blow out the highlights while trying to get enough light for the shadows on some films. On the other hand working out what LV1 is relative to others shots is largely practice and I bet I'd mess it up more often that not now I'm out of practice.
Click to expand...

Well someone would probably say I'm talking a load of..... for colour neg film but I've taken shots up to 45 secs without adjusting the ISO and they came out ok (maybe I was lucky)....when you think about it e.g. the Canon T90 goes to about 45 secs on auto, well you'd think a sophisticated camera would have an inbuilt repciprocity factor for long exposures if needed....if Canon never had a clue about film characteristics....then shame on them.
 
Last edited:
excalibur2 said:
Well someone would probably say I'm talking a load of..... for colour neg film but I've taken shots up to 45 secs without adjusting the ISO and they came out ok (maybe I was lucky)....when you think about it e.g. the Canon T90 goes to about 45 secs on auto, well you'd think a sophisticated camera would have an inbuilt repciprocity factor for long exposures if needed....if Canon never had a clue about film characteristics....then shame on them.
Click to expand...

Nice idea but how would the camera know what film was loaded and therefore the reciprocity needed? A camera is just a box that opens the shutter for as long as it deems necessary to get an exposure using the settings you provide (over/under/0) and its' light meter.
 
steveo_mcg said:
I've not had much experience with long exposures on colour negative so I'm not sure how well my crib sheet stands up. It really depends on the reciprocity of the film you can easily blow out the highlights while trying to get enough light for the shadows on some films. On the other hand working out what LV1 is relative to others shots is largely practice and I bet I'd mess it up more often that not now I'm out of practice.
Click to expand...

I looked up the Vista 400 datasheet (and the Superia 400X one too, not surprisingly exactly the same) for reciprocity, and it wasn't too bad. Given the extra two stops over Acros, you could shoot at LV1 f/4 at 2 seconds ok, and 4 seconds only goes to 5 which is not worth bothering about really.
 
stevelmx5 said:
Nice idea but how would the camera know what film was loaded and therefore the reciprocity needed? A camera is just a box that opens the shutter for as long as it deems necessary to get an exposure using the settings you provide (over/under/0) and its' light meter.
Click to expand...

Well the camera knows the ISO by the bar code, and if all films have a reciprocity problem then the inbuilt computer could adjust for the number of secs\mins..Ok it might not be spot on for every film made but good enough when you consider the latitude of neg film. Anyway most of my night shots over the years are under 7 secs and never had a problem.
 
Last edited:
excalibur2 said:
Well the camera knows the ISO by the bar code, and if all films have a reciprocity problem then the inbuilt computer could adjust for the number of secs\mins..Ok it might not be spot on for every film made but good enough when you consider the latitude of neg film. Anyway most of my night shots over the years are under 7 secs and never had a problem.
Click to expand...

The DX code doesn't reference the actual film though, only the ISO. Most films have different reciprocity figures, even if they're the same ISO, so the camera would need to also be told what film stock it was first.
 
Even if a 10 or 20 year old 35mm SLR camera could recognise RF though the DX code, it would most likely be limited to the film database programmed into the camera at the time of manufacture. If so, how many currently available 'modern/improved' film emulsions would it recognise today, bearing in mind there's no way of updating the software on the T90 (or even the EOS3, which I believe was one of the last 'electronic' pro-grade 35mm SLRs offered for sale)? It's a nice idea, but it's perhaps just as well they never did it, as it probably wouldn't be much use these days.
 
Last edited:
Mr Badger said:
Even if a 10 or 20 year old 35mm SLR camera could recognise RF though the DX code, it would most likely be limited to the film database programmed into the camera at the time of manufacture. If so, how many currently available 'modern/improved' film emulsions would it recognise today, bearing in mind there's no way of updating the software on the T90 (or even the EOS3, which I believe was one of the last 'electronic' pro-grade 35mm SLRs offered for sale)? It's a nice idea, but it's perhaps just as well they never did it, as it probably wouldn't be much use these days.
Click to expand...

Well if it could read type of film in the 80s and as most modern\new film emulsions are more light sensitve esp Fuji it would just mean the neg would be more over exposed and the film's latitude could cover that...but did have a get out in saying I might be talking a load of ... :D
 
excalibur2 said:
Well if it could read type of film in the 80s and as most modern\new film emulsions are more light sensitve esp Fuji it would just mean the neg would be more over exposed and the film's latitude could cover that...but did have a get out in saying I might be talking a load of ... :D
Click to expand...

If the DX code for the emulsion had changed the camera wouldn't be able to recognise it against the ones programmed into its memory, so it would probably have a hissy fit and burst into tears... in other words it would be overcome with emulsion! ;) :D :banana:

OK ... :coat:
 
Last edited:
Mr Badger said:
If the DX code for the emulsion had changed the camera wouldn't be able to recognise it against the ones programmed into its memory, so it would probably have a hissy fit and burst into tears... in other words it would be overcome with emulsion! ;) :D :banana:

OK ... :coat:
Click to expand...

Well it was a good idea in the 80's, but maybe there was a good reason why it was a bad idea and never programmed into the camera's computer :rolleyes: but still doesn't explain the cameras that can go up to 45 secs on auto (or the OM's can go up to 90 secs ?) when in theory the exposure would be wrong.
 
Last edited:
excalibur2 said:
Well it was a good idea in the 80's, but maybe there was a good reason why it was a bad idea and never programmed into the camera's computer :rolleyes: but still doesn't explain the cameras that can go up to 45 secs on auto (or the OM's can go up to 90 secs ?) when in theory the exposure would be wrong.
Click to expand...
Presumably some films were ok to use without worrying about reciprocity up to that time limit? I could be wrong but isn't the benefit of Fuji acros 100 that it doesn't suffer from reciprocity failure? Or at least that it is unaffected up to a certain exposure time which is longer than many other films.
 
mdjchat said:
Presumably some films were ok to use without worrying about reciprocity up to that time limit? I could be wrong but isn't the benefit of Fuji acros 100 that it doesn't suffer from reciprocity failure? Or at least that it is unaffected up to a certain exposure time which is longer than many other films.
Click to expand...

Fine up to 2 minutes, according to young @steveo_mcg ...
 
mdjchat said:
Presumably some films were ok to use without worrying about reciprocity up to that time limit? I could be wrong but isn't the benefit of Fuji acros 100 that it doesn't suffer from reciprocity failure? Or at least that it is unaffected up to a certain exposure time which is longer than many other films.
Click to expand...

Acros is two stops voodoo, I don't know what Fuji do to that stuff!
 
Somewhat irritatingly "something" has gone wrong with the negs from the peaks, the highlights have the speckles I've never been able to indentify and eliminate. Next stop I think is de-ionised water but it happens so intermediately that I can't rule out something other than my tap water.

But any way, name that table and fire place.

2016-10-FP4-RB67039 by Steven, on Flickr

2016-10-FP4-RB67038 by Steven, on Flickr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top