Show us yer film shots then!

EdinburghGary said:
Hi Guys!


All shot on either Velvia 50 or Velvia 100. Absolutely MINIMAL PP, straighten horizons, slight crop here and there. The film is nuts and seems to saturate at an insane level!
Click to expand...


Those are fine shots Gary :thumbs:

The film is nuts for sure, but is it acceptable, and why ?
We moan on in the critique threads about oversaturated/processed digital photos, and then use a film with clearly enhanced colour rendition.
They aren't the same of course, they don't look the same even though we use the same words to describe them.
I'm interested in what you thought about velvia film images before you shot it, and now that you have, has your opinion changed ?
I like it for scapes, It doesn't give the most accurate rendition, but is it believable, or is it so familiar we accept it as believable ?
Option 2 - I don't care, its beau and that's an end to it :)
 
i love film, i wish i had the courage to use it alot more. Couple from other day..

scan6x601.jpg


scan6x602.jpg
 
joxby said:
The film is nuts for sure, but is it acceptable, and why ?
We moan on in the critique threads about oversaturated/processed digital photos, and then use a film with clearly enhanced colour rendition.
They aren't the same of course, they don't look the same even though we use the same words to describe them.
Click to expand...

Extremely well said :thumbs:
 
joxby said:
Those are fine shots Gary :thumbs:

The film is nuts for sure, but is it acceptable, and why ?
We moan on in the critique threads about oversaturated/processed digital photos, and then use a film with clearly enhanced colour rendition.
They aren't the same of course, they don't look the same even though we use the same words to describe them.
I'm interested in what you thought about velvia film images before you shot it, and now that you have, has your opinion changed ?
I like it for scapes, It doesn't give the most accurate rendition, but is it believable, or is it so familiar we accept it as believable ?
Option 2 - I don't care, its beau and that's an end to it :)
Click to expand...


I think the key is balance. The film processing retains a nice balance, even though it has crazy colour rendition. I find when pushing digital shots in the same way (for me anyway), it is easy to introduce too many artifacts and problems, which may be subtle, but as a group, they can really ruin a shot.

Things like extreme dodging and burning, exposure blends between sky and land, saturation hikes on selected areas, and HDR. These things can all be used to great effect, but think unless you are extremely good with the tools, and at visualising that finished article, then you run the risk of ruining that digital masterpiece.

What I am trying to say is, film gives me the processing I want, in a can. I am pretty crap at photoshop, and often ruin my digital files due to not really understanding how to subtly use the tools at hand.

It is something I need to be able to sort, as I do not want to restrict my shooting to film. If I can't sort out my digital processing though, I will restrict myself naturally.

Gary.
 
EdinburghGary said:
I think the key is balance. The film processing retains a nice balance, even though it has crazy colour rendition. I find when pushing digital shots in the same way (for me anyway), it is easy to introduce too many artifacts and problems, which may be subtle, but as a group, they can really ruin a shot.

Things like extreme dodging and burning, exposure blends between sky and land, saturation hikes on selected areas, and HDR. These things can all be used to great effect, but think unless you are extremely good with the tools, and at visualising that finished article, then you run the risk of ruining that digital masterpiece.

What I am trying to say is, film gives me the processing I want, in a can. I am pretty crap at photoshop, and often ruin my digital files due to not really understanding how to subtly use the tools at hand.

It is something I need to be able to sort, as I do not want to restrict my shooting to film. If I can't sort out my digital processing though, I will restrict myself naturally.

Gary.
Click to expand...

Wow Gary. This is what I was telling a friend the other day. In particular the dreaded ''artifacts'' that are easily introduced to digital images.
 
EdinburghGary said:
What I am trying to say is, film gives me the processing I want, in a can. I am pretty crap at photoshop, and often ruin my digital files due to not really understanding how to subtly use the tools at hand.
Click to expand...

This is most likely because film has had 100+ years of development* and is still being improved so it should be very good by now. Digital is still new.


* No, not that sort of development!




Steve.
 
EdinburghGary said:
I think the key is balance.
It is something I need to be able to sort, as I do not want to restrict my shooting to film. If I can't sort out my digital processing though, I will restrict myself naturally.

Gary.
Click to expand...

Its healthy to have an appreciation for both, even if we don't use both in equal measure.


blinkerz said:
i love film, i wish i had the courage to use it alot more. Couple from other day..
Click to expand...

It's tough to let go, I know..
I went to Howarth yesterday, I'll be surprised if there isn't a rash of 1940's day in the sharing threads, didn't take digital, I'm doing that more and more these days...not taking digital.
It used to be that I'd take film for the fun of it, but shoot in earnest with digital :shrug:
Maybe I just don't care if I fuxxup a day of shooting.....if it matters, shoot with what you are most comfortable with, if it doesn't, fuxxing up is how you learn stuff.
It is kinda frustrating though, not being able to trust yourself with something important.

Talking about balance, number 2 is balancing all over the place, exposure especially, the balance between foreground and sky is impressive, overcast maybe but still beautifully shot.
 
it really is tough to let go, i still think in the way of just popping off a few shots on film for fun. But i think i need a new lens for portrait, when i do tilts up close on 80mm lens things distort quite harsh. Square can be a pain...
 
Last edited:
blinkerz said:
it really is tough to let go, i still think in the way of just popping off a few shots on film for fun. But i think i need a new lens for portrait, when i do tilts up close on 80mm lens things distort quite harsh. Square can be a pain...
Click to expand...


It sneaks up you, kinda sly like..:shake:
80 is pretty straight generally, you must be getting really close, check out close focussing distances on anything longer you plan to buy.


jgredline said:
Steve, I am surprised to read this. Other than Ektar 100, What else has been developed. Ektar by the way seems like a huge step backwards.
Click to expand...

They mostly refine what's already available..
 
blinkerz said:
I wanna try out some colour, ive got 5Litres of Tetenal c-41 sitting here, but im too scared to use it with the jobo.. the tetenal instructions basically say death when opened...:(
Click to expand...

I think you're worrying too much. ;) You need to keep it off your skin( but using a Jobo processor is a big aid to being able to do that) and work in a well ventilated room, but otherwise you should be fine.

Having said that I've opted for Tetenal E6, but it's more to do with the fact that I can't be arsed with the printing stage than any risk worries. I did loads of C41 processing years ago with no problems at all.
 
The Jobo Lift has to be a really useful aid to working with completely dry hands and disposable rubber gloves should make the whole process pretty safe.
 
Most of mine was done in a cellar. :D

Can you not do it somewhere else? Once the film is in the tank you can work pretty well anywhere.
 
jgredline said:
Steve, I am surprised to read this. Other than Ektar 100, What else has been developed. Ektar by the way seems like a huge step backwards.
Click to expand...

I think Ektar is a step forwards. Some people are considering it to be like a negative version of Kodachrome. Saturated colours (but not as saturated as Velvia) which can be processed almost anywhere.

Fuji stopped making Velvia a few years ago but due to a huge demand, they re-formulated it to replace an ingredient which they could no longer source and re-introduced it.

Ilford/Harman have produced a couple of black and white films under the Kentmere brand and re-introduced SFX200, their infra red film, following demand after they stopped making it.

There have also been new films and papers from from Rollei, Forte, Adox and others.

Fuji especially seem to be comitted to film, commisioning the design of a new 6x7 format 120 film camera which went on sale recently. This was shown as a mock up at trade shows a couple of years ago and whilst a lot of people wished it would become a reality, no one really thought it would happen. But again, due to demand, it is now available.




Steve.
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:
I think Ektar is a step forwards. Some people are considering it to be like a negative version of Kodachrome. Saturated colours (but not as saturated as Velvia) which can be processed almost anywhere.

Fuji stopped making Velvia a few years ago but due to a huge demand, they re-formulated it to replace an ingredient which they could no longer source and re-introduced it.

Ilford/Harman have produced a couple of black and white films under the Kentmere brand and re-introduced SFX200, their infra red film, following demand after they stopped making it.

There have also been new films and papers from from Rollei, Forte, Adox and others.

Fuji especially seem to be comitted to film, commisioning the design of a new 6x7 format 120 film camera which went on sale recently. This was shown as a mock up at trade shows a couple of years ago and whilst a lot of people wished it would become a reality, no one really thought it would happen. But again, due to demand, it is now available.




Steve.
Click to expand...

Thanks Steve, This is great info. :thumbs:
 
Blinkerz the distortion isn't THAT bad but yeah a 150mm would help

80mm on MF is equivalent of 40mm on 35mm - you would normally use an 80mm for portait on 35mm so a 150mm MF lens (equivalent of around 75mm) would be ideal.
 
150mm is a classic blad length for head/shoulders portraits, can't guarantee absolutely no distortion, but it'll be better than the 80.
Somebody who's shot it will know the difference.
Close focus is 1.4m, I dunno how big a head/shoulders is, in the frame, its a problem with the Mam 6 that got me selling it at one point.
I'd expect the blad to be far closer because the slr design is better suited.
 
street stylee just for fun, Delta 100 with slightly cocked up developing :bonk:

wolfwhistle
c0qjc.jpg


waiting for evacuees
2j34rrl.jpg


get the Rolls...Parker
23mke8k.jpg


smoke me a kipper...I'll be back in time for breakfast
33lf441.jpg


a break between blitzes
24odp9w.jpg


take your pick for a packet of powdered egg
otnh9l.jpg
 
CT said:
Nice shots Joxers - I love this period enactment stuff. See though, this is where I actually welcome the film/ digital combo and it's a lot of the reason for my renewed interest.

Quick job which actually could be done a lot better...
Click to expand...


Thanks Cedric, to be honest I've had trouble with a few others, when I say trouble I mean more than a curves adjustment.
Delta 100 processed as fp4.....doh.....highlights and mids.
 
Very dark conditions as are most missions and old churches. These where shot wide open F/2.8 and shutter speed was 1/30 and hand held. Well, not truly hand held. I put the camera on top of what ever I could find. A pew or collection box and held it and composed best I could with what I had. Still, I am happy with the end results.

009_16A.jpg


010_15A.jpg


008_17A.jpg
 
EdinburghGary said:
I think the key is balance.

I am pretty crap at photoshop, and often ruin my digital files due to not really understanding how to subtly use the tools at hand.
Click to expand...


The thing is, as long as you save whatever you do under a different file name, you will not mess up your original image. It will still be there, exactly as you started to try again.

If you mess up processing a film, that's it - job well and truly scuppered. If you mess up at the print stage, at least you can go back to your original negative and try again - all you will have lost is a little time, and perhaps some chemicals. with digital, it should only be the time you waste, if things go wrong.

Sometimes, if I am doing major manipulations to an image, I will save it several times with different names. sometimes I will have 7-8 or more saves of the same image. then if I feel that something doesn't work, I can go back several stages.
 
Last edited:
Just the one from me!
Fuji Veliva 100F, shot on a Mamiya RZ67 Pro II with a 65mm f/4 L-A at f/16. Probably 1/125th shutter speed... Scanned on an Epson V700, no post production done other than a little dust removal.



As always, click for the photo page where there's a biggerer version available.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top