Show us yer film shots then!

[IainG]

Had some good results with Kodak TX400, rated at 1600. Taken with a Pentax MX.

 

[IainG]

A few taken with the Xpan. Kodak e100g is fast becoming my favourite film, I'd even rate it better than K64!

 

[jgredline]

Javier - while the rendering of the photo's may not be quite as punchy and bold as your regular stuff (i'd kill for that kind of light to shoot in occasionally ) the subject matter is spot on the money. The first shot of the couple with the sign was brilliant, and the composition of the guy with the Tattoo behind his head, looking like he's wearing some enormous "Carman Miranda meets Popeye" inspired hat really sang out.

Thank you so very VERY much

 

[Cuchulainn]

I've just got my first few rolls from the 645N back. I'm impressed!

Natural history museum, London. Astia 100, pushed 1 stop

And a couple on Ilford HP5+ at 400
My wife's grandfather:

The happy couple!

 

[alistair.o]

Had some good results with Kodak TX400, rated at 1600. Taken with a Pentax MX.

Love the association of ideas. Very nice.

 

[alistair.o]

I've just got my first few rolls from the 645N back. I'm impressed!



And a couple on Ilford HP5+ at 400
My wife's grandfather:

Delightful.

Al

 

[alistair.o]

[/url] tabatha cat by woodbridgeboy, on Flickr[/IMG]

[/url] hidden by woodbridgeboy, on Flickr[/IMG]

These are nice. They have a period charm - well done.

 

[alistair.o]

Nikon FE2 - Nikon Nikkor 50mm F2 - Rollei Retro 100 - D76

What the Dalek saw...

It is (of course) part of the Selfridges building in Birmingham.UK

 

[karmagarda]

Elliott by karmagarda, on Flickr

 

[karmagarda]

Mamiya c330 / fuji provia 100

Loads more in this thread...

I love that. Awesome light on it!

 

[alistair.o]

The start of another Friday night in the city of Sheffield. UK

Nikon FE2 - Nikon Nikkor 50mm F2 Ai / Fuji Neopan 400 @ 800 in LC 29

Best Not Ask...

 

[excalibur2]

Ah that's where the Roswell alien went.

 

[Woodsy]

This is without doubt the best thread on the forum at the moment. Apologies for not commenting as much as perhaps I should

Here are 6 I scanned from my last roll of acros 100. Dev'd in rodinal.

1

2

3

4

5

6 - Odd one mid roll...

Thoughts always appreciated

 

[robhooley167]

i think i recognise that last one woodsy, the shots you get off that RB67 are brilliant, and tempting me to move to MF when ive got 35mm sorted to a higher quality nicely done

 

[alistair.o]

Woodsy:

5, 1, 4 are my picks. All told a very nice set. There is some close detail lost in 1 that you've managed to capture in 2!.

Acros & Rodinal go very well together, but I find the right amount of agitation a tricky thing i.e. too much contrast, shadow V too little contast, shadow etc.

Well done

PS they are 6 x 6?

 

[Woodsy]

i think i recognise that last one woodsy, the shots you get off that RB67 are brilliant, and tempting me to move to MF when ive got 35mm sorted to a higher quality nicely done

Yeah, quite pleased with how it came out

Do it mate, MF really is great fun... Hell, that might be at the stage where I entertain LF again Let me know yeah?

Woodsy:

5, 1, 4 are my picks. All told a very nice set. There is some close detail lost in 1 that you've managed to capture in 2!.

Acros & Rodinal go very well together, but I find the right amount of agitation a tricky thing i.e. too much contrast, shadow V too little contast, shadow etc.

Well done

PS they are 6 x 6?

Yeah, 1 was really hard to meter for tbh, as the sun was in and out seconds at a time. But I know what you mean... all part of the challenge eh!

Nah, they're 67 format apart from 1, which had a slight crop from either side to bring it more square.

Thanks for your thoughts chaps

 

[AlanSmithee]

This is without doubt the best thread on the forum at the moment. Apologies for not commenting as much as perhaps I should

Here are 6 I scanned from my last roll of acros 100. Dev'd in rodinal.

Thoughts always appreciated

Nice landscapes with good tonality.

 

[alistair.o]

Birmingham. UK

Steppin' Out

Jokers

 

[medwaygreen]

I just have to say the last two or three pages of this thread have some stunning work,just brilliant, I love the B&W, but I also enjoy the colour shots, which if I were to be honest I like shooting, call me an idiot, but I think with film you have to go that extra mile with colour to get that WOW factor, having said that my next two films will be B&W C41 I am afraid and I am going to try for the 50,s look with my S2 and Zenit.
Pictures will follow.

Congrats to you all and just to concur with Woodsy, yes it is a great thread.

 

[excalibur2]

****but I think with film you have to go that extra mile with colour to get that WOW factor****

erm I think it's the other way around in that a shot has to be extra VG in tones and subject matter in B/W, and not forgetting different filters are needed to get best results.
IMHO many B/W shots posted here fail because of tones esp when the subject is a mass of similar greys and has no bite.

 

[medwaygreen]

I got the flush of posting after seeing the last two or three great pages and just got back three films from Photo Express in Hull, so lots to work on and posts when possible.
Taken with my F90X and Nikkor 35-70mm, Fuji Superia 200Asa.
I hope you like and give your views, please.Sorry about the sky what you see is what I got.

#1

#2

#3

 

[medwaygreen]

****but I think with film you have to go that extra mile with colour to get that WOW factor****

erm I think it's the other way around in that a shot has to be extra VG in tones and subject matter in B/W, and not forgetting different filters are needed to get best results.
IMHO many B/W shots posted here fail because of tones esp when the subject is a mass of similar greys and has no bite.

Sorry, Brian I think you are wrong, the genre cliques at the present time is all about B&W and even bad shots get good acclaim colour on the other hand seems to be treated like dig-tail, with contempt.
I agree with your second para and that is my point,all film shots need care and attention, but B&W seem to need less:thumbsdown:
Also I think that I may have misled you I was talking about our forum and not the Film genre in general.

 

[TheBigYin]

I got the flush of posting after seeing the last two or three great pages and just got back three films from Photo Express in Hull, so lots to work on and posts when possible.
Taken with my F90X and Nikkor 35-70mm, Fuji Superia 200Asa.
I hope you like and give your views, please.Sorry about the sky what you see is what I got.

Well - sometimes there just ain't no sky - especially on days when it's been snowing.:shrug:

I do like the pano shot of the bookstore - looks like the kind of place I could easily loose a day (or three) in

I do think that some people seem to think that shots that are taken on film are somehow "more worthy" than shots on digital. At the risk of being drummed out of F&C, I'm really not one of those people. Some shots have been simplified in the taking by digital cameras - i'm thinking long exposures / strobist stuff / nature or anything that requires modern cameras amazing low light capabilities or machine-gun burst modes. But the same rules of composition and exposure that applied in Ansel Adams days are just as valid now. There's no reason why you can't shoot on a digital camera in the same way as you do on a film camera. I do it most of the time, tbh.

IMHO, the problems start when people start doing it the other way around, and shoot on film like they do on a Digital Camera. I've seen lots of shots taken on film that people have posted and had they have been in the Critique section I'm afraid i'd have panned them. Just because it's shot on film, it doesn't instantly transform it into art (even if you ARE an art student!) Taking a grainy black and white shot doesn't make you Robert Capa or Henri Cartier-Bresson.

Don't get me wrong - there are some brilliant and truly inspirational pictures in this thread. But there are some fairly average ones as well, and to be honest, they would benefit from being posted in the Critique section instead of here, where the person who posted the shot could be helped to take better images. And I'm not just having a go at others - I freely admit that my shots are not to the standard I wish to take, and I really appreciate the time that people take in giving critique on my shots, and I hope that i've not upset anyone by any critique I've given in the other section - anything I've said has been with the honest wish to help others improve their art. There - i've said the A word. Art. That's what we're supposed to be trying to produce here. Something that by just being here, can stimulate, influence or affect other people on a emotional or intellectual level.

 

[TheBigYin]

****but I think with film you have to go that extra mile with colour to get that WOW factor****

erm I think it's the other way around in that a shot has to be extra VG in tones and subject matter in B/W, and not forgetting different filters are needed to get best results.
IMHO many B/W shots posted here fail because of tones esp when the subject is a mass of similar greys and has no bite.

As I've said many,many times - the guy who taught me darkroom printing used to say over and over "It's called Black and White, not grey and dark grey."

I do think that quite a few people are idealogically opposed to the idea of any digital work on their film shots, and, especially with C41 B&W stuff processed and scanned at minilabs, the contrast is just not there without the odd curves tweak.

 

[alistair.o]

Some very interesting points being made here that are very pertinent to how I am now and have been for several weeks (indeed I mentioned to Mark recently that I have a yearning to shoot some colour in my 'workflow')

I wrestle with learning :-

1. Pictures (simple, but oh so frustrating)
2. Film? So many shades / speeds (please, even though I know you mean well, do not say 100 in the Summer and 400 in the winter)
3. Developers! The pain of it...
4. Developing - Much agitated agitation!
5. Contrast - Arrgh!
6. Last but NEVER least the capabilities of the camera and the lens

As for black and white, err, yes and no. I am uping a picture here taken in duff dull light with a backdrop of fawn (dirty sandstone)

I v'e named it "Catch Me If You Can

Sheffield. UK

Minolta Autocord (120 6x6) - Ilford HP5+ - LC29

Now there are any amount of shades in there that can only ever be shades of black or white - No? Yes?

Thoughts please

 

[AlanSmithee]

A wet scanning attempt. It didn't work too well. I tried using the glass carrier for my film scanner but it was not wide enough for the overlay sheet to seal the sides since it was made to be just wide enough for the 120 roll film. Some air bubbles formed after I put it in the scanner and the scanning was complete on the side causing some spots in the picture. If I wanted to make this work, I'd have to somehow modify an existing carrier to have a wider glass base.

I was giving it a try to see if it would help better with dust control. Those glass carriers for the 9000ED are really dust prone no matter how hard you try to clean it off. The color in the image is from scanning as a generic color negative and sampling the film base for exposure lock on a pyro stained negative. I didn't convert it to gray scale because I kind of like the bronze look it gave the statues.

This was a test shot taken a few months ago when I got a new wide angle lens for this camera. I've taken a similar shot before and posted it with my 60mm. You can see some ghosting of people who were standing around that eventually moved during the exposure.

Zeiss Distagon CF T* FLE 50mm f4, NDX400 + O2 Orange Filter, 100 Acros, PMK Pyro, 60 Seconds

​

 

[Andysnap]

Mark I wholeheartedly agree with you. On another website I occasionally frequent there are any number of badly composed, technically imperfect shots but because they are b&w and on film they get high praise.
The rules still apply whether it be digi, film, pinhole or any other future photographic technique, if its crap its crap. I'm no Ansell Adams (more Gomez actually) but I do try and produce interesting images and I don't post the ones that I think are crap.

Andy

 

[alistair.o]

Tuco, you carry on doing this to me and I am going to give all my kit to charity

Lovely picture - just a pity about the white wall and steps on the right IMHO - love the mountain backdrop to the left. Marvelous.

 

[TheBigYin]

Some very interesting points being made here that are very pertinent to how I am now and have been for several weeks (indeed I mentioned to Mark recently that I have a yearning to shoot some colour in my 'workflow')

I wrestle with learning :-

1. Pictures (simple, but oh so frustrating)
2. Film? So many shades / speeds (please, even though I know you mean well, do not say 100 in the Summer and 400 in the winter)
3. Developers! The pain of it...
4. Developing - Much agitated agitation!
5. Contrast - Arrgh!
6. Last but NEVER least the capabilities of the camera and the lens

As for black and white, err, yes and no. I am uping a picture here taken in duff dull light with a backdrop of fawn (dirty sandstone)

I v'e named it "Catch Me If You Can



Sheffield. UK

Minolta Autocord (120 6x6) - Ilford HP5+ - LC29

Now there are any amount of shades in there that can only ever be shades of black or white - No? Yes?

Thoughts please

I'm not (and my erstwhile tutor wasn't) saying that every shot has to have full jet black and full paper white. Some pictures just DON'T HAVE those tones. However, a typical shot will have those gradations, more or less, and to only display a subset of the full gamut from 0 to 255 (to go back to dijikal for a moment!) is limiting yourself in what you could do. If you wish to do this to produce a particular look, as a deliberate action, then that's fine, but for "normal" photographs why not use the full range available?

 

[TheBigYin]

Mark I wholeheartedly agree with you. On another website I occasionally frequent there are any number of badly composed, technically imperfect shots but because they are b&w and on film they get high praise.
The rules still apply whether it be digi, film, pinhole or any other future photographic technique, if its crap its crap. I'm no Ansell Adams (more Gomez actually) but I do try and produce interesting images and I don't post the ones that I think are crap.

Andy

Andy, if you're Gomez, I guess I must be Cousin It

 

[excalibur2]

Sorry, Brian I think you are wrong, the genre cliques at the present time is all about B&W and even bad shots get good acclaim colour on the other hand seems to be treated like dig-tail, with contempt.
I agree with your second para and that is my point,all film shots need care and attention, but B&W seem to need less:thumbsdown:
Also I think that I may have misled you I was talking about our forum and not the Film genre in general.

erm well maybe I'm missing the point, but just to add in case it's relevent:- in my experience colour is so easy to get good results, and you have to be quite skilled to get similar results in B/W, and many posters assume that you have to imagine what their shots would look like if you (or a lab) adjusted all the faults in Photoshop or whatever .....I don't think Alan smithee has just started using a camera for his B/W pictures.
Well I'm looking at my back garden and it's a mass of shades of green and other colours like blossom, and I know it would look crap in B/W....... horses for courses.

 

[excalibur2]

***Some pictures just DON'T HAVE those tones***

Indeed, but colour film can separate the different colours better which would be close shades of grey in B/W.........if you have a problem, .

e.g.

 

[alistair.o]

Just about to mix a batch of XTol - I might just put my head in it for a while...:bonk:

 

[AlanSmithee]

***Some pictures just DON'T HAVE those tones***

Indeed, but colour film can separate the different colours better which would be close shades of grey in B/W.........if you have a problem, .

e.g.

If the shot was composed mainly of that doll house, you could get a decent BW in terms solid, separate tones. Put on a green filter, meter the tan walls to be placed 3 stops above middle gray and I suspect you'd get white walls, really dark door/window sidings and near middle gray on the roof.

An old trick you can do with a flat negative is to process it in a dilution of Selenium Toner. It should expand some of the higher values yielding better separation of tones.

 

[horrocks]

I think the argument floated above that 'just because it is B&W doesn't mean its a good photograph' might be extended to replace the words 'B&W' with 'film'. I don't wish to cause offence, but I have long thought that there are far too many rather mediocre snapshots in this section of the forum that justify their existence purely because they are on film. There are some very basic technical and compositional errors that repeat time and again - wonky horizons, people half in, half out of frame and so on, not to mention some very unengaging subject matter. I do think that a lot of people here would benefit by exposing themselves to some critique and comment.

 

[jgredline]

Sorry, Brian I think you are wrong, the genre cliques at the present time is all about B&W and even bad shots get good acclaim colour on the other hand seems to be treated like dig-tail, with contempt.
I agree with your second para and that is my point,all film shots need care and attention, but B&W seem to need less:thumbsdown:
Also I think that I may have misled you I was talking about our forum and not the Film genre in general.

I am going to have to agree with this. I too have noticed this, but this seems to be true on the two other forums I visit as well.

 

[jgredline]

IMHO, the problems start when people start doing it the other way around, and shoot on film like they do on a Digital Camera. I've seen lots of shots taken on film that people have posted and had they have been in the Critique section I'm afraid i'd have panned them. Just because it's shot on film, it doesn't instantly transform it into art (even if you ARE an art student!) Taking a grainy black and white shot doesn't make you Robert Capa or Henri Cartier-Bresson.

Don't get me wrong - there are some brilliant and truly inspirational pictures in this thread. But there are some fairly average ones as well, and to be honest, they would benefit from being posted in the Critique section instead of here, where the person who posted the shot could be helped to take better images. And I'm not just having a go at others - I freely admit that my shots are not to the standard I wish to take, and I really appreciate the time that people take in giving critique on my shots, and I hope that i've not upset anyone by any critique I've given in the other section - anything I've said has been with the honest wish to help others improve their art. There - i've said the A word. Art. That's what we're supposed to be trying to produce here. Something that by just being here, can stimulate, influence or affect other people on a emotional or intellectual level.

excellent post.

 

[excalibur2]

If the shot was composed mainly of that doll house, you could get a decent BW in terms solid, separate tones. Put on a green filter, meter the tan walls to be placed 3 stops above middle gray and I suspect you'd get white walls, really dark door/window sidings and near middle gray on the roof.

An old trick you can do with a flat negative is to process it in a dilution of Selenium Toner. It should expand some of the higher values yielding better separation of tones.

erm and you would do all that to repeat my shot in B/W....now who said B/W was easier

Well I think this looks nice

You'd need all your skill to get anything out of the same shot in B/W

 

[Starastin]

imho b/w is more for people etc and colour for anything else . as colour might distract but colour doesn't distract in landscape or such for example.

 

[Yardbent]

.
Glasgow street walk-about in January
Nikon F3 with 50mm 1.8E using Neopan 400CN, dev and scan by Photo Express...better full-size..?
.

[/IMG]