Show us yer film shots then!

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


:thumbs:
 
Well just to prove my point here are some badly composed, technically imperfect film shots. I demand that you praise them highly.....:D

Firstly Yashica T3 on Fuji Superia 200

Lights by andysnapper1, on Flickr

Secondly a couple from a Voigtlander Vito C on the same film.

Candles by andysnapper1, on Flickr


Cardiff-Bay-Statues by andysnapper1, on Flickr

And lastly from a Voigtlander Bessa R3A with a Jupiter 8 50mm f2 lens on Fuji Superia 400

Alice4 by andysnapper1, on Flickr

One thing I will say in the defence of this thread is that a lot of the images posted are testing new kit or film and so aren't necesarily going to be brilliantly planned and thought out shots and there are still enough stunning images to make it worth a visit at least once a day. :thumbs:

Thanks for looking

Andy
 
horrocks said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well why don't you have a go with some film and find why there are very basic technical and compositional errors that repeat time and again associated with film. Remember you can't just bring up the image on a screen instantly and reshoot if you find that the horizon is slightly off or someones half walked into the frame without you noticing. Remember that on a great majority/none of cameras that we use do you get things like electronic levels to help you get a straight horizon or histograms to check whether there will be blown highlights etc.
You learn from things like that and as Andy says, there are a lot of shots in here that are purely just tests of new films or equipment and because we enjoy film photography, O.K just because somethings on film doesn't make it instantly great but you do have to respect the slight differences that we have from our digital cousins in lacking the latest technology for perfect shots. Lastly this is not supposed to be a serious critique thread, whilst its is welcome we're just trying to show what pictures we've been taking using film and for serious critique you can easily go and have it in the 'photos from film' section.
 
****Well just to prove my point here are some badly composed, technically imperfect film shots. I demand that you praise them highly.....:D****

...b..bu..but they are not B/W, even the digital guys can take colour shots ;)
 
horrocks said:
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.
Click to expand...

Again, at the risk of getting drummed out of F&C, I agree pretty much completely. Just because I mentioned B&W, didn't necessarily mean that my "issues" with some shots posted in here were confined only to B&W shots.

However, for what it's worth, the "Show us your film shots" thread is pretty much "Fluffy Kittens" for film - it's a thread to just post things without critique, either because you're like Tuco and really don't need someone telling you what to do, or for people who've just picked up a film camera a week ago and didn't know how to even load the film up until yesterday. I've been guilty in the past of posting some terrible dross, but frankly, there was nowhere else to put it until relatively recently when the "Photo's from Film" section was opened. Now, to be honest, I tend to post there for critique - though I did drop a couple of "test shots" from a new camera in the "Show us..." thread for old times sake.

As far as the basic technical problems that occur again and again... Well - quite a few people in here are completely averse to any post-production work on their film shots. Horizons - well, to my knowledge, very few film cameras have self levelling displays like my 7D has... though theres nothing to stop people using a spirit level mounted to the hotshoe. The other problems - people half in/half out of frame or compositional errors... well - yes - in the critique section I will happily jump all over these problems. In the "Show Us... " thread though, it's not on - any more than it would be in "Fluffy Kittens" (Photo's for Pleasure for the Newbies amongst us!)
 
Well it's amazing what you can find when you turn your brain to it! I am getting some kit together for the Classifieds:Sales Forum - which led to thinking that people will ask have you any pictures taken with this or that kit? Well, I dug around and here it is colour used whilst trying an Olympus OM2n 50mm F1.8


The Old Stall


5616191294_05c4af4c1f_o.jpg


The Chatsworth Horse at Dusk

5616120106_3ea7ec5edd_o.jpg
 
Last edited:
Just thought I'd post a couple for the sake of posting, my first attempt at deving 120 film, and the first roll through the new 120 machine - I think I'm happy soooo far :). Just need something interesting to shoot now!


test2 by Rob_Ashton, on Flickr

Acros 100 - Ilfosol3, 5 mins. Mamiya 645 AFD II + 80mm


test1 by Rob_Ashton, on Flickr

Acros 100 - Ilfosol3, 5 mins. Mamiya 645 AFD II + 35mm
 
excalibur2 said:
:thumbs:
Click to expand...

thanks Brian......does film make us learn quicker, as we slow down to look when we see the final image

in my B&W of the Argyll Arcade, i now see if i had moved 1-2 steps to the left, the central column would have been on the entrance axis

know better next time...:lol:
 
Yardbent said:
thanks Brian......does film make us learn quicker, as we slow down to look when we see the final image
Click to expand...

Some say using digital is quicker as you can see your mistakes straight away.

[/QUOTE] in my B&W of the Argyll Arcade, i now see if i had moved 1-2 steps to the left, the central column would have been on the entrance axis

know better next time...:lol:[/QUOTE]

Well your shot had all the tones from Black to white which I noticed and it's a pat on the back if you do your own developing :thumbs: ....your next project is to master high key and low key :)
 
I'm assuming it's Sheffield? Nice to see they are building stuff as ugly as the new ones in Birmingham :)
 
Don't want to cross-post and spam everyone, but i've posted a couple of shots in the Critique section. If anyone (else) would like to have a look and pass comment, it'd be greatly appreciated :thumbs:
 
Me too..... :whistling:

Andy
 
Edtog said:
I'm assuming it's Sheffield? Nice to see they are building stuff as ugly as the new ones in Birmingham :)
Click to expand...

EdTog: It is Sheffield and it's known as 'The Cheese Grater' for obvious reasons (it's a car park!)

Rob Ashton: I like your 120 pics; the first one is my choice.

How about Kelham Island area in 120? Nice industrial heritage and the best real ale pubs in the city ;)

Big Yin & Andysnap: I will wonder over and have a look. The reason I post here is that it encourages others i.e. if he (alistair.o) can post that cr*p then I can do it! :p
 
Last edited:
I've been going over my old negs taken many moons ago, and forgot this shot was taken with a diffuser over the lens for a soft shot and I've sharpened it.

RB67, 180mm lens, FP4 developed in Johnsons Unitol.
676800px.jpg
 
Rob_Ashton said:
Just thought I'd post a couple for the sake of posting, my first attempt at deving 120 film, and the first roll through the new 120 machine - I think I'm happy soooo far :). Just need something interesting to shoot now!


test2 by Rob_Ashton, on Flickr
Click to expand...

I Really like this image, just the sort of thing im going to start practicing :clap:
 
excalibur2 said:
..............Well your shot had all the tones from Black to white which I noticed and it's a pat on the back if you do your own developing :thumbs: ....your next project is to master high key and low key :)
Click to expand...

Nikon F3 with 50mm 1.8E using Neopan 400CN, dev and scan by Photo Express..

No time for home Developing - I'm very pleased so far with Photo Express at £4.50 a roll to CD
 
An alternative view of The Cheese Grater building. Sheffield.

5618588707_9a2726cc80_o.jpg


Cold winter's evening in Harrogate. North Yorkshire. came across some bears watching TV

5618636215_2aaa6f3e42_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
s162216 said:
Well why don't you have a go with some film and find why there are very basic technical and compositional errors that repeat time and again associated with film. Remember you can't just bring up the image on a screen instantly and reshoot if you find that the horizon is slightly off or someones half walked into the frame without you noticing. Remember that on a great majority/none of cameras that we use do you get things like electronic levels to help you get a straight horizon or histograms to check whether there will be blown highlights etc.
You learn from things like that and as Andy says, there are a lot of shots in here that are purely just tests of new films or equipment and because we enjoy film photography, O.K just because somethings on film doesn't make it instantly great but you do have to respect the slight differences that we have from our digital cousins in lacking the latest technology for perfect shots. Lastly this is not supposed to be a serious critique thread, whilst its is welcome we're just trying to show what pictures we've been taking using film and for serious critique you can easily go and have it in the 'photos from film' section.
Click to expand...

Is there some moral/philosophical problem with dropping the image into photoshop and straightening it out if the horizons are off - indeed, performing any other PP that is required to make it a better image to look at? Once that film is scanned, its no longer 'analogue' anyway. It becomes a digital file.

However, I do appreciate the (other) points you make, and in all honesty I had not realised that there was a new critique thread relating to film.
 
horrocks said:
Is there some moral/philosophical problem with dropping the image into photoshop and straightening it out if the horizons are off - indeed, performing any other PP that is required to make it a better image to look at? Once that film is scanned, its no longer 'analogue' anyway. It becomes a digital file.

However, I do appreciate the (other) points you make, and in all honesty I had not realised that there was a new critique thread relating to film.
Click to expand...

Depends on the reason the photo was taken - normally, anything I'd post labelled as a "test shot" would be taken "out of the camera" - usually scanned to show the film frame edges as "proof" of OOC-ness. So - they wouldn't be straightened. This is a pretty direct comparison to what you'd get in the normal hardware shot if people posted a straight flat conversion from a raw file.

As to "philosophical" constraints - personally, no, I don't. I personally do try and keep my PP work limited to what I have previously done in a traditional "wet print" darkrorom - ie - dodge, burn, crop, straighten, colour correct, perspective tweak, dust spotting etc. and avoid wholesale cut/paste editing or matting 2 pictures together to make a composite. If I'm going to work in that manner, I'll probably have shot on the digital anyway.
 
horrocks said:
Is there some moral/philosophical problem with dropping the image into photoshop and straightening it out if the horizons are off - indeed, performing any other PP that is required to make it a better image to look at? Once that film is scanned, its no longer 'analogue' anyway. It becomes a digital file.
Click to expand...

I don't get a lot of my stuff scanned anyway, I might get a low res CD with my negative prints so to post on TP or to email to others, as to me theres nothing like flicking through a load of prints. O.K the neagtives would have been scanned to output the print but I don't have to have the scans. I also shoot a lot of slides that I prefer to just project and learn from as looking at a digital file on a screen is nothing like projecting a slide massively.If I want a print then I can get one.

I am however in the process of selecting some of my best/favourite images to be scanned at high resolution so to be able to view them quickly and easily get them printed as its way cheaper unfortunately to have a digital file printed than a negative/slide.

I have no problem with using PP when neccessary as like Mark says, you used to have it with wet prints, but I prefer to get it right in camera, especially with slides as you can't edit them if your going to project. Plus about the most sophisticated image editor I have is GIMP.

BTW, don't call film analogue because its not, its chemical not electronic. You could technically get an analogue electronic camera anyway, look at how analogue TV pictures were done using a picture tube in a camera and recorded on tape, thats analogue not digital.
 
Last edited:


Double exposure with Holga + Kodak Porta 160VC pushed 1.5 stops.
 
s162216 said:
BTW, don't call film analogue because its not, its chemical not electronic. You could technically get an analogue electronic camera anyway, look at how analogue TV pictures were done using a picture tube in a camera and recorded on tape, thats analogue not digital.
Click to expand...

Yessir!

You will however notice that in the original I placed the word 'analogue' in inverted commas. This means that I was using it as a figure of speech.

That apart, I take it from your narrative that you are a film purist, and that you at the very least dislike anything digital. Well, thats fair enough, but what is sauce for the goose does not have to be sauce for the gander. I have no problem at all with doing as the BigYin does, and using software to emulate darkroom techniques in order to improve my results - all else apart I have neither the time nor the space for running a darkroom. I suspect most people here are the same. Either way, it is up to the individual.

Don't be a filmic fundamentalist..:bonk:
 
horrocks said:
...Don't be a filmic fundamentalist..:bonk:
Click to expand...


Oohhh if you think that he's a Filmic Fundamentalist, I dread to think what you'd have made of Ujjwal - he wouldn't even wear a wristwatch with a quartz oscillator in it :lol: Boy do I miss that guys input on here :(

FWIW I also believe in getting things as right as possible in the camera, mainly due to the fact that for preference with colour film work I also shoot on E6, and enjoy viewing slides projected to the entire width of my living room wall - it's pretty unforgiving, believe me! One thing I don't miss however is the monthly bill from the laboratory coming in with charges for all the Cibachrome prints that clients wanted, just to approve in a meeting, then dismiss and ask for the tranny to be sent to the repro. house :bonk:
 
horrocks said:
That apart, I take it from your narrative that you are a film purist, and that you at the very least dislike anything digital.
Click to expand...

Its not that I dislike digital, I just don't find it quite as fun as shooting on film. I suppose that I'm fairly different to both you and Mark in that I being 19 was probably amongst the last generation exposed to film photography and digital rather than just digital or film whilst I grew up. My parents didn't get our first digital camera until 2003 and I shortly afterwards was given a basic 3 mp point and shoot which I used for several years and I then used a Sony Cybershot W-170.
When I was about 8 in 2000 though, I had become fascinated by photography and especially my dads ME Super and projecting his Kodachrome slides. In the end he gave me his first SLR, a Zenit EM which despite having a dubious reputation gave me great results. When I was given my first digital I forgot about the Zenit and didn't use it for about 5 years as digital seemed magical and fun to me at the time but a couple of years ago I got it out again and was hooked once more. I eventually ended up getting several more lenses for it and then a Pentax Spotmatic F in January 2010. I've since acquired several more film cameras and barely used the digital.

I don't know what it is that quite makes me prefer it, but I think its just the wait and excitement of getting a box of slides or prints back and seeing how I did or could improve that does it for me.

These are the last shots that I posted in this thread, with no PP from me (not counting any automatically applied by the scanner at the lab)

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=3484228&postcount=4138

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=3484231&postcount=4139

No what says that those are any worst than if they were taken with a digital and (needlessly IMO) edited meticulously?

P.S despite what I may sound like I actually love technology and electronic stuff, just because I don't use digital doesn't mean I don't know how to. My dad was recently given a Pentax K-X DSLR and he's been getting me to teach him how to use it!
 
An older shot when I was trying and learning multi-flash lighting back when I only had a flash meter to assess the shot. For me, shooting people is a hard subject. There seems to be a million rules people judge a photo by but I still like to try now and then. Finding willing subjects is getting harder too.





Pentax SMC 165mm f4 Leaf Shutter, Yellow Filter, Kodak 100 TMX-1, TMAX Dev

​
 
Last edited:
My old film cameras were stolen in a burglary back in January, not that I'd used them for around 10 years, this spurred me on and I got myself a cheap Practika and a few rolls of Ilford. This is one of the results from the first roll through the camera.

Ilford Delta 400 - Carl Zeiss Jena 135mm f/2.8


Ramblas by jST., on Flickr​
 
Last edited:
My problems were:- my living room wasn't long enough to put the curtain out of focus and it's difficult to know where to cut off arms and legs.

672800px.jpg


I eventually made up a metal gutter fitted to a tripod to hang some wall paper down, at least I didn't have to worry about the curtains anymore.

671800px.jpg
 
excalibur2 said:
My problems were:- my living room wasn't long enough to put the curtain out of focus and it's difficult to know where to cut off arms and legs.
Click to expand...

I hear yeah there. And some people naturally pose better than others too, it seems. I guess that's part of what they call being photogenic. I like your results.
 
This was making due with what was available on the spot. I was just visiting some friends and they asked for a shot of their daughter. I had a couple of flashes in my bag and borrowed one of theirs. I don't remember what we used of a backdrop. I also had no diffusion but with kids it looks like you can get by with hard lighting. The parents held the key and fill flash and I propped the back light up on a box. I didn't really care for that dress they had her wear. But the parents told her to pose and this is what she came up with.





Pentax SMC 200mm f4, Kodak 100 TMX-1, T-Max Dev

​
 
AlanSmithee said:
I hear yeah there. And some people naturally pose better than others too, it seems. I guess that's part of what they call being photogenic. I like your results.
Click to expand...

Well I think the most important thing for any amateur photographer is that he likes his own shots also family and friends like it too, and anyone else is a bonus...so thank you.
 
***and they asked for a shot of their daughter***

Excellent I bet they were very pleased....I too used to do this for friends and one day I'll have to scan the MF negs, but very few were creative.
 
excalibur2 said:
My problems were:- my living room wasn't long enough to put the curtain out of focus and it's difficult to know where to cut off arms and legs.

672800px.jpg


I eventually made up a metal gutter fitted to a tripod to hang some wall paper down, at least I didn't have to worry about the curtains anymore.

671800px.jpg
Click to expand...

Stunning Lady,,,I mean photographs :)
 
****Stunning Lady,,,I mean photographs****

Thanks....and she is still photogenic about 30 years older.

Meyer135mm800px-2.jpg
 
My daughter recently got a Holga, a multi coloured plastic 120 camera. I thought they were toys! Some amazing images she's been getting. These are with Kodak 400NC...

5621359945_460760fb25_z.jpg


5621948972_e88dd5b41b_z.jpg
 
Taking a medium format to unlikely places. This is a shot from Camp Muir (10188ft/3105m) on route to the top of Mt. Rainier (14,411 feet/4,392m) in Washington State. A climber is finally making it to the camp before sun down. This is really cropped. I had the horizon so crooked I can't believe I didn't notice it while taking the picture.




Pentax SMC 55mm f4, Kodak VHC

​
 


Pentax SMC 55mm f4, Kodak VHC


Absolutely stunning. That 67 must have been some weight in your bag!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top