Show us yer film shots then!

Asha said:
Liking the composition Steve....where's the light leak getting in??....Perhaps repairable??
Click to expand...
Cheers Asha

Cezar said:
I would guess its just the lens, simply making the corners dark with some vignetting??
Click to expand...

If its just vignetting its pretty extreme I'll post up a straight scan later. I've got light seals but if there is something else I'll keep them for another unit.

The scan was pretty low contrast I had to bump it a lot in post, I'm not sure if thats the developer or something else. The grain wasn't so bad in RHS as it was in Rodinal but still not keep on the film.
 
Kev M said:
Please tell me there's some detail in that cloud that could be extracted in the darkroom?:(:( It would be epic if there was.
Click to expand...


The sun is in frame, but its less blown on the neg.
The scan looks like it does cos I threw a load global of contrast at it.....as ya do with crappy scans.
Should use a grad really, you can usually get away without on b/w, but once you include the sun, its a fine line.

*considers a red grad*
 
Been a while since. I put anything up, these are from my trip up to Dinorwic quarry in the middle of all that snow we had. All shot with the Bessa R with Jupiter 8 50mm on tmax 100 developed in rodinal.


1




2



3 the famous coats



[
 
A few of my favs from the weekend. The light was just so clean and fun to work with that afternoon.

Nikon FM2, 19-35mm, Ilford XP2, Orange Filter

CNV00031.JPG


CNV00026.JPG


CNV00034.JPG
 
Last edited:
walsh said:
Been a while since. I put anything up, these are from my trip up to Dinorwic quarry in the middle of all that snow we had. All shot with the Bessa R with Jupiter 8 50mm on tmax 100 developed in rodinal.
Click to expand...

These are stunning :thumbs:

A few from a roll of Tri-X devved in D76 1+1:



sticker by rednorters, on Flickr



mr president by rednorters, on Flickr



wolverine by rednorters, on Flickr

This is my second roll of Tri-X devved in D76 and I'm beginning to think that it will become my mainstay!

Thanks for looking as always :thumbs:
 
Cezar said:
I would guess its just the lens, simply making the corners dark with some vignetting??
Click to expand...

Had a good look last night, looks like the lens assembly of my trip has taken a knock in its past. The bottom and left aperture blades don't retract fully when wide open and don't retract as far as the opposite blades at other apertures. So it is vignetting and its quite extreme but it is a little faulty. Salvagable though and since it was a freebie I wonder if its worth getting repaired.
 
What I should have entered in the last film photo challenge. Wish I'd thought of it at the time...

Also the advantage of shooting square, what to do when you mess up development of the top of the frame; crop to 4.5x6.


FP4-Ikonta-Jan13012 by steveo_mcg, on Flickr


Shot with the Ikonta 524/16 On FP4 in Rodinol at 1+100 for an hour
 
Last edited:
norters said:
These are stunning :thumbs:

A few from a roll of Tri-X devved in D76 1+1:


This is my second roll of Tri-X devved in D76 and I'm beginning to think that it will become my mainstay!

Thanks for looking as always :thumbs:
Click to expand...

I like these, encouraging as I've just bought a few rolls of Tri-x and some D76...
 
steveo_mcg said:
I like these, encouraging as I've just bought a few rolls of Tri-x and some D76...
Click to expand...

It's excellent! Coming from only using rodinal its really opened my eyes. I was worried about initially mixing it but it was a doddle.
 
joxby said:
The sun is in frame, but its less blown on the neg.
The scan looks like it does cos I threw a load global of contrast at it.....as ya do with crappy scans.
Should use a grad really, you can usually get away without on b/w, but once you include the sun, its a fine line.

*considers a red grad*
Click to expand...

If there's more detail in the negative get off your arse and go and print it properly in your darkroom. I think that frame is worth the effort because the rest of it is lovely.
 
Time to dive in, first shots I've posted here; all on the recently-acquired Bessa R with Jupiter 8 50mm.
Tri-X @800, HC110 Dilution B (1:31) for 12 minutes.
Scanned (roughly, so dust abounds) on the V500.

Exterior of the central (?) bank:


Brussels_Bank by djguru32, on Flickr

Trying something different in the wonderful Grand Place:


Brussels_GrandPlaceReflection by djguru32, on Flickr

A not-quite-there attempt at zone focussing & guessed exposure:


Brussels_GhostBar by djguru32, on Flickr

Down near the Gare du Midi station:

Brussels_Old and New by djguru32, on Flickr

and the outside of the must-visit Cantillon Brewery:


Brussels_Cantillon3 by djguru32, on Flickr

Dave
 
One from the Balda Mess- Baldix folder ( c.1950's) that I took with me to the UK in December last year.

I didn't realise until I came home that the rangefinder is not working correctly and appears to be approx 10ft out with it's accuracy.

Don't know wether it's possible of a diy repair??!!

Can always use a seperate rangefinder but it's a bit carp when one is in the camera to start with.

Anyway here's the shot, the focus was intended to be on the first crucifix, not the second one!

3retouched.jpg
 
Hrímfaxi;5351054 said:
Two from Southbank last weekend..

1)

Underpass in Southbank by Hrímfaxi, on Flickr

2)

I bring you..... fire! by Hrímfaxi, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Very good shot it is just a shame that the fire stick is across his face, but never the less I like this very much. The posts almost center the subject and the front tarmac/gravel looks good, if the BG was OOF it would be even better, because the walker in the BG, gets on my nerves:D:thumbs:
 
Last edited:
medwaygreen said:
Very good shot it is just a shame that the fire stick is across his face, but never the less I like this very much. The posts almost center the subject and the front tarmac/gravel looks good, if the BG was OOF it would be even better, because the walker in the BG, gets on my nerves:D:thumbs:
Click to expand...

Thank you. :) Advice taken onboard!
 
Marcin, welcome to F&C (some seem to call it the dark side)! I really like number 4 in your set; leads nicely into the tower, which is sharp. Number 1 has something odd about it; contrast is nice, but my eye is led straight across the bridge to a mushy OOF are behind it, while the trees are weird. Shallow depth of field can be a blighter with film. Number 3 looka surprisingly light; I wondered if you'd lightened it up in PP to open the foreground shadow?

You didn't say what camera you used?
 
ChrisR said:
Marcin, welcome to F&C (some seem to call it the dark side)! I really like number 4 in your set; leads nicely into the tower, which is sharp. Number 1 has something odd about it; contrast is nice, but my eye is led straight across the bridge to a mushy OOF are behind it, while the trees are weird. Shallow depth of field can be a blighter with film. Number 3 looka surprisingly light; I wondered if you'd lightened it up in PP to open the foreground shadow?

You didn't say what camera you used?
Click to expand...

Thanks for the critics. I have used Minolta XG-2 from late '70. I did not do pp a lot just looked at original print and looks kind of the same, It's been taken with minolta 50mm f1.7 at 1.7 so that's maybe it looks like that. Cheers
 
34rxix5.jpg


If my memory serves me right this was taken a very long time ago with a Canon T90 and Tamron SP80-200 f2.8 LD zoom that was nearly always on the camera. Fabulous lens and camera that I really enjoyed using.
 
I'm starting to like the grain in Fomapan 400 (in 120 anyway) but its worth pointing out some of their quality control issues...


Foma400Jan13-2008 by steveo_mcg, on Flickr

These scratches extend only partially on to the next frame, the rest of the roll is fine...

The shot is massively underexposed as I forgot to adjust the shutter speed before hitting the go button.
 
What was this shot in? I've heard of pin holes, small defects in the emulsion (which I saw myself in some Foma 100, 120 size), but nothing ever as drastic as this. I've seen quite a few Foma QC threads over the years and I don't recall anything on this scale.
 
steveo_mcg said:
I'm starting to like the grain in Fomapan 400 (in 120 anyway) but its worth pointing out some of their quality control issues...


Foma400Jan13-2008 by steveo_mcg, on Flickr

These scratches extend only partially on to the next frame, the rest of the roll is fine...

The shot is massively underexposed as I forgot to adjust the shutter speed before hitting the go button.
Click to expand...

I've used fomapan 400 through several different cameras and tbh I do not like the results from it.

Shame as the 100 iso classic film is pretty good imo for a "cheap" 120 film.

I notice there is a 200 iso available too but given the dissapointment i had with the 400, I'm reluctant to try it.
 
The grain looks really harsh on that shot for fomapan 400, what are you developing with?
I've got some good results with foma 400, but I prefer tri-x.
Foma 400 in Xtol 3-1
8346513864_29f5d554b5_z.jpg
[/url] Gat the cat (Again) by Marvin d martian100, on Flickr[/IMG]
and again
8362295208_db2e167204_z.jpg
[/url] NP5357 by Marvin d martian100, on Flickr[/IMG]
Not had much of an issue with QC on the 120 film, but did have a bad batch of 4x5 full of pin holes and scratches

Mart
 
steveo_mcg said:
I'm starting to like the grain in Fomapan 400 (in 120 anyway) but its worth pointing out some of their quality control issues...

These scratches extend only partially on to the next frame, the rest of the roll is fine...

The shot is massively underexposed as I forgot to adjust the shutter speed before hitting the go button.
Click to expand...

Ouch! - As an economy measure I bought a roll of 35mm Fomapan 400 and loaded it into my everyday camera yesterday. I saw your post, took it out again and reloaded it with Tri-X.
 
Last edited:
NickT said:
Ouch! - As an economy measure I bought a roll of 35mm Fomapan 400 and loaded it into my everyday camera yesterday. I saw your post, took it out again and reloaded it with Tri-X.
Click to expand...

To be fair, out of the three rolls I've shot thats the only bit I've had any issue with. I'd say its fine for playing with but not reliable for tha shot of a lifetime.

Marvin d martian said:
The grain looks really harsh on that shot for fomapan 400, what are you developing with?
I've got some good results with foma 400, but I prefer tri-x.
Foma 400 in Xtol 3-1

Not had much of an issue with QC on the 120 film, but did have a bad batch of 4x5 full of pin holes and scratches

Mart
Click to expand...

The grain on that isn't really fair, its hugely under exposed. This one from the treasure hunt is much nicer.

2 - Red phone box by steveo_mcg, on Flickr

Asha said:
I've used fomapan 400 through several different cameras and tbh I do not like the results from it.

Shame as the 100 iso classic film is pretty good imo for a "cheap" 120 film.

I notice there is a 200 iso available too but given the dissapointment i had with the 400, I'm reluctant to try it.
Click to expand...

Going to try the 200 next, I quite like GP3 for a test film and I got some FP4 cheap on ebay so I've currently go 100 iso coming out my ears!
 
steveo_mcg said:
Going to try the 200 next, I quite like GP3 for a test film and I got some FP4 cheap on ebay so I've currently go 100 iso coming out my ears!
Click to expand...

The 200 doesn't quite reach the box speed - expose it at 160 or 125 for best results with the standard developing times.
 
There was a Benici Comet, Italian, made in the 1950's but i don't know about the folder.

It does seem to produce nice shots though.

Andy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top