Show us yer film shots then!

I'm guessing with sunlight, ISO400 and a max speed of 1/500s, there wasn't much choice.
 
Yep, I was at 1/500th and f/11 at some points during the shoot, I know Portra can handle the overexposure but I wasn't sure how well my V500 handles dense negs. The sides will probably be cropped for print plus I haven't done much masking for the final image. Definitely need to get a BIII adapter + some NDs for it!

EDIT: As an aside, this was Portra 400 converted to B/W in post, I usually don't go for the blurry look but there's something about this shot I like
F6DL4gN.jpg
 
Last edited:
FruitFlakes said:
Yep, I was at 1/500th and f/11 at some points during the shoot, I know Portra can handle the overexposure but I wasn't sure how well my V500 handles dense negs. The sides will probably be cropped for print plus I haven't done much masking for the final image. Definitely need to get a BIII adapter + some NDs for it!

EDIT: As an aside, this was Portra 400 converted to B/W in post, I usually don't go for the blurry look but there's something about this shot I like
F6DL4gN.jpg
Click to expand...

wow...love it.

That could be a Bridgette Bardot shoot from the 60s.... beautiful
 
The blur just makes it look soft, which gives it a very warm feeling - I think I like the second shot more than the first personally!
 
It does look like a 60's fashion shot! Really lovely and flattering look.

Love it!
 
Hasselblad 500C/M, Provia 400X

I see the appeal of slide film but the difficulty in getting accurate exposures in the rolls of slide that I have shot so far put me off it (Velvia aside, I feel like digital has more latitude for certain things). And Portra works superbly for portraiture anyway.

 
And something a world away from a 6x6 medium format SLR, here's one from a Lomography Sprocket Rocket (it's a panoramic 35mm camera):

 
freecom2 said:
Hasselblad 500C/M, Provia 400X

I see the appeal of slide film but the difficulty in getting accurate exposures in the rolls of slide that I have shot so far put me off it (Velvia aside, I feel like digital has more latitude for certain things). And Portra works superbly for portraiture anyway.

Click to expand...

This is certainly better than the portraits I was getting out of Provia. Although some of my difficulties could be exposure-related, the biggest problem for me with Provia 400X, or any slide film for that matter, is the scanning.

I don't seem to have any problems with Portra or Ektar, so I've sold most of the slide film that I was in my fridge and have decided to primarily shoot the two Kodak films as I have much better success scanning them.
 
mothdust said:
Nice, I really like the Sprocket Rocket shot!
Click to expand...

Thanks! The shots are a bit hit and miss and I do wish they were a bit sharper, but it's just about the cheapest way you can get into 35mm panoramic photography.

skysh4rk said:
This is certainly better than the portraits I was getting out of Provia. Although some of my difficulties could be exposure-related, the biggest problem for me with Provia 400X, or any slide film for that matter, is the scanning.

I don't seem to have any problems with Portra or Ektar, so I've sold most of the slide film that I was in my fridge and have decided to primarily shoot the two Kodak films as I have much better success scanning them.
Click to expand...

I checked the highlights and there was a surprising amount of detail in the shadows, although nothing in comparison to what I could get out of negative film. But another shot on the roll had the highlights blown (bad light meter technique) so slide is a bit of a difficult beast to tame!
 
freecom2 said:
I checked the highlights and there was a surprising amount of detail in the shadows, although nothing in comparison to what I could get out of negative film. But another shot on the roll had the highlights blown (bad light meter technique) so slide is a bit of a difficult beast to tame!
Click to expand...

I've been having trouble with slide film as well, which I thought was due to poor metering. When I look at my slides, however, the highlights look good and there appears to be plenty of detail in the shadows; I just simply couldn't see any of these details in any of my scans.

After a bit of reading, I think that slide film is really pushing the capabilities of my scanner (the dmax is only 3.2 or so). It just seems to lose everything in the shadows no matter what I do, even if the detail is there in the original slide.

Oh well, that's what I get picking up an older Epson 4490 for £4. Having to stick to negative film is a small price to pay for paying a small price...


FruitFlakes said:
F6DL4gN.jpg
Click to expand...

I can't stop looking at this.
 
skysh4rk said:
After a bit of reading, I think that slide film is really pushing the capabilities of my scanner (the dmax is only 3.2 or so). It just seems to lose everything in the shadows no matter what I do, even if the detail is there in the original slide.

Oh well, that's what I get picking up an older Epson 4490 for £4. Having to stick to negative film is a small price to pay for paying a small price...
Click to expand...

For reference, that was scanned on an Epson 4180.
 
^^^^^^

That,s Nice for you. :)

#2 is a much better compostion, but I do like both shots, what camera and film etc.
 
Last edited:
freecom2 said:
The blur just makes it look soft, which gives it a very warm feeling - I think I like the second shot more than the first personally!
Click to expand...

desf said:
It does look like a 60's fashion shot! Really lovely and flattering look.

Love it!
Click to expand...

The Matt said:
I love that second one Fruitflakes. Very classy, lovely conversion.
Click to expand...

MindofMel said:
:clap:

love this.
Click to expand...

Threeracers said:
That is very nice.

Mark
Click to expand...

skysh4rk said:
I can't stop looking at this.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the kind words guys! Goes to show that sometimes the best work is done when you're up against the limit and fighting for light.

Steve said:
wow...love it.

That could be a Bridgette Bardot shoot from the 60s.... beautiful
Click to expand...

Yup, that was my immediate impression when I saw her in that dress (well apart from 'oh wow!', shame I didn't bring my Leica/other Rollei for her to pose with!
 
medwaygreen said:
^^^^^^

That,s Nice for you. :)

#2 is a much better compostion, but I do like both shots, what camera and film etc.
Click to expand...

Thanks Richard. Camera is a Minolta Dynax 9. The wet and windy Tuesday is FujiPro 400H and the sublime Wednesday is Portra400. I prefer the Wednesday composition too but didn't want to walk that far on Tuesday!

regards

Mark
 
freecom2 said:
For reference, that was scanned on an Epson 4180.
Click to expand...

I have been using the same workflow for my slides as I have for my negatives (linear scan in Vuescan with no adjustments and then using the film profiles in the colorperfect plugin in PS to correct colour). Although I really like how my negatives come out, perhaps I need to look into approaching my slide film scanning in a different way, as I what I'm doing currently is definitely not working.
 
One of my darkroom prints from this morning. Ilford Multigrade 9x11,1/4" paper set to grade 3.5. 35mm Fomapan 100 negative.

BF1CF937-778D-4A15-8BCD-51EBFF8A86C8-1841-000001205455C8CA_zps924d3637.jpg
 
Nice one Rob.

Brings back good memories of times spent in the darkroom. Sadly my enlarger is in the shed and I'm scared to get it out as it will probably be mouldy by now :(
 
Cheers Des

Whats the worst that can happen, the enlarger is no good, bin it and have some more space in the shed. Otherwise get it out and get some printing done :thumbs:
 
robhooley167 said:
One of my darkroom prints from this morning. Ilford Multigrade 9x11,1/4" paper set to grade 3.5. 35mm Fomapan 100 negative.
Click to expand...

Love it - it sums up so much about what we do (or used to do) for our love of photography. :thumbs:
 
picked up my negatives and long exposures did not came out good :(
 
robhooley167 said:
Cheers Des

Whats the worst that can happen, the enlarger is no good, bin it and have some more space in the shed. Otherwise get it out and get some printing done :thumbs:
Click to expand...

You're quite right of course. :)

In my defence, I'm mostly doing medium format stuff and the enlarger is a 35mm only Durst.

Still I should try it again, if only to show my kids some stone age technology. :)
 
Just one more from the Greenwich meet but from the following day.

Mamiya C330f, Mamiya Sekor 80mm on Kodak Ektar and converted in Topaz b&w

DLR3-b&w by andysnapper1, on Flickr

Cheers

Andy
 
skysh4rk said:
I have been using the same workflow for my slides as I have for my negatives (linear scan in Vuescan with no adjustments and then using the film profiles in the colorperfect plugin in PS to correct colour). Although I really like how my negatives come out, perhaps I need to look into approaching my slide film scanning in a different way, as I what I'm doing currently is definitely not working.
Click to expand...

Why do colour correction separately for transparencies? I can see the point wiht negatives, because of the varying colour bases. But transparencies are all expected to be projected with the same colour. So why not just do them in Vuescan?
 
ChrisR said:
Why do colour correction separately for transparencies? I can see the point wiht negatives, because of the varying colour bases. But transparencies are all expected to be projected with the same colour. So why not just do them in Vuescan?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't know. This process worked so well for negatives that I just kept on doing the same thing for slides without thinking, but it would seem that this probably isn't the way forward.

I'll fiddle around with Vuescan over the next week or so to see what I can get out of it.
 
ChrisR said:
Why do colour correction separately for transparencies? I can see the point wiht negatives, because of the varying colour bases. But transparencies are all expected to be projected with the same colour. So why not just do them in Vuescan?
Click to expand...

Most likely because unless you've calibrated the scanner using an IT8.7 target then the scan will look probably nothing near the original slide without doing significant PP work to get the colours right (especially the saturation if your using Velvia).
 
I have just started a Kodak Box Brownie project. I bought a Box Brownie circa 1955 last year for £1.50. I then bought a secondhand scanner for £10.00. The idea is to show that good photography can be both fun and inexpensive. All I pay for is the cost of film.

The camera has no aperture control, no shutter speed control, and no focus control. My pictures are in the hands of George Eastman.

As the project builds I hope to make a short film to show how the shots are taken.

Anyway hope you enjoy these two from the first proper roll of film I put through the camera. And you can see more of my images on my website or Facebook page

ed4.jpg


fishing41.jpg
 
Both brilliant, really impressed.

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