Show us yer film shots then!

Yesterday I finally got round to using a 1950s Agilux Agifold Mk II folder which my father gave me some time ago. Some technical issues mean I probably won't use it again but I like to get at least one roll through each of my old cameras.


Steamed up by Kevin Allan, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Just to show that i do occasionally shoot a frame of LF :p

Very much still getting to grips with it all ( simply as I'm not getting out enough with the kit!)

Anyway, here's one effort which unfortuanetly shows some light leakage, shot on some ood fuji film, developed at home with tetenal chemistry, scanned with two passes on a Canon 8800F , then stitched in PSE 5.0

Pierra CaVa 4x5 TP.jpg
 
^^^^^^^

Shame about the light leaks,but, I do like the photograph shows great colour in the foreground. Congrats.
 
Asha said:
Just to show that i do occasionally shoot a frame of LF :p

Very much still getting to grips with it all ( simply as I'm not getting out enough with the kit!)

Anyway, here's one effort which unfortuanetly shows some light leakage, shot on some ood fuji film...
Click to expand...

It is a lovely pic, Asha. I can see two leaks, bottom left and right. Is there also a leak about half way up and a quarter across from the left (about where the two tree lines converge)?

BTW with leaks like that, can you see them on the focusing screen, or is it associated with the dark slide? (Complete LF noob, sorry.)
 
ChrisR said:
It is a lovely pic, Asha. I can see two leaks, bottom left and right. Is there also a leak about half way up and a quarter across from the left (about where the two tree lines converge)?

BTW with leaks like that, can you see them on the focusing screen, or is it associated with the dark slide? (Complete LF noob, sorry.)
Click to expand...

medwaygreen said:
^^^^^^^

Shame about the light leaks,but, I do like the photograph shows great colour in the foreground. Congrats.
Click to expand...

Thanks guys (y)

@ChrisR Yes the two leaks coming in from the bottom are the ones I was aware of.

The other one about half way up, I hadn't noticed .:banghead:

Yes, the leaks are dark slide / film holder related .....Be assured with the cost of LF film, if it was possible to see light entry on the ground glass / focusing screen then I wouldn't trip the shutter;)

The bottom of the photo will have been exposed onto the "top" of the film /holder ( as it was shot in portrait orientaion).........the end in which the darkslide is removed prior to firing the shutter.

The opening is protected from light entry by felt but it seems that it has failed in its duty.:(

I hope the leak half way up the frame isn't from another area ( bellows etc):runaway:......only trying some frames with other filmholders is going to answer that!
 
Get into a dark room and put a torch inside the bellows before re-attaching the suspect DDS. You should be able to seek light through any gaps and when you remove the dark slide.
 
Another safe for work shot from my shoot with Mia. I have a shoot scheduled with a model tomorrow whom I have worked with previously so hopefully will have something new to share in a couple of week. :)

I should still put the full set of these somewhere though including the not so safe for work/children.

Portra 400 this time.

 
My development disaster is chronicled here - https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/t...-pics-one-day-ill-perfect-development.611285/

(short story: fixer failed, re-fixing worked but I managed to dust up the negatives something proper in the process)

A few salvaged that I liked, though.

Praktika MTL5, Helios 44-2, TMax 400. Cafe in Barry

img2016105-1.jpg

Praktika MTL5, Carl Zeiss Jena 50mm, TMax 400. Greenwich.

img2016108-1.jpg

Praktika MTL5, Carl Zeiss Jena 50mm, TMax 400. Cutty Sark.

img2016095-1.jpg
 
So I shot a couple of frames with and without a red filter for a comparison.
My souping went all to hell, the lines and grain on these two are on the negs but it was a roll of proper ancient delta 400, still....they serve a purpose..:)


2n0kayb.jpg


2n9yh39.jpg
 
Some Large Format shots. A few taken locally where there has been some flooding.

Wista Field 45 wth Nikon 180mm lens.

Ektar 100
Gate1 by Andy, on Flickr

Gate2 by Andy, on Flickr

Portra 160NS
Stranded-tree by Andy, on Flickr

DOF at f8 is pretty thin.
Stranded-tree2 by Andy, on Flickr

Cheers

Andy
 
Nope, the problem is with my eyes, stupid colour-blindness.

I love shooting in colour but when I scan them in they always have problems. Ant suggestions as to a corrective action with these?

Ta
 
Andysnap said:
Nope, the problem is with my eyes, stupid colour-blindness.

I love shooting in colour but when I scan them in they always have problems. Ant suggestions as to a corrective action with these?

Ta
Click to expand...


Use the eye dropper on the clouds and see how that looks.
 
Last edited:
Colourblindness strikes again, I'm afraid, Andy. Very cyan, all four.

Edit: posts that crossed in the night.
 
Bloody cyan... I don't even know if I could say what area cyan falls in....:D
 
skysh4rk said:
Want to see what grossly overexposed film looks like? I did some experimental daytime long exposures (30–60 seconds or so) without any filters and ended up with these:


Click to expand...

I really like these, but I wouldn't fancy trying to scan or print them myself. I bet the scanning op at the lab was really pee'd off with you that day! ;)

Could you share what the exposure should have been vs the exposure you used? My back-of-the-envelope calculation says you may have given these 2000 to 4000 times the normal exposure...And there's still detail in the sky!
 
skysh4rk said:
Want to see what grossly overexposed film looks like? I did some experimental daytime long exposures (30–60 seconds or so) without any filters and ended up with these...
Click to expand...

Really interesting. The first one really works, in a sort of horror story way. The second, to my eyes has a real conflict between the normality of the scene and the oddity of the colour. The wavy background colour effects are also interesting; not sure what it is, maybe slight variations in the coating?

Did you ask them to pull the processing at all?

@FujiLove, if that's 2000 to 4000 times normal exposure, that would be 11 or 12 stops if my maths is about right. At first I thought you could knock 3 stops off that for reciprocity failure, but then I realised that's for low light, and this clearly isn't. D'oh!
 
skysh4rk said:
Want to see what grossly overexposed film looks like? I did some experimental daytime long exposures (30–60 seconds or so) without any filters and ended up with these:


Click to expand...


If anyone needs proof that some serious overexposure errors can be made and still produce a "usable" image, then here it is.

Iirc we had a thread covering this topic a little while ago and it did cause some debate.

I too have well overexposed film, particularly C41 and had results that were still passable.

Sometimes we ( myself included) can get so hooked up over correct exposure, it sort of becomes obsessional.....Under exposure will leave you with no detail so if you're unsure if the camera is metering correctly or if you have no meter then open up a a stop or twelve!! lol and get a result!
 
FujiLove said:
I really like these, but I wouldn't fancy trying to scan or print them myself. I bet the scanning op at the lab was really pee'd off with you that day! ;)

Could you share what the exposure should have been vs the exposure you used? My back-of-the-envelope calculation says you may have given these 2000 to 4000 times the normal exposure...And there's still detail in the sky!
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm sure that these frames were very dense. By my estimation, these photographs are about 11–12 stops overexposed. I did shoot a normal frame similar to the first photo, at only two stops over, and the exposure was f/16 at 1/45, compared to f/16 and 30 seconds for the original:



ChrisR said:
Really interesting. The first one really works, in a sort of horror story way. The second, to my eyes has a real conflict between the normality of the scene and the oddity of the colour. The wavy background colour effects are also interesting; not sure what it is, maybe slight variations in the coating?

Did you ask them to pull the processing at all?

@FujiLove, if that's 2000 to 4000 times normal exposure, that would be 11 or 12 stops if my maths is about right. At first I thought you could knock 3 stops off that for reciprocity failure, but then I realised that's for low light, and this clearly isn't. D'oh!
Click to expand...

I think the first one works really well as the effects of the overexposure suit the spooky trees. I probably should have just used an ND filter for the second one though.

These were both processed normally, as I had more normal shots on the roll and I've never bothered to pull colour negative anyway.
 
Last edited:
Asha said:
If anyone needs proof that some serious overexposure errors can be made and still produce a "usable" image, then here it is.

Iirc we had a thread covering this topic a little while ago and it did cause some debate.

I too have well overexposed film, particularly C41 and had results that were still passable.

Sometimes we ( myself included) can get so hooked up over correct exposure, it sort of becomes obsessional.....Under exposure will leave you with no detail so if you're unsure if the camera is metering correctly or if you have no meter then open up a a stop or twelve!! lol and get a result!
Click to expand...

Yeah, there is a lot of tolerance for overexposure. Sometimes I don't even bother to meter, especially if I'm working from a tripod. My photographs above show that there are limits though and you'd probably be even more constrained if you were shooting for clients, publication, etc. and required the absolutely highest quality. I'm just shooting for fun, however, so some loss of detail doesn't really bother me.

To be fair, I thought that the photographs above might actually turn out looking pretty normal, as I'd recently shot some daytime long exposures up to nearly two minutes that looked good, although I did use slightly slower film, a polarising filter, and a two-stop ND, as in the photograph below:

Roll 423 (6 of 12).jpg
 
Last edited:
Yes I quoted on that ^^^shot when you first posted it
...it's a corker(y)

Keep shooting the way you do RJ, you post some excellent shots.....wether they be at box speed or a miilion stops over!:D
 
Asha said:
Yes I quoted on that ^^^shot when you first posted it
...it's a corker(y)

Keep shooting the way you do RJ, you post some excellent shots.....wether they be at box speed or a miilion stops over!:D
Click to expand...

Yep, thanks.

It is actually a slightly different shot, although framing is largely the same. The one I originally posted earlier in this thread was about a 20-sec exposure, whereas this was closer to 120 seconds at the same aperture. The downside of the long exposure times in this case was that I made the water look like a serene lake when it was, in fact, a quick moving river rumbling through the town park.
 
skysh4rk said:
Yeah, I'm sure that these frames were very dense. By my estimation, these photographs are about 11–12 stops overexposed. I did shoot a normal frame similar to the first photo, at only two stops over, and the exposure was f/16 at 1/45, compared to f/16 and 30 seconds for the original:





I think the first one works really well as the effects of the overexposure suit the spooky trees. I probably should have just used an ND filter for the second one though.

These were both processed normally, as I had more normal shots on the roll and I've never bothered to pull colour negative anyway.
Click to expand...

Oh man, the colours in that are awesome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top