Show us yer film shots then!

I decided to put together a mini-project of images shot in and around the back alleys and entries of Port Sunlight where I work. The village was build 125 years ago by Lord Leverhulme to house the workers from his factory and has changed very little since then. The entire village is listed along with the main Unilever site/factory where I work. I was trying to capture the textures and feel of the village hence shooting them all on B&W film. I haven't shot XP2 Super in 35mm before so wasn't sure what to expect but I'm happy with the results after a bit of work.

There are more in my Flickr album here

1) Tunnel vision

Backstreets and alleyways by Steve Lloyd, on Flickr

2) I'm going in

Backstreets and alleyways by Steve Lloyd, on Flickr

3) Number 22

Backstreets and alleyways by Steve Lloyd, on Flickr

4) Park Rd

Backstreets and alleyways by Steve Lloyd, on Flickr

5) Broken gate

Backstreets and alleyways by Steve Lloyd, on Flickr

The light leaks on the first and last were the result of me opening the bottom of the Fed mid-roll to clear a blockage. I kept these images because I don't think the leak detracts too much.

Cheers
 
Last edited:
Port Sunlight? I want to go back there and re-shoot the War Memorial, they look good and your right the light leak kind of adds something to the images.
 
Knikki said:
Port Sunlight? I want to go back there and re-shoot the War Memorial, they look good and your right the light leak kind of adds something to the images.
Click to expand...

Thanks and yes, Port Sunlight is a real mix of architecture so there's lots to shoot. It's my general go-to location for trying out new cameras on my lunch break.
 
dead elephant ??

its a picassoesque face

lips, nostrils, teeth....the works

positively no effelants
 
Recently got a batch developed by Peak, thought I'd share some of my favourites:

b4JlmCC.jpg


ns6OFJO.jpg


Ae3CdVB.jpg


2YTutFj.jpg


35mm shots were TriX/FP4 + Leica M4 and 35mm UC-Hexanon, the 6x6 were shot on my trusty Rolleiflex 2.8F (with a new to me prism finder).
 
Last edited:
Another astounding turn around by Filmdev. Annoyingly I screwed up the film loading a bit on the first roll of film through the Fuji. Light leaks a plenty as it didn't wind itself tightly around the spool. Metering isn't brilliant on it either. Seems to fall foul of all the common mistakes. I wish I could get a minolta dynax 9 in 120. It'd be the danglies.

Fuji GA645i by Suzy Richards, on Flickr

I will have to remember to use exposure comp for back lit situations in future.

Minolta AFS thingy with expired film was hit and miss in the same way. Will try it with a fresh film at some point as it was a bit grainy. Thankfully not all warped like the prod 20 though.

Now got another AFS to try, an olympus something, the minolta Hi matic (if I can work out why the viewfinder doesn't help with focussing) and the vivitar :)

Minolta AFS compact - old film by Suzy Richards, on Flickr
 
srichards said:
Annoyingly I screwed up the film loading a bit on the first roll of film through the Fuji. Light leaks a plenty as it didn't wind itself tightly around the spool. Metering isn't brilliant on it either. S
Fuji GA645i by Suzy Richards, on Flickr
Click to expand...

I have a Fuji GA645Zi and had film loading problems once or twice - but searching online others recommended applying light pressure with a finger on the film spool while the leader is being wound on. Surprised by the metering problem as my GA645Zi gives the most consistently accurate metering of any camera I have used and matches very closely to a spot meter.
 
Kevin Allan said:
I have a Fuji GA645Zi and had film loading problems once or twice - but searching online others recommended applying light pressure with a finger on the film spool while the leader is being wound on. Surprised by the metering problem as my GA645Zi gives the most consistently accurate metering of any camera I have used and matches very closely to a spot meter.
Click to expand...

I did the holding the film down gently so the slack was taken up better with the second film. It does recommend that in the user manual I think. You have to wind it on the right number of turns as well. It seems a bit of an art compared to shove in film. Shut back and let the motorwind work it out :)

I didn't have the lens hood on so maybe it's better when you use that?
 
So, I've got a bit of a question about this photo... Why the hell do all of my shots so far have a sky that looks like the apocalypse is occuring?
Usually its been visible most on rollei retro films, but this is some shanghai gp3... Only real constant is that I stand dev'd them all.

gp3100bessa002 by Madison S, on Flickr

Also, I seem to like photographing benches...
gp3100bessa003 by Madison S, on Flickr
 
VirtualAdept said:
So, I've got a bit of a question about this photo... Why the hell do all of my shots so far have a sky that looks like the apocalypse is occuring?
Usually its been visible most on rollei retro films, but this is some shanghai gp3... Only real constant is that I stand dev'd them all.

gp3100bessa002 by Madison S, on Flickr
Click to expand...

I'd be wondering if it wasn't air bubbles on the film causing an inferior contact between developer and emulsion.

However it's most likely to be due to something completey different so if you choose to ignore my input, then that fine:D
 
Asha said:
I'd be wondering if it wasn't air bubbles on the film causing an inferior contact between developer and emulsion.

However it's most likely to be due to something completey different so if you choose to ignore my input, then that fine:D
Click to expand...
I might start another thread so as not to disrupt this one with more examples
 
srichards said:
Another astounding turn around by Filmdev. Annoyingly I screwed up the film loading a bit on the first roll of film through the Fuji. Light leaks a plenty as it didn't wind itself tightly around the spool. Metering isn't brilliant on it either. Seems to fall foul of all the common mistakes.
Click to expand...

Assuming that your camera is working as it should (which you cannot assume, unfortunately, with these Fuji cameras in my experience), one point to remember is that the metering isn't through the lens (if I recall correctly anyway). As such, you will need to watch for any light that may hit the meter but isn't coming through the lens, or for your objects blocking the meter when handling the camera (e.g., hands or hood). I think that the meter is to the right of the lens and below the viewfinder, although I could be misremembering.
 
Kevin Allan said:
35mm Velvia converted to mono in Lightroom:


Loch Coruisk by Kevin Allan, on Flickr
Click to expand...

As I'm presently making a return to shooting solely monochrome film photography, the one area that I'm indecisive about is with LF, in particular landscapes.

When i see results such as those of Ansel Adams and the scene that you have captured in this shot Kevin, I don't need much convincing that colour is not necessary to capture the beautiful scenes that nature offers us.
 
...but didn't Adams (and many pros) did alterations in the darkroom, it's easier now with Photoshop.
 
excalibur2 said:
...but didn't Adams (and many pros) did alterations in the darkroom, it's easier now with Photoshop.
Click to expand...

I sometimes manipulate developing to get what I want from a negative (exposure/contrast wise)

I do believe that Adams did manipulate his results in the darkroom, both the neg and the print.....unfortuanatly, having no darkroom, I cannot do as he did, so resort to photoshop.......easier possibly but not as satisfying.
 
Surely the fact that darkroom printing techniques were the forerunner to Photoshop means that using the digital equivalent isn't really anything new? Getting your final result to look like the photograph you imagined is the priority rather than how you got there.
 
Last edited:
stevelmx5 said:
Surely the fact that darkroom printing techniques where the forerunner to Photoshop means that using the digital equivalent isn't really anything new? Getting your final final result to look like the photograph you imagined is the priority rather than how you got there.
Click to expand...

That surely, is entering the realms of whether for a particular person the journey or the destination is what's most important - a thread I recall from a while ago. If your interest is solely in film and darkroom then PhotoShop would be a non-starter. If you're more concerned about the end result, then film or digital is irrelevant, except insofar as one might make the results easier to achieve (which is my reason for using film).
 
I disagree. Photography is an end to end process. Whilst I enjoy the use of film for the mechanical nature and slower approach, I will still edit my digital scans to get the results I want. I never understand the 'purity' argument with some analogue photographers. Unless you're only ever projecting your slides, everyone edits in one way or another.

Using Ansel Adams as an example, having seen some examples of the darkroom work that went into some of his most famous landscape photographs, it's hard to use the 'purity' argument.
 
stevelmx5 said:
I disagree.
Click to expand...

If this post was a result of mine just above it, I honestly can't see what you were disagreeing with! There was absolutely nothing it it relevant to a discussion of "purity" of process except insofar as I was commenting that some people regard the journey as more important than the destination which is surely self evident from many posts and threads here; and in passing, even slides can be (and were) manipulated.

As this isn't relevant here, I'll pass on reverting to it.
 
Whoops, my reply to Brians comment about making alterations in photoshop being easier than darkroom techniques seems to have sparked off a debate....sorry!:sorry:

I agree that the end result is, for most people, the goal that one is heading for, wether that be to display on a screen, or as in my case to print.
To anyone unbeknowing, when they see those results, they pretty much have no idea, nor do they care wether they originally stemmed from film or digital, nor what PP process they received.....If the resulting photograph is pleasing to the individual then those factors are irrelevant.
As a hobby / pastsime, the whole point for me is to enjoy what I'm doing.
If it was just a matter of obtaining the end result then it would be as if I was doing photography as a job as against doing it for self pleasure.

However as an amature tog, who enjoys the, for want of a better word, analogue processes of film, the journey as StehenM states, is an important aspect.

I have mentioned in previous posts, on numerous occasions how PP for me of any given scanned negative rarely exceeds 10 minutes simply as sitting in front of a computer screen clicking a mouse etc offers me a similar satisfaction to what shooting digital does.......Very little!!

I will, and I do shoot digital but I have yet to feel the same amount of satisfaction from the process involved in obtaining any given photograph.

Once the photo is printed however, depending upon the content / subject matter, it may please me enormously, possibly more so than some of my film shots nonetheless I often wish that I had captured the scene on film.........in the same way, I wish I had access to a darkroom to for wet printing as opposed o using PS and an inkjet printer........................Simply because, for me , these methods are more enjoyable.
 
Asha said:
Whoops, my reply to Brians comment about making alterations in photoshop being easier than darkroom techniques seems to have sparked off a debate....sorry!:sorry:
Click to expand...

Well my post was a bit misinterpreted in that I mentioned Adams and Pros in that it is the end result that is most important... just think all the hundreds or thousands of shots we have all taken and thought ugh...maybe a talented person could see something in some of them, maybe crop and alter in the darkroom or Photoshop and get a great picture. So the lucky guys have the eye for the initial shot and also have the talent to alter it to something even better....which IMO is the difference between the well known photographers and the masses who rely on a bit of luck where everything works out for them in one or two shots.
 
I'm too hardcore to comment really....:ROFLMAO:

I don't think its fair to impose in comment, idealistic views on peeps that just want to take pictures and display them digitally.
Film and digital just don't meet in any kind of satisfactory way, but to participate they have to, so peeps do that the best/only way they can.
However, there's no getting away from the work ethic and value that is inherent in the investment of effort.
I'd rather not know what has been done to a film scanned image in photoshop, plenty of effort has been invested compared to digital simply by choosing to shoot film, that's good enough for me, to be disappointed by revelations of major digital scan surgery serves no purpose other than to disappoint, and that's a really negative path to go down.
Personal views can't come in to it, digital is the way of the World and the platform we are forced to use, so all bets are off...:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top