Show us yer film shots then!

Jammy Dodger said:
Not sure what the trend is in scanning the film edges along with the image is but IMO it looks awful; sorry
Click to expand...
I see what you are saying.
I'm not a big fan of cropping and whilst my compositions in the main are amateur, I do like people to see the whole picture as I did.
Also I can tell what type of and to some extent the size of film that was in the camera without having to find the original
 
soupdragon said:
I'm not a big fan of cropping...
Click to expand...
I think that there are two distinct groups when it comes to that.

One group, like yourself, feel that they should show everything the camera saw. The other group, to which I belong, think they should show what they saw, even if they have to crop down to a small part of the negative to do so.

In my opinion, both groups are entirely correct.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
I think that there are two distinct groups when it comes to that.

One group, like yourself, feel that they should show everything the camera saw. The other group, to which I belong, think they should show what they saw, even if they have to crop down to a small part of the negative to do so.

In my opinion, both groups are entirely correct.
Click to expand...
I think you're right.
The only time I ever crop though is when I've had a light leak or a mishap somewhere along the way but the essence of the image can be salvaged.
That said, I still scan the entire frame and borders before adjustments.
 
soupdragon said:
I see what you are saying.
I'm not a big fan of cropping and whilst my compositions in the main are amateur, I do like people to see the whole picture as I did.
Also I can tell what type of and to some extent the size of film that was in the camera without having to find the original
Click to expand...

Removing the film rebate isn't cropping though IMO, the camera 'never saw this' as part of the image hence its mainly black; I just find it so distracting from the image itself; again sorry.
 
soupdragon said:
I do like the first one.
Not that the others are bad rather (for me) #1 stands out from the crowd. If that makes any sense?
Click to expand...
I like the first very much as well.
 
Jammy Dodger said:
Removing the film rebate isn't cropping though IMO, the camera 'never saw this' as part of the image hence its mainly black; I just find it so distracting from the image itself; again sorry.
Click to expand...
That is true but without being able to see the rebate nobody can tell if it's a crop or not.
 
Couple from a roll of 120 size 2002 dated Fuji ASTIA 100 in my 2002 Hasselblad 501CM and home-processed in E6 kit -- this time the trannies came out all 'dark' so I scanned as 'TIFFS' as i had to do a lot of work in FastStone Image Viewer to get better results as JPegs to show.
2023-11-09-0006.jpg2023-11-09-0007.jpg2023-11-09-0008.jpg2023-11-09-0009.jpg2023-11-09-0011.jpg
 
I remember seeing magazines by Peter GOWLAND of USA -- all Glamour Girls taken by Swimming Pools on ROLLEIFLEX and Kodak VERICHROME PAN film then he invented a TLR 4x5" GowlandFlex Camera !
 
I think he invented the Gowlandflex so he could take outdoor glamour shots without needing a tripod. I guess that the magazines preferred 5x4 transparencies. The camera itself is use and pretty heavy so it must have been hard work carting it around and shooting with it.
 
PeterSpencer said:
I think he invented the Gowlandflex so he could take outdoor glamour shots without needing a tripod. I guess that the magazines preferred 5x4 transparencies. The camera itself is use and pretty heavy so it must have been hard work carting it around and shooting with it.
Click to expand...

He used to photograph Playboy centre folds as well - and as Playboy in those days mandated 10x8 transparencies for the centrefolds, as as Mr Gowland wanted extra certainty of focus (if the models moved while he inserted the film holder etc.) and to avoid the blinkies he went on to make a 10x8 Gowlandflex TLR. It stood 3 feet high, and although I have seen (and downloaded) a photograph of it, I can't recall if it had the lugs for a neckstrap. (The reasons I just gave for its creation I have read somewhere, but can't recall where. He may just have preferred to use a TLR...). From memory, 6 were made.

Mr CAD had a 5x4 version on sale recently. It would have made a talking point in any living room...
 
Late afternoon by the beach huts

Olympus OM2n / OM Zuiko 35mm f/2.8 / Ektar 100 / raw linear scanned negative, inverted in Nikonscan 4.0.3

I really think that in some settings Ektar is the C41 negative available today that more closely resembles Kodachrome 64 (I might actually have read somewhere that this was Kodak's actual aim when launching it)
0B19jXk.jpg
 
My first ever paper negative.

Kodak 1A autographic sat on my Velux window looking out. 3 second exposure on expired Ilford MGIV paper (the postcard version). Developed in Ilford Multigrade developer. Some marks that look like maybe drying marks but I don't care :) This is straight out of the scanner (other than inverted in AF2).

Paper Negative 1 Kodak 1A.jpg
 
Preparing to take a wet plate photograph. Horizon 202, Kentmere 400 pushed two stops.

1878_Horizon_Tony studio_ Trackside_Rivington_017.jpg

And the photographer himself.

1878_Horizon_Tony studio_ Trackside_Rivington_020.jpg

Fabulous studio, by the way. The darkroom is in the next room.

Not sure what make the camera is, maybe Hunter Penrose, but it is sporting a Dallmeyer 3B (I think) vintage lens.

Here is a tintype photo of me taken on the same day.

1700401475006.jpeg
 
That kentmere stands up to a 2-stop push pretty well, doesn't it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top