Show us yer film shots then!

auntiemaryscanary said:
Nothing against your composition or photography skills but I don't particularly like the Phoenix as a film. I appreciate what they've done to the get film this far but the look and colours aren't for me.
Click to expand...
I agree in general. But if you were photographing vintage cars or a village fete then the 70's Ektachrome look could add something.
 
Three more from the Zeiss Contarex 'Bullseye' cameras.


019 St-Savinien CR2 135S f8 125 WEB.jpg


0034 Saint-Savinien CR2 f11 60th WEB.jpg

Cx Bee on Flower Web.jpg
 
auntiemaryscanary said:
Nothing against your composition or photography skills but I don't particularly like the Phoenix as a film. I appreciate what they've done to the get film this far but the look and colours aren't for me.
Click to expand...

No offence taken. It's a perfectly valid criticism. Quite why they've taken this route I'm not sure. It's not going to be to everyone's taste by any means. I'm not sure it's too mine, to be honest. I was photographing things to highlight the tendencies of the film more than anything. I think we should look on it as having a particular look that might be fun for some applications.
 
Plain Nev said:
No offence taken. It's a perfectly valid criticism. Quite why they've taken this route I'm not sure. It's not going to be to everyone's taste by any means. I'm not sure it's too mine, to be honest. I was photographing things to highlight the tendencies of the film more than anything. I think we should look on it as having a particular look that might be fun for some applications.
Click to expand...
I really liked the way it rendered the orange brick work in your pictures but as always so much of the look depends on the scan and how it has been processed to get the image files we can see here or as prints.
 
zx9 said:
I really liked the way it rendered the orange brick work in your pictures but as always so much of the look depends on the scan and how it has been processed to get the image files we can see here or as prints.
Click to expand...

It loves brickwork. Anything that tends towards the red.
 
Plain Nev said:
No offence taken. It's a perfectly valid criticism. Quite why they've taken this route I'm not sure. It's not going to be to everyone's taste by any means. I'm not sure it's too mine, to be honest. I was photographing things to highlight the tendencies of the film more than anything. I think we should look on it as having a particular look that might be fun for some applications.
Click to expand...
iirc Kyle McDougall got some pretty decent results with it, there'll be a video on his youtube. Rating it at 100 helps..

I bought a 3 pack when first come out, shot the first roll but not been motivated to use the others... yet. It's been around 6/7 months since it's release, it'll be interesting to see when they'll going to make the first update to it and what direction they'll take it.
 
benc98 said:
iirc Kyle McDougall got some pretty decent results with it, there'll be a video on his youtube. Rating it at 100 helps..

I bought a 3 pack when first come out, shot the first roll but not been motivated to use the others... yet. It's been around 6/7 months since it's release, it'll be interesting to see when they'll going to make the first update to it and what direction they'll take it.
Click to expand...
My first roll pf Phoenix 200 came out really well, and I wasn't sure what the issues were. OK, the colours were usually a bit... odd, but I'd have thought we're used to that by now (jus think about taking the same scene with Provia, Portra, Gold and some of the weird Lomography and other stuff). I was really happy with a few of the frames. The second roll... not so much. Several frames apparently under-exposed by multiple stops, some others very much over-exposed, lots of grain on some frames, and massive halation on at least one (all metered on my usually-reliable Pentax LX, though on manual rather than Aperture Priority, so I may have boobooed). I've got one roll left, I'll probably try using it with rather less bright sky in the images!

I'm really pleased they've made this, though, and hope Harman have had enough interest (and earned enough cash!) to keep this going with further iterations.
 
Had a nice walk down a different canal today. I took a small bag with a few plastic cameras in, to give each six to ten shots as a test.
The star of the day is from a box of six P&S cameras I won on the auction site, a super simple, light, uninspiring "OPUS" generic type camera with a three stage aperture adjustment marked for 1000-400-100/200 ASA. With some 100 film (can't recall Fomapan of Kemtmere).

Very pleased with this, and my new scanning process (may have an issue with getting my digital camera parallel to the film).

SAM_3368.JPG
 
Another from my plastic fantastic. This is cropped, cutting out the out of focus corners, tops and sides.. (and bottom).
A cast iron post of some kind, around 5ft tall, almost in the middle of the car park next to the Huddersfield Narrow canal.

IronPost.jpg
 
Kevin Allan said:
Kodak No 3 Folding Pocket Brownie Model D, with Ilford FP4+ semi-stand developed in Bellini EuroHC.
The camera dates from around 1912-1914.


Effigy in St Mary's Church, Staindrop by Kevin Allan, on Flickr
Click to expand...
I've seen that close up in real life and the carving is astounding, with many realistic little details, such as where the thread has been pulled a little tight on the seams of the shroud (I have ancesters buried in that church yard).
 
zx9 said:
They look great for old 120 FP4, some of it seemed to get really bad fogging from the backing paper, something that I distantly remember Ilford acknowledged at the time.
Click to expand...

If you look closely at the bottom right side in the 2nd picture, first batch, you can just make out some bleed through from the paper.
 
angelpaaul said:
If you look closely at the bottom right side in the 2nd picture, first batch, you can just make out some bleed through from the paper.
Click to expand...
I missed that, I have some FP4+ dated 2010 ish that produces negatives that can best be described as 'foxed' to use a term applied to both mirrors and old books. I am too tight to throw them away but not really up to wasting my time using it just for the sake of using it, I guess it will stay in my film stash for ever.
 
zx9 said:
I missed that, I have some FP4+ dated 2010 ish that produces negatives that can best be described as 'foxed' to use a term applied to both mirrors and old books. I am too tight to throw them away but not really up to wasting my time using it just for the sake of using it, I guess it will stay in my film stash for ever.
Click to expand...
I’d use it anyway and call it an ‘antique’ look
 
  • Like
Reactions: zx9
Taken at night with an Ensign 2 1/4 B box camera circa 1923. HP5+, about 8sec at F11. Frankly I'm not too happy with it. I'm going to take the lens apart and clean it but the biggest issue was, I think, the fact I left the film in the camera for a couple of years which has caused some deterioration.



On the plus side it never was a high-quality camera with many being given away with magazine subscriptions or collecting tokens from cigarette packets. The fact it still kind of works and I have a recognisable image from an antique box camera is some kind of result.

SDIM9840 (1).jpg
 
ilikebowens said:
Taken at night with an Ensign 2 1/4 B box camera circa 1923.
Click to expand...
I think it's really impressive for a photo taken in 1923. :jawdrop:

Honestly, that's how I read this at first, then I thought, "no, they must mean it was taken at nearly 25 past 7 in the evening". Then I realised that made about as much sense and it struck me that it's the date of the camera. In my defence, I haven't had any coffee yet today and I'm an idiot. :oops: :$
 
FishyFish said:
Fujica GW690
Lomography Color Negative 400
Lab developed.
Home scanned and converted with Negative Lab Pro.


Invacar by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr
Click to expand...

I'm on a forum for rubbish cars. Half a dozen folks have these and mainly use them just for fun. However a young man with a disability has spent the last 3 years getting his back on the road (which wasn't that difficult) but he is finally getting it to run reliably. It's going to be his daily car, he lives in a tower block in inner city London. When it's pottling about I'll post a picture even though it won't be from film. He deserves a wider audience solely for his dogged determination.

PS @FishyFish do you mind if I send him this pic? (He's probably the leading expert on Invacars).
 
Last edited:
auntiemaryscanary said:
I'm on a forum for rubbish cars. Half a dozen folks have these and mainly use them just for fun. However a young man with a disability has spent the last 3 years getting his back on the road (which wasn't that difficult) but he is finally getting it to run reliably. It's going to be his daily car, he lives in a tower block in inner city London. When it's pottling about I'll post a picture even though it won't be from film. He deserves a wider audience solely for his dogged determination.

PS @FishyFish do you mind if I send him this pic? (He's probably the leading expert on Invacars).
Click to expand...

I remember them being quite a common sight when I was a kid in the 70s.

Yes, of course you can share the picture.

There are a few more (of a slightly more worse for wear model) here too: https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=10407404@N00&sort=date-taken-desc&text=invacar&view_all=1
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top