Show us yer film shots then!

Tell you what Will, I like that, lovely and sharp, lots of tones and textures and well composed too. Some details on camera, lens, film etc would be nice. (y)
 
^^^WHS^^^
 
Some of my very first film photos :)

A lot to learn, but I think it's going OK so far.

Outdoor shots would be with a Voigtlander Bessa R with a 50mm f2 Jupiter-8. Indoor shots with a Minolta X700 with a MD 50mm f1.7. Both using Ilford HP5+

Looking at the pictures, I can see where I went wrong (and where I did fine), so will put lessons learned into practice.

Ta,
Shane :)



Some of Milo (Miley-Moo-Moo) chillin' :)

00.jpg


01.jpg


03.jpg






Some of the local Cauldon Canal (Stoke on Trent)


04.jpg


05.jpg
 
Andysnap said:
Tell you what Will, I like that, lovely and sharp, lots of tones and textures and well composed too. Some details on camera, lens, film etc would be nice. (y)
Click to expand...

Thank you! :) It was shot on a Nikon F65, using Kodak BW400CN - the lens was the kit 28-100mm, I can't remember the settings, though!
 
Have to say that the more shots I see taken with the 28-80mm lens the more I like it. It has got a good rep for such a cheap lens.
 
Lovely dreamlike quality to those photos Lee - did you find the C41 developing at home to be much of a faff?
 
Andysnap said:
Have to say that the more shots I see taken with the 28-80mm lens the more I like it. It has got a good rep for such a cheap lens.
Click to expand...

It,s the plastic fantastic rated in the 10 top Nikon lens ever by some pro,s. I love using it. Buy it while you can still get it for under£60 for a good copy.
 
Last edited:
Solo man said:
Well, having progressed well with my black and white developing....I thought I'd try C41 home developing over the weekend....
A few images, taken with the F4(Agfa Vista 200)

12439970613_ce395d095f_b.jpg






12438184794_3bc70f99e7_b.jpg



12429363465_dd71820c99_b.jpg



12417209064_2cdfd693e4_b.jpg
Click to expand...

Very well done Lee. I've shy'd away from home C41. Not convinced I'd be able to scan without a significant and difficult colour cast.
Really liking #3. Love that dreamy effect.
 
Nice work there Shane, what kit and film did you use for these?

Andy
 
mothdust said:
Lovely dreamlike quality to those photos Lee - did you find the C41 developing at home to be much of a faff?
Click to expand...

Thanks Charlotte....
Was it a faff?..... no, not really.... other than keeping the liquid temperature consistent(and I know I didn't get it exact), then I pretty much winged it..... my agitations were inconsistent as well lol.... but the two rolls I did came out ok....
I aim to try E6 developing this weekend....
 
trevorbray said:
Very well done Lee. I've shy'd away from home C41. Not convinced I'd be able to scan without a significant and difficult colour cast.
Really liking #3. Love that dreamy effect.
Click to expand...
Thanks Trevor.....
The images have had very little processing...... they are all a straight scan from the negative.......no adjustments were made in scanner(all settings were set to off), just a small amount of contrast, saturation and sharpen on some of the images in Lightroom...the bottles image has had only a sharpen.....however number 3 is a cropped image( it was taken with a 50mm lens set at f1.8)
 
Cheers all :)

Andy,

The canal pictures were with a Voigtlander Bessa R with a Jupiter-8 f/2 50mm lens.

The cat (Milo) pictures were with a Minolta X700 with a Minolta MD f/1.7 50mm lens.

Both using Ilford HP5+ 400iso film.

:)
 
SlimShaney : you Cat photos needed MORE LIGHT on the face -- Milo was facing the wrong way for an 'available light' photo where he is washing face. In the one with the lamp next time you could always shine a desk lamp onto Milo or even a torch to get more light into the shadow side but the Silhouette on the face is good.
 
For several years I have been on a Cancer Patients' Charity Boat trip on the River Thames -- I take my Filipina Wife as a 'thank You' for looking after me -- we go on the MV 'Pocohontas' from Greenwich Pier and have a free lunch etc -- I usually take my 2002 bought Hasselblad 501CM outfit all with 'outdated Fillum' of course -- still trying to empty the 'fridge but not much impact at the moment ! Here are some results, all captioned up for your interest --
'Princendam' Cruise Ship, Tilbury, 50mm f4 CFi Distagon T*, Red filter, 1996 dated Ilford FP4 rated 80 ASA, processed in Home - Made Acutol -S


'Princendam' Cruise Ship. by pentaxpete, on Flickr
180mm f4 CFi Sonnar T*, 2002 dated AGFA Ultra 50 I was given, Home-Processed in C41.



Thames 18 by pentaxpete, on Flickr

Cleopatra's Needle, I think it was 80mm f2.8 CFE PLanar T*, 1996 Ilford FP4 in Home-made Acutol-S



Thames 8 by pentaxpete, on Flickr

The Monument Celebrating Great Fire of London, 180mm f4 CFi Sonnar T*, 2002 dated AGFA Ultra 50 ( A16 back )


Thames 12 by pentaxpete, on Flickr

That's enough for now ---
 
pentaxpete said:
For several years I have been on a Cancer Patients' Charity Boat trip on the River Thames -- I take my Filipina Wife as a 'thank You' for looking after me -- we go on the MV 'Pocohontas' from Greenwich Pier and have a free lunch etc -- I usually take my 2002 bought Hasselblad 501CM outfit all with 'outdated Fillum' of course -- still trying to empty the 'fridge but not much impact at the moment ! Here are some results, all captioned up for your interest --
'Princendam' Cruise Ship, Tilbury, 50mm f4 CFi Distagon T*, Red filter, 1996 dated Ilford FP4 rated 80 ASA, processed in Home - Made Acutol -S


'Princendam' Cruise Ship. by pentaxpete, on Flickr
180mm f4 CFi Sonnar T*, 2002 dated AGFA Ultra 50 I was given, Home-Processed in C41.



Thames 18 by pentaxpete, on Flickr

Cleopatra's Needle, I think it was 80mm f2.8 CFE PLanar T*, 1996 Ilford FP4 in Home-made Acutol-S



Thames 8 by pentaxpete, on Flickr

The Monument Celebrating Great Fire of London, 180mm f4 CFi Sonnar T*, 2002 dated AGFA Ultra 50 ( A16 back )


Thames 12 by pentaxpete, on Flickr

That's enough for now ---
Click to expand...

These are super images Peter....
 
cariadus said:
I kind of did it the wrong way round and did E6 first. I must admit, C41 seems a doddle after that!
Click to expand...

Yes... t'was definitely easier.... just waiting for my strips to dry to find out whether I cocked this lot up or not....
 
Last weekend my wife took me away for a surprise birthday treat. Well, it wasn't a surprise that it was my birthday (I knew that bit :) )and it wasn't a surprise that we were going away. The surprise was where we were going. I drove and she acted as satnav (or at least read out the instructions from the satnav) until we ended up at...Bickleigh Castle near Exeter. We had the bridal suite and practically had a whole wing of the castle to ourselves.

I took photos with various film cameras, but these are the first that I've developed, taken with a Pentax K1000 and Vivitar 28-200mm that a work colleague gave me a little while ago. Film was Agfa Vista 200 (aka Poundland film). This is only the second C41 film that I've processed myself, using the Tetenal C41 kit. I suppose using a camera/lens combo that was free, a film that cost £1 and processing at home doesn't come much cheaper as far as film photography goes!


Bickleigh Castle Silhouette by Cariadus, on Flickr


Bickleigh Castle, front view by Cariadus, on Flickr


Bickleigh Castle, side view by Cariadus, on Flickr


The River Exe in full spate by Cariadus, on Flickr


Flooded lane next to Bickleigh Castle, nr Exeter by Cariadus, on Flickr

I did have to do some colour correction in Elements on these, but I think that's more down to the scanning than the film itself or the processing. I nearly always have to do some correction after scanning colour negative film with the Epson V500.
 
Wow that is one nice birthday present! And some pretty good results, too. I've had troubles getting accurate colours when scanning Fuji C200 (the film inside the Vista cartridges), which is part of the reason why I use Photo Express for my C41; they do process and a 2000 dpi scan for £4.50 for TP members, and give very good results.
 
ChrisR said:
Wow that is one nice birthday present! And some pretty good results, too. I've had troubles getting accurate colours when scanning Fuji C200 (the film inside the Vista cartridges), which is part of the reason why I use Photo Express for my C41; they do process and a 2000 dpi scan for £4.50 for TP members, and give very good results.
Click to expand...

I seem to have trouble scanning any colour negative film with my V500, especially a blue cast, even with Portra. Rather than muck about with the scanner settings I find it quicker and easier to just do Auto Colour Correction in Elements. A bit of a cheat maybe but a pro lab would probably do auto colour correction anyway.
 
cariadus said:
Last weekend my wife took me away for a surprise birthday treat. Well, it wasn't a surprise that it was my birthday (I knew that bit :) )and it wasn't a surprise that we were going away. The surprise was where we were going. I drove and she acted as satnav (or at least read out the instructions from the satnav) until we ended up at...Bickleigh Castle near Exeter. We had the bridal suite and practically had a whole wing of the castle to ourselves.

I took photos with various film cameras, but these are the first that I've developed, taken with a Pentax K1000 and Vivitar 28-200mm that a work colleague gave me a little while ago. Film was Agfa Vista 200 (aka Poundland film). This is only the second C41 film that I've processed myself, using the Tetenal C41 kit. I suppose using a camera/lens combo that was free, a film that cost £1 and processing at home doesn't come much cheaper as far as film photography goes!


Bickleigh Castle Silhouette by Cariadus, on Flickr


Bickleigh Castle, front view by Cariadus, on Flickr


Bickleigh Castle, side view by Cariadus, on Flickr


The River Exe in full spate by Cariadus, on Flickr


Flooded lane next to Bickleigh Castle, nr Exeter by Cariadus, on Flickr

I did have to do some colour correction in Elements on these, but I think that's more down to the scanning than the film itself or the processing. I nearly always have to do some correction after scanning colour negative film with the Epson V500.
Click to expand...


#1 has a wonderful Grimshaw look about it,I like that very much.
 
Mr Bump said:
I like you pics @cariadus but I have to say the watermarks spoil it for me.
Click to expand...

Sorry about the watermarks. I post photos in various different places, Facebook, Tumblr, Flickr etc and they sometimes get shared/reblogged/whatever. With the UK's orphan images legislation I can't see how you can maintain ownership of your photos without watermarking. I was looking at a web page recently - I can't remember where, but it was one of those 20 best animal photos or 20 funniest photos, or something like that. All the photos were credited except for a couple that were listed as 'sorrry, this photo has been shared in so many different places we don't know where it came from so we don't know who to credit', or something along those lines. Under UK law as I understand it those photos would now come under the orphan photo legislation and the photographers would have no redress against anyone using the photos. If the photos had been watermarked there would not be a problem. I don't think for a minute that any of my photos are likely to go viral, but I would like to think that if by some miracle any of them did I would at least be credited and they would not fall into the orphan category.

I'm not looking to prevent people wilfully stealing the photos, otherwise I would put a watermark through the centre of the photo so it couldn't be cropped out. I'm not really seeking to make money out of photography so loss of earnings doesn't come into it as far as I'm concerned. All I seek to do is to try to ensure that if my photos are used on other people's web sites they are properly credited and that they don't fall into the trap of the orphan photo legislation.
 
cariadus said:
All the photos were credited except for a couple that were listed as 'sorrry, this photo has been shared in so many different places we don't know where it came from so we don't know who to credit', or something along those lines. Under UK law as I understand it those photos would now come under the orphan photo legislation and the photographers would have no redress against anyone using the photos.
Click to expand...

No, that's not right. Anyone seeking to use it under the orphaned work leglislation would have to buy a licence and show they undertook a diligent search to find the copyright holder. If the copyright holder then appears later, the (market rate) licence fee would be transferred to them.

Edit: see here http://www.ipo.gov.uk/hargreaves-orphanmyth.pdf
 
Last edited:
abdoujaparov said:
[quote="cariadus, post: 6108712, member: 33680] All the photos were credited except for a couple that were listed as 'sorrry, this photo has been shared in so many different places we don't know where it came from so we don't know who to credit', or something along those lines. Under UK law as I understand it those photos would now come under the orphan photo legislation and the photographers would have no redress against anyone using the photos.
Click to expand...

No, that's not right. Anyone seeking to use it under the orphaned work leglislation would have to buy a licence and show they undertook a diligent search to find the copyright holder. If the copyright holder then appears later, the (market rate) licence fee would be transferred to them.[/quote]

Yes, but if a diligent search doesn't identify the copyright holder and if the copyright holder doesn't become aware of the photo's use then you've still fallen into the orphaned photo trap. A watermark seems the simplest way to overcome that.
 
Meh, I'll worry about it when my photos are worth stealing.

Anyway this is verging on the arguments on the rest of the forum, someone call Roberts with my malt.
 
cariadus said:
Sorry about the watermarks. I post photos in various different places, Facebook, Tumblr, Flickr etc and they sometimes get shared/reblogged/whatever. With the UK's orphan images legislation I can't see how you can maintain ownership of your photos without watermarking. I was looking at a web page recently - I can't remember where, but it was one of those 20 best animal photos or 20 funniest photos, or something like that. All the photos were credited except for a couple that were listed as 'sorrry, this photo has been shared in so many different places we don't know where it came from so we don't know who to credit', or something along those lines. Under UK law as I understand it those photos would now come under the orphan photo legislation and the photographers would have no redress against anyone using the photos. If the photos had been watermarked there would not be a problem. I don't think for a minute that any of my photos are likely to go viral, but I would like to think that if by some miracle any of them did I would at least be credited and they would not fall into the orphan category.

I'm not looking to prevent people wilfully stealing the photos, otherwise I would put a watermark through the centre of the photo so it couldn't be cropped out. I'm not really seeking to make money out of photography so loss of earnings doesn't come into it as far as I'm concerned. All I seek to do is to try to ensure that if my photos are used on other people's web sites they are properly credited and that they don't fall into the trap of the orphan photo legislation.
Click to expand...

Fair do's mate understand your paranoa and all that but have to say looking back through this thread there are some epic photos from the likes of @osh that never use watermars maybe your pics are highly soughta fter cannot tell.
 
cariadus said:
No, that's not right. Anyone seeking to use it under the orphaned work leglislation would have to buy a licence and show they undertook a diligent search to find the copyright holder. If the copyright holder then appears later, the (market rate) licence fee would be transferred to them

Yes, but if a diligent search doesn't identify the copyright holder and if the copyright holder doesn't become aware of the photo's use then you've still fallen into the orphaned photo trap. A watermark seems the simplest way to overcome that.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying a watermark is a bad idea. It'll certainly make it easy for the searcher (although a Google reverse image search on it found your Flickr page without problems, too). It's just that the "trap" doesn't really exist. It's not a charter for stealing images - it's a useful framework for bringing significant genuine orphaned works back from legal limbo. It'll be far too much effort to go through the process for most works, and the worst-case scenario is that the rightful owner has their work licenced for one specific use at market rates without their permission - they don't lose the copyright.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top