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.
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.
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.
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)
Lovely dreamlike quality to those photos Lee - did you find the C41 developing at home to be much of a faff?
Thanks Trevor.....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.
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)
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from Greenwich Pier and have a free lunch etc -- I usually take my 2002 bought Hasselblad 501CM outfit all with 'outdated Fillum' of course -- still trying to empty the 'fridge but not much impact at the moment !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 ---
Wow, those are very nice. Love the first one especially. I've just started C41 too.
Thanks Roger..... well, I tried E6 developing today.... and I can say C41 was a good bit easier
I kind of did it the wrong way round and did E6 first. I must admit, C41 seems a doddle after that!
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.
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.
I like you pics @cariadus but I have to say the watermarks spoil it for me.
#1 has a wonderful Grimshaw look about it,I like that very much.
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.
[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.
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.
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.
I think that's actually a very subtle and tasteful watermark, 1000 times less distracting than many.
Nice images (and watermark), @cariadus, gotta love Acros!