Show us yer film shots then!

And now some Ektar although I seem to have converted them all to B&W because I think the shots suited it better :0)

1) Lady Lever Art Gallery, Port Sunlight (OM 28mm 2.8)



2) Hayley and Chloe doing some butterfly studies



3) Spider monkeys at Chester Zoo (Tokina 80-200)



4) Hungry giraffe (Tokina 80-200)



The quality of these scans looks even worse now they've been shared via Flickr so if I'm going to shoot any more 35mm I'll have to start using Peak/AG instead and stop being a cheapskate!

Cheers
Steve
 
Had a couple of nice shots from a roll of Agfa Precisa 100 slide film (only £20 for 4 rolls on Amazon), but I need to pay more attention to metering with slide film! I'm used to the lovely latitude of negative film, and half the roll came out under-exposed, when shot in the woods. Shame, as the ones that did come out were gorgeous, this one being my favourite:

PentaxMESuper-AgfaPrecisa100-5 by 35-millimetre, on Flickr

Shot using one or two stacking macro ring things, on the trusty Pentax ME Super, with a 50mm Pentax 1.7 lens.
 
Martpix said:
View attachment 35751

A very shy bunch of Nottinghamshire minerso_O
Shot on Portra 400 using a 500 C/M with a 50mm lens.
Click to expand...

Mart,

That is such a great photograph it really typifies the camaraderie underground. One of the best I have seen you post,it tells a real human story. congratulations.

I would not take my 500 C/M down there,not even my 500 ELM. :)
 
medwaygreen said:
Mart,

That is such a great photograph it really typifies the camaraderie underground. One of the best I have seen you post,it tells a real human story. congratulations.

I would not take my 500 C/M down there,not even my 500 ELM. :)
Click to expand...

Richard,
Thanks for your kind words:)
The camera was always kept in a well sealed padded bag until use then put straight back in again after the shot had been taken, plus a good clean on my return.
 
skysh4rk said:
Those look like some very nice prints.,

I actually really like Ilford pearl RC. I should hope so though, as I have a lot of it in 5x7, 8x10, and 12x16 under the bed waiting to be exposed.
Click to expand...

Thanks RJ,

They're not bad, you can't always tell what you've got till its a contact sheet or a proof, so I print the ones that look promising on 10x8 cos I've got loads of it, and do a proper job on some nice w/tone FB gloss, there's a 10 sec burn on the sky in the 1st one, couldn't be arsed cutting a mask for the second, they're both fairly ordinary..:/
Pearl is ok but its too flat for me, the blacks are blacker and there seems to be more depth and luster in glossy.
I've got a pack of 11x14 FB.....MATT!......dunno why I bought it, I doubt I'll ever use it
 
Have been out again with the new(to me) Pentax 645n from Paul(Mr Bump)
Have again used some OOD Fujicolour NPH 400(shot that at 200), and Fujicolour NPS 160 (shot at 80).... developed both for 4:30 min...

First one is of Oldway Mansion in Paignton
17210497986_23a7bbd692_b.jpg


Another 'Buckfast Abbey' shot
17235645231_a52a6ebe8c_b.jpg


And... a flower shot...
16613231104_f0b671e43f_b.jpg
 
joxby said:
Thanks RJ,

They're not bad, you can't always tell what you've got till its a contact sheet or a proof, so I print the ones that look promising on 10x8 cos I've got loads of it, and do a proper job on some nice w/tone FB gloss, there's a 10 sec burn on the sky in the 1st one, couldn't be arsed cutting a mask for the second, they're both fairly ordinary..:/
Pearl is ok but its too flat for me, the blacks are blacker and there seems to be more depth and luster in glossy.
I've got a pack of 11x14 FB.....MATT!......dunno why I bought it, I doubt I'll ever use it
Click to expand...

The pearl prints work out better for the albums that I put my photos in, but I hear what you're saying about the deeper blacks in the glossy.

Although I rarely use it, there is a laminating press thingy in the darkroom I use which allows me to get slightly deeper blacks and a bit more lustre out of the pearl, which can be handy.
 
Carl Hall said:
How do you find Fomapan compared to other films in terms of handling and curling? I've used it in 5x4 and it's fantastic but I've heard it can be a bit of a pain to use for 120 as it curls so much and scratches easily! Quite tempted to try some as it's much cheaper than FP4 or HP5 which I love, but I'm not sure if I can handle the extra stress for a couple quid saving :LOL:
Click to expand...

Hi Carl, well the first roll I did made me think it was fine, the second roll was war! I ended up with quite scratched results, I've still got another 3 rolls to process, so will give an average review after I've done them all. It's worth a go I suppose for £17 for 5 rolls, but if I'm honest I may revery back to FP4 as I absolutely love that film :)

Adam
 
droj said:
Funny place to cause a light leak - since it's within the mirror box. Could you explain further Simon?
Click to expand...

The light leak is present across the top of the frame on some shots, across the whole frame occasionally and hardly present at all on others.

Searching for info. revealed a method of checking for leaks from the mirror buffer pad.

Remove the lens and look through the viewfinder while pointing at a bright light source and holding shutter open on bulb.

Sure enough, light is visible.

Just to add - the buffer pad itself is almost non-existent.
 
Last edited:
I've been sorting out a backlog of images to process over the last few days and I like this one. It's made me realise that Kodak Gold is a decent film and that the Pentax 40mm pancake really works well on film. It was always ok but not amazing on digital, but it has something I like with film.

20150422231358_scan-150325-0019.jpg
 
Still can't figure it out, Simon. Surely more likely the camera back seal? Can't see that inspecting camera with lens OFF is a valid test, since it's used with the lens ON ... but I hope to learn something! Keep us informed. I see the mirror buffer as just that - to soak up the hit a bit, and nowt to with light.
 
Last edited:
simon ess said:
I shall have to give this Shanghai a go.

Is there anything to be aware of before I buy some?
Click to expand...

  1. Quality control can be iffy, so reports of "bad batches".
  2. You need to buy it on Ebay from China / HK. Prices vary, and fluctuate, but usually a batch of ten cost me around £2 - £2.15 per roll including p&p. It must be the cheapest 120 film on the market. I've seen some advertised where they appear to have put the decimal point in the wrong place, so check what you are buying. I've bought two batches of ten, and delivery with both took a couple of weeks. Both were good quality with no issues. My present batch has a 2017 expiry date.
  3. The curliest 120 film. After drying - weighing and pressing, but it still curls.
  4. Some have reported the emulsion as fragile, and recommend adding a hardener. Personally, I find it fine, so far.
  5. Some batches have been reported as missing printed numbers, or the paper the wrong way around! My 20 films so far have been fine though.
  6. There is no sticky tape at the exposed end. I just stuff it into the foil and box of the next film, but some might like to take a small roll of sticky tape out with it.
  7. Check the Shanghai GP3 Flickr Group (where I found most of the reports)
Although I'm pretty new to it, as I said, I'm on my second batch of ten already. Optimum ISO is allegedly 100 (someone suggested 80), but I think it is incredible value. It can produce some nice looking negs. Personally, I've changed from Foma 100 to Shanghai as my budget film supply.
 
simon ess said:
The light leak is present across the top of the frame on some shots, across the whole frame occasionally and hardly present at all on others.
Searching for info. revealed a method of checking for leaks from the mirror buffer pad.
Remove the lens and look through the viewfinder while pointing at a bright light source and holding shutter open on bulb.
Sure enough, light is visible.

Just to add - the buffer pad itself is almost non-existent.
Click to expand...

I think that any light leaking past the mirror buffer is only going to occur during those few milliseconds when the shutter is open. I can't see it producing any significant effect on the negative. I would suspect that the sealing at the bottom of the film door is a much more likely culprit. I think the purposes of the mirror buffer pad are to deaden the sound of the mirror flip and to protect the mirror from collision damage.

EDIT:
Thinking about it, I remembered that I had resealed my Olympus OM1 following Jon Goodman's instructions http://www.kyphoto.com/classics/seal/Olympus_OM-1n_OM1.pdf. That camera has just two little pads in the corners, leaving a big gap in the middle. I think that confirms my theory. (My OM1 doesn't leak light by the way.)
 
Last edited:
Thanks Nick.

I'm tempted, in the interests of experimentation, to just change the mirror pad to see if it does make a difference.

On the other hand, I don't want to waste a roll of film so I'll do all the seals.
 
Great stuff, Gareth. Now we want to see more...

(Are there threads specifically related to your Iceland trip, I followed the main thread with interest but have not seen many shots...)
 
Well done Gareth, cracking shot.
 
joxby said:
60 mile round trip to a muddy field, in the pitch black freezing cold, with only 3 frames to shoot.
1# shutter cable broke and exposed the night @ 1/500th:LOL:
2# tripod sunk in the mud @ 2 mins:LOL:
3# held the tripod & shutter button steady for 6 mins:LOL:
I just laugh in the face of adversity:puke:

2s00q5w.jpg
Click to expand...

That is a fantastic shot! This makes me want to abandon fatherhood for a few days and just go shoot film!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top