Show us yer film shots then!

I had noticed it, but actually I quite like it. It's also possible that it's not a 'cast' - suggesting the colours are not accurate to the scene - as with these particular components in the scene they could simply be adopting the colour of the sky above.
 
I had noticed it, but actually I quite like it. It's also possible that it's not a 'cast' - suggesting the colours are not accurate to the scene - as with these particular components in the scene they could simply be adopting the colour of the sky above.

I think this happens a lot, particularly when there are bare rocks. These rocks are fairly light and I suspect would take on a cast from the sky/conditions.
 
Finally, a couple of shots from the F3! Wasn't expecting as much grain as I got from the roll of Tri-X I put through it rated at ISO200... maybe I should try a couple of rolls at box speed.
Definitely more user error than equipment... Love the F3, so chuffed I got myself one, but I definitely need to learn more! :)


Nikon F3_Roll001_102
by Dave Young, on Flickr


Nikon F3_Roll001_103
by Dave Young, on Flickr
 
Wasn't expecting as much grain as I got from the roll of Tri-X I put through it rated at ISO200... maybe I should try a couple of rolls at box speed.

Or try a different film!

Tri X was another "fast" film that I never got on with due to grain not that it was soooo bad, nor does a bit of a "granular" feeling to my images bother me too much although HP5 was just ridiculous ( for me anyway!)

Now I exclusively shoot Delta 100 or 400 even for LF ( I do keep stocks of fomapan 100 for "playing around/ experiment" shots!) and in HC110 the results suit me ok.

iirc you're sending out to labs?.....that changes things as depending on the chems and processing methods, the results won't necessarily be what you would like and may not be anything to do with the film or at what speed you shoot it.

Just to add, those two shots that you've posted look OK to me ;)
 
Last edited:
Or try a different film!

Tri X was another "fast" film that I never got on with due to grain not that it was soooo bad, nor does a bit of a "granular" feeling to my images bother me too much although HP5 was just ridiculous ( for me anyway!)

Now I exclusively shoot Delta 100 or 400 even for LF ( I do keep stocks of fomapan 100 for "playing around/ experiment" shots!) and in HC110 the results suit me ok.

iirc you're sending out to labs?.....that changes things as depending on the chems and processing methods, the results won't necessarily be what you would like and may not be anything to do with the film or at what speed you shoot it.

Just to add, those two shots that you've posted look OK to me ;)

Thanks Asha, interesting... I always thought Tri-X and HP5 were the industry leaders for B&W!

Yes, still sending to FilmDev, I may look at home dev'ing when the 'camera kit austerity measures' have been lifted by SWMBO :D
In the meantime maybe, just for intereste I'll try another lab just to see how they fair.
 
I always thought Tri-X and HP5 were the industry leaders for B&W!

They possibly are as even out here they are the two film that will pretty much always be found in shops selling film.

Obviously they suit a lot of folk...just not me!:(
 
Although I usually prefer less grain rather than more I think that Tri-X does usually suit urban scenes such as yours. There's no visible sky which always shows the grain most so that helps too.

If you want the minimum of grain in 35mm then T-Max 100 or, as Asha says, Ilford Delta will give you that. I don't know about Delta 100 but TMax 100 can easily be pushed to ISO200 with no apparent increase in grain. For some developers, the developing time is the same too.

Here is an example 35mm TMax 100 shot, rated at box speed and developed in TMax developer:


Tell my your troubles
by Kevin Allan, on Flickr

And here's one rated at ISO200 in the same developer - admittedly this is 6*4.5 film as I couldn't find a 35mm example:


Notre Dame Cathedral
by Kevin Allan, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Still not decided on 3200 film for 35mm.....

Pizza guy taking a break at Brew By Numbers in Bermondsey:

BBNo. by Hallsy01, on Flickr

Rollei 35S, Kodak T-Max P3200 dev'd in ID11. This is the second roll of T-Max 3200 I have shot, the grain can be a bit much when scanning with my Nikon Coolscan V!!


I don't think that looks too grainy, not sure how much it would enlarge but looks good on flickr.
 
I don't think that looks too grainy, not sure how much it would enlarge but looks good on flickr.

I think that is one of the better ones - but I agree, it looks ok at small sizes, I'll have to try printing a few. Viewing 1:1 on a 24" monitor makes almost any emulsion look grainy!!

The first roll I tried I was using my Electro 35 and shot some at 1000, then some at 1600/3200 using the fixed flash sync speed so I stand drveloped it. That and the lack of control on exposure lead to some very grainy images!!

The second roll I shot and developed at 1600 in ID-11, this was a bit better but I did underexpose a few shots and missed focus with my Rollei 35S so it was another mixed bag!!

Third time lucky maybe!!
 
2 more beauties there Richard, lovely work.
 
2 more beauties there Richard, lovely work.

Many thanks Andy, as I process I post the better one,s,so only a few more left.
 
So after see the excellent Infra Red shots that @Kevin Allan posted in here a little while ago, and his advice re filters etc, I took the plunge and went out to shoot my very first IR photograph.

I would have liked to have got access to the large waterfall located further downstream as atm it's quite impresive but the footpath into the gorge is VERY dangerous due to landslides etc.
As it was the descent down ( and indeed the climb back up) to obtain these shots was somewhat interesting, slippy, steep and generally unnerving carrying a heavy rucksack of LF kit!


Anyway the first frame is shot on negative film ( fomapan 100) with a 3 stop ND filter.

The second frame is on Rollei IR film rated at 200 asa ( the info on the box rates it between 200 & 400)
Using an IR filter ( cokin 89B) I allowed 3 stops compensation the developed for 10 mins in HC110 as suggested by Rollei.
The resulting negative is very dense so I think next time, rating the film at 400 and possibly reducing the developing time by a minute or so ( as suggested in the Massive Dev Chart) may give a better result.
As it is I've had to pull the highlights back considerably but I HAVE AN Infra Rouge IMAGE:woot:

It's far from being a "keeper" but for a first attempt I'm quite pleased to have any image at all.

I might add that both images were shot at F/16 and even though I had read up on focusing differences for IR, I forgot to implement the adjustment:banghead:

Anyway, what do you guys think?.....I'm not asking for critique as such but any pointers that might help next time are always welcome;)

1. Cascade tp.jpg


2. cascade IR tp.jpg
 
The IR in the second one certainly gives the photo a lot more zing Asha, although maybe a bit more contrast in the first one would close the gap? I can't decide whether the IR foliage helps the white water or detracts from it, but the main thing is that you've got quite a strong IR effect for this time of year. (y)
 
The IR in the second one certainly gives the photo a lot more zing Asha, although maybe a bit more contrast in the first one would close the gap? I can't decide whether the IR foliage helps the white water or detracts from it, but the main thing is that you've got quite a strong IR effect for this time of year. (y)

From what I understand the Rollei IR film is characteristically contrasty so yes I think like yourself that adding a bit more contrast to the first shot would bridge the gap between the two shots.
Imo the white foilage does detract from the white water tbh although I think perhaps the the IR effect is still a tad too bright even though I've pulled it back considerably.
If nothing else, I've come to realise that the film has a decent latitude!:p
 
I love the Rollei film. It's sharper (with my scanning) than SFX (which could be down to curl), has more contrast, and seems to be significantly less grainy as well as cheaper! Like you said, I too think the latitude on the film is great - which helps with long exposure errors.

I've been doing some tests with it and am consistently under-exposing about a stop shooting at 400 with no filter, so 200 sounds about right. I've also been doing some testing with a Zomei 720nm IR filter (9 stops) to try and determine the reciprocity failure with multi-second exposures - because there is only one post about it on the internet between two people who didn't agree :). Films are going off to AG tomorrow I hope.

Once I've finally got that sorted I'll be ready to stare glumly out of the window waiting for the right weather.

I like the first, but for me, the effect is too OTT on the second. I think it takes a bit of practise to get it right. Knowing how the colours will react and how the resulting image will look, then composing, then metering and adjusting... So many things to think about.
 
I'll be ready to stare glumly out of the window waiting for the right weather.

Can we have a selfie please?!:D

I like the first, but for me, the effect is too OTT on the second.

:agree: ...Tbh even though I removed a very dense neg from the tank, I was still surprised at how bright / OTT the scanned result was:cool:.

I think it takes a bit of practise to get it right.

Without doubt ...I like the effects though so I'll be perservering with it;)

Knowing how the colours will react and how the resulting image will look, then composing, then metering and adjusting... So many things to think about.

As if there isn't enough to think about with b&w negative film LF:confused::D

I have a list of items that I need to carry when doing LF otherwise I am guaranteed to forget something ( like the camera:D).
I could probably benefit from making a checklist of the actual shooting process from composure, focusing, aperture setting, etc etc through to actually firing the shutter and making notes.
 
I have a list of items that I need to carry when doing LF otherwise I am guaranteed to forget something ( like the camera:D).
I could probably benefit from making a checklist of the actual shooting process from composure, focusing, aperture setting, etc etc through to actually firing the shutter and making notes.

I need to do the same as I make many mistakes too.

There's a few of these on the web that could be printed, such as http://www.largeformatphotography.info/how-to-operate.html

I now have a "pre-shoot" sequence which is to use an iPhone to, err, previsualise the scene, so that before I put the camera on the tripod I know where I need to place the tripod and which lens to fit. I use an app called "viewfinder" which lets you choose from film formats, focal lengths, and film types. Of course you can take a reference picture too. However what the app can't do is show the IR effect.

There is so much experimentation required in IR photography that there is something to be said with starting off using it in 35mm or 120 and bracketing extensively.
 
That link will be very useful Kevin, I'll be printing it :ty:

there is something to be said with starting off using it in 35mm or 120 and bracketing extensively.

I guess so but I like to throw myself in at the deep end …...Strange I know:confused::D

What I did forget to mention was about loading the dds.
I found it no more difficult than ordinary neg film tbh ...perhaps I was just lucky!

On the other hand I think perhaps the flimsiness of the film is what made it come adrift in the MOD54 developing tank during processing as it was stuck to the inside of the tank even with gentle agitation ( simply turning of the center column./ No inversions.)
Fortunatley it developed OK as the emulsion side of the film faced the center column.
 
Some Crappy 'Experiments' with my Olympus XA and XA2 --- I used outdated Fuji 'Surveicolor 400' cut from bulk tin for XA pics and as i could not find that tin in depths of my film fridge found last cassette of 09/2006 dated Ferrania 'Solaris 800' which WAS FRESH when bought and I used some for local Press work. Now its all very grainy and not worth using for 'important' photos but you may be interested to see the snaps --
XA photos --
XA Golden Tree.jpg XA Graveyard.jpg XA Rainbow.jpg

XA2 Photos ---
XA2 Solaris 01.jpg XA2 Solaris 02.jpg
 
@pentaxpete It's got to be worth a like for photo number 4 alone. (y) However, I think the moral of this story has got to be don't use outdated or cheap film on a subject you can't re-create. That's why I'm fussy these days about what I put in my film camera when shooting street or documentary style photos. You never know when the planets are going to align and 'that' shot is going to come along.
 
Last edited:
Still not decided on 3200 film for 35mm.....

Pizza guy taking a break at Brew By Numbers in Bermondsey:

BBNo. by Hallsy01, on Flickr

Rollei 35S, Kodak T-Max P3200 dev'd in ID11. This is the second roll of T-Max 3200 I have shot, the grain can be a bit much when scanning with my Nikon Coolscan V!!


Love this Andy!
 
Back
Top