Ian's Contact Sheets

[Harlequin565]

I'm going to spare everyone the test roll I put through my new 35RC and instead reveal my next roll of Konica 750IR shot at 50. Note to self. Try 64 next time.

In overcast light, 50 is a little under-exposed, but in full sun, it's over. I'll try and shoot the next rolls at 64 on sunny days *only* and see where I get with that...



Really dissappointed with frame 8 because I knew what I wanted but it's way too over exposed - even to rescue in post. Frame 10 was passable, and the UFO in frame 14 made me smile.

Must do better as my English teacher always said.

 

[sirch]

Frame 19 catches my eye but perhaps that is the least obviously IR, sorry

 

[Harlequin565]

Frame 19 catches my eye but perhaps that is the least obviously IR, sorry

No need to apologise Chris! I love this bridge and try and have tried to photograph it many times with many different things. The composition still needs work, and having the bloody stupid wrong lens hood on hasn't helped... I grumble... I think there's a thread for that now...

 

[FishyFish]

Fram#15 looks interesting with the reflection. They seem to have a significant vignette - did you have a lens hood on the camera or stacked filters or something?

 

[Harlequin565]

did you have a lens hood on the camera

Yes! I Am Awesome. Couldn't see it in the VF, but I then realised that the viewfinder might not be 100%. Lesson learned. Another one...

 

[FishyFish]

Every day's a classroom.

I did the same thing a couple of years ago when I used the rubber lend hood from my Zuiko 50mm on the Zuiko 28mm. The vignette wasn't too harsh though, so I managed to get away with it.

 

[Harlequin565]

So thanks to @Nomad Z I had a successful outing with the Instamatic 500. It's now had a proper tape-up job with foil on the window and everything. Looks good! (No light leaks that is - not so sure about the photography)

I really like the tiny form factor, but have to say that picking up the 35RC which is only marginally bigger, might see this relegated to the shelf. Focus is a pain with it, but taking the time will garner decent results. Am still pleased with the PP'd output.

 

[Harlequin565]

Right. New camera. There's a surprise. This time, a [browsing eBay and "YOLO" purchase] Minolta Hi-Matic F with Tri-X 400 shot at 400.


Pretty much sure this is shooting roughly a stop under after my battery mods with a rubber and a paper clip, which is handy because the ISO dial only goes up to 500. Reckon if I shoot at 400 and process it as 800 I'll be ok.
Nice sharp lens, but without knowing the shutter speed it's prone to blur at low speeds because the shutter release goes a *long* way before activating and you're moving the camera just to press the button.
Slightly bigger than the Olympus 35RC and comparing the two side by side and considering the prices are very similar, I'd probably pick the Oly if I had to. The main difference is that this is fully auto whilst the Oly is Shutter Priority at best. Full auto is nice, but I think the meter on the Oly has more flexibility (it goes to 800 and also shoots a stop under so I've got 1600!) and it's go a more solid build feel to it.

 

[sirch]

Frame 9 made me , sorry.

 

[Harlequin565]

Frame 9 made me , sorry.

I've been on Microsoft "Training" for the last 2 days and it's been effing terrible. Aside from taking silly selfies I've been looking at how the light plays across the Artex ceiling in my office. I've made the decision to spare the 3 people who look at this thread from that contact sheet.

I don't think I'm cut out for the modern business world any more.

 

[FishyFish]

Frame #9 is full-on Kryten from Red Dwarf mode.

 

[Harlequin565]

A Twofer tonight...

1st up is my roll of Provia back from AG. I love slide film so much but I need a lot of practise. It definitely works best in my RB because I have to slow down. Run & gun hasn't worked here as the exposures are all wrong as I struggle to keep up with my wife on our walks.



The skies look lovely but they're just too far under. I can only assume I was metering on the sky(?) to get the land so far under. All the non-walk shots look fine. Sadly, as you know with slide film, not even judicious PP in LR can recover the mess that is the shadows... Got a nice frame of Tom chasing leaves though and the chicken shot (13) might make it into a FPOTY near you.



Then my belated birthday present arrived today. Canon EOS30 with a Sigma 28-104 f/2.8-4 and the Sigma APO 70-300 f/4-5.6. I wanted a lightweight "take on walks" camera that had a decent reach and macro and the 70-300 is a fab lens. I used to own it when I bought my 350D many moons ago and was very underwhelmed when I upgraded it to the 70-200 f/2.8. I was expecting a 10x impvoement. It wasn't! Big thanks to @Mr Badger for his thoughts and musings via PM. I'm glad I went with the 30 and not the 3 which would have defeated the object of "light".

Anyway a jaunt around the house with a roll of Tri-X to make sure everything worked and I present 25 frames of (probably) boring stuff. Frames 1-11 were with the super light 28-104 which I was very surprised by the quality of. Flower & chicken shots with the 70-300 and again - really happy with the quality out of both of these lenses.

£100 for camera + the 2 lenses was great value for me. The camera itself was pretty mucky and very sticky. A thorough rub down with lighter fuel though had it looking much better. Eye AF is amusing...

 

[Mr Badger]

Glad it arrived safely and you like it. Did you do a 'reset' on the eye controlled AF before calibrating and using it? If not, then look in the instruction book and follow the directions on how to do this. I think the key tip when calibrating it is: don't blink or look away from each AF point when going through the process, even for a moment, until it's locked on. This sounds easier to do than it is, so do pay attention to the process but try to stay relaxed; gaze directly at the AF point rather than straining hard to stare at it! Do this a couple of times, alternating between portrait and landscape format, and at a couple of different focal lengths (say 28mm and 150mm).

Get this right and it should reward you with 'spot on' eye controlled AF selection each time... but, once again, you have to make sure you are gazing at the AF point you want when you 'half press' the shutter button. If not, then just release the shutter button, look at the AF point and try again. I find this feature works very well, and on the occasional time it fails it's quick enough to try again (a lot quicker than scrolling between the AF points manually if you overshoot!). Let me know how you get on, and a very happy belated birthday too.

 

[FishyFish]

A Twofer tonight...

1st up is my roll of Provia back from AG. I love slide film so much but I need a lot of practise. It definitely works best in my RB because I have to slow down. Run & gun hasn't worked here as the exposures are all wrong as I struggle to keep up with my wife on our walks.

View attachment 281469

The skies look lovely but they're just too far under. I can only assume I was metering on the sky(?) to get the land so far under. All the non-walk shots look fine. Sadly, as you know with slide film, not even judicious PP in LR can recover the mess that is the shadows... Got a nice frame of Tom chasing leaves though and the chicken shot (13) might make it into a FPOTY near you.

View attachment 281471

Then my belated birthday present arrived today. Canon EOS30 with a Sigma 28-104 f/2.8-4 and the Sigma APO 70-300 f/4-5.6. I wanted a lightweight "take on walks" camera that had a decent reach and macro and the 70-300 is a fab lens. I used to own it when I bought my 350D many moons ago and was very underwhelmed when I upgraded it to the 70-200 f/2.8. I was expecting a 10x impvoement. It wasn't! Big thanks to @Mr Badger for his thoughts and musings via PM. I'm glad I went with the 30 and not the 3 which would have defeated the object of "light".

Anyway a jaunt around the house with a roll of Tri-X to make sure everything worked and I present 25 frames of (probably) boring stuff. Frames 1-11 were with the super light 28-104 which I was very surprised by the quality of. Flower & chicken shots with the 70-300 and again - really happy with the quality out of both of these lenses.

£100 for camera + the 2 lenses was great value for me. The camera itself was pretty mucky and very sticky. A thorough rub down with lighter fuel though had it looking much better. Eye AF is amusing...

View attachment 281470

Frames 2, 6 & 7 stand out in the roll of Provia. I know that they're underexposed, but they have an attractive, if slightly menacing, atmosphere to them. Slide film is tricky stuff (for me at least!). When it works it looks amazing, but when it misses it tends to miss pretty badly in a way that might be redeemable with colour negative.

I really like the look of frames 17 & 22 from the Tri-X roll too.

 

[Harlequin565]

When it works it looks amazing, but when it misses it tends to miss pretty badly in a way that might be redeemable with colour negative.

Wise words indeed.

Frame 22 with the Tri-X was almost accurately focussed, but with thin DoF portraits, "almost" doesn't quite cut it. Looks ok on the contact sheet but on 8x10 it looks amateurish. Chickens are vary difficult to photograph (well).

 

[FishyFish]

Wise words indeed.

It's exacerbated somewhat because of the very high price of reversal film too. Back when you could by Agfa CT Precisa for £8 a roll a couple of years ago it wasn't too bad if you mucked something up a bit. Now that a roll of Provia / Velvia / Ektachrome is in the £15-20 range I pretty much daren't even attempt it. I've got several rolls of 120 reversal film in the fridge (mostly expired) and a roll of 135 Velvia 50, and they feel a little bit like the last slice of wedding cake!

Frame 22 with the Tri-X was almost accurately focussed, but with thin DoF portraits, "almost" doesn't quite cut it. Looks ok on the contact sheet but on 8x10 it looks amateurish. Chickens are vary difficult to photograph (well).

It's maddening when that happens. You see the negative and think "Wow! Nailed it!" and then the scan appears onscreen and you realise that so near is still so far.

 

[Mr Badger]

Frame 22 with the Tri-X was almost accurately focussed, but with thin DoF portraits, "almost" doesn't quite cut it. Looks ok on the contact sheet but on 8x10 it looks amateurish. Chickens are vary difficult to photograph (well).

They all look nicely exposed, so you know it works OK. You'll have to try some slide film in it as that 35 zone metering system should be more than up to the job, in all but the most backlit of situations.

 

[sirch]

Great colours on the Provia, the cat shot is really good and I agree with Nige regarding the canal shots.

The TriX looks good too, 14 and the chicken shots for me.

 

[Harlequin565]

They all look nicely exposed, so you know it works OK. You'll have to try some slide film in it as that 35 zone metering system should be more than up to the job, in all but the most backlit of situations.

I thought the metering was really good tbh. I always lift my scans a bit. However...

It's exacerbated somewhat because of the very high price of reversal film too

Slide film is really expensive in 35mm.

On 35mm, I really like Kodak Gold as a colour film. It's just my cuppa. Sadly, there's no "cheap" colour film in 120, so slide is less of an expense. £45 for a 5 pack of Provia in 120 is not much more expensive than Portra 160.

 

[Harlequin565]

The TriX looks good too, 14 and the chicken shots for me.

14 was another "Looks great on the contact sheet" but when you get to 8x10 it's got lots of crap on it. Spiderweb crap as well as developing crap and scanning dust. As this was a test roll, I wasn't overly careful with the process. Just wanted to see if the camera worked. Another lesson learned!

 

[Mr Badger]

Slide film is really expensive in 35mm.

On 35mm, I really like Kodak Gold as a colour film. It's just my cuppa. Sadly, there's no "cheap" colour film in 120, so slide is less of an expense. £45 for a 5 pack of Provia in 120 is not much more expensive than Portra 160.

Tell me about it, I have a roll of Ektachrome E100 in the fridge waiting for a special occasion... which, with the current situation, may be some time! I agree about the Kodak Gold 200 too, I find it's got a nice look to it and it's a great compromise between price and image quality.

 

[sirch]

I don't think I'm cut out for the modern business world any more.

At risk of turning this into a self-help group, I've worked in fairly high-tech environments for the last 25 years and still put a lot of time into keeping at the leading edge of the curve (sorry for the business speak) but now I'm on the retirement home-straight I increasingly have the same feeling of not being cut-out for this. I always had a very low b.s. threshold but now I'm increasingly feeling that I really just don't care.

 

[Harlequin565]

Contact Sheet #39! (In reality, this is #54 which means there are 15 contact sheets I haven't put up. Mostly because they're short test rolls to see if something physically works.

Ilford Ortho Plus - my 1st roll. Wanted to see how it faired in bright sunshine and how it treats greens. Also, I have a new (to me) 35mm f/3.5 for the Pentax 645 (24mm equiv) and whilst I love that focal length on my Fuji digital, I'm struggling with this. I think it's probably because I like lots of low angles which is easy with a flippy out screen but not so easy on fillum...

Aaanyway...



The lens is really sharp. The film is crisp and holds fine detail well right across the dynamic range. I really like how this film looks and deals with brightness. I guess the nearest competitor would be Delta 100, PanF and FP125 - all of which are much cheaper films! I think I shall save my other roll for the Tomiyama.

The photos themselves are mostly underwhelming save for 5 & 12. The woodland path shots are a bit lost in all the shadows. But I got one decent one, which is fine by me.

 

[Mr Perceptive]

Contact Sheet #39! (In reality, this is #54 which means there are 15 contact sheets I haven't put up. Mostly because they're short test rolls to see if something physically works.

Ilford Ortho Plus - my 1st roll. Wanted to see how it faired in bright sunshine and how it treats greens. Also, I have a new (to me) 35mm f/3.5 for the Pentax 645 (24mm equiv) and whilst I love that focal length on my Fuji digital, I'm struggling with this. I think it's probably because I like lots of low angles which is easy with a flippy out screen but not so easy on fillum...

Aaanyway...

View attachment 281598

The lens is really sharp. The film is crisp and holds fine detail well right across the dynamic range. I really like how this film looks and deals with brightness. I guess the nearest competitor would be Delta 100, PanF and FP125 - all of which are much cheaper films! I think I shall save my other roll for the Tomiyama.

The photos themselves are mostly underwhelming save for 5 & 12. The woodland path shots are a bit lost in all the shadows. But I got one decent one, which is fine by me.

I think we've been walking in the same place !!!

 

[FishyFish]

On 35mm, I really like Kodak Gold as a colour film. It's just my cuppa. Sadly, there's no "cheap" colour film in 120, so slide is less of an expense. £45 for a 5 pack of Provia in 120 is not much more expensive than Portra 160.

The Lomography Color Negative films can usually be found for less that the Kodak / Fujifilm colour stocks and I really like the way they look. The days when you could find a 3-pack in Boots for a tenner seem to have passed though, sadly.

 

[Harlequin565]

I think we've been walking in the same place !!!

Hah yep! And these sheets are no exception!

Bumper threefer today as I had my download links from AG. Very pleased with the results!

1st roll is Kodak Gold through the little Olympus 35RC. It's just a silly fun camera to use and these are all messing about shots really. 3 project photos in there so not all wasted! Also - 39 frames!



Then a roll of Ektar through my T90. This was to test the newish 28mm f/2.8 FD as well as see what Ektar looks like. I don't really like it in 120 and I don't like it in 35mm.



It likes a *lot* of light methinks and I don't like how it renders the colours. Just deleted a whole paragraph trying to explain why, but it sounded like gibberish so I deleted it. 2 Frames for my numfup project though, and the 28mm is super. Really like the closeups.

Finally, a second roll of Tri-X through my HiMatic-F. It's very tough to choose between this and the Oly for a tiny 35mm camera, and the lens on it is superb. To my chagrin, I'm leaning towards the fully automatic Minolta

 

[FishyFish]

The 35 RC is a great little camera. I don't use mine nearly often enough (the perils of having too many cameras!). It makes lovely, sharp photographs. I've not used a Hi-Matic F, but I did own a Hi-Matic G2, which is a zone-focus point-and-shoot model. It also produced lovely sharp photos but I sold it last year as it was pretty much identical in terms of features to my Olympus Trip 35. It had the most satisfying gilm-advance action I've ever used on a camera though - it just felt so satisfying to use.

I think Ektar (like most colour films) works best in nice bright light. The shot of the chicken on the windowsill, and the roses benefit from the good light I think, as does the sofa in frame #4 of the Kodak Gold roll.

Frames 11, 18, 20, 21 & 23 of the Tri-X look interesting too.

 

[Harlequin565]

So I wanted to try out some Acros II to see how it shapes up. My main issue was not being sure of the dev time. Box clearly states ISO 100, but Fuji helpfully only give HC-110(B) times for ISO 80 - 4.5 minutes. MDC states 5.5 minutes for 135 and 5 minutes for 120 which is the 1st time I've seen different dev times for different sized film!

I decided (arbitrarily!) that 5.5 minutes was too long compared to the 4.5 minutes for 80 ISO. A minute for a third of a stop seemed a bit excessive to me so I went with 5 minutes.



EOS30 with the Sigma 70-300 (no IS) so I generally ran with the shutter speed at 1/500. The display was mostly at minimum aperture and some frames are well under that (including frame 36 which was just black).

Not the most scintillating set of images. Pigged off about the crap in the river behind the Cormorant. Would have been fixed by moving my feet but I was too preoccupied hoping the other one would dry his wings. The thistle (8) and teasel (4) were nice examples of a bit of blurry background, and prove that the lens is sharp, and Acros II is a very nice film at 35mm. Superior to Acros I (although I only ever had expired stock of it).

Really looking for an unconventional way to tackle the footbridge and frame 17 has potential if I revisit. Couple of clean pole shots for my xbt project, and the most pathetic squirrel shot in the world. It's frame 28 and yes, it's just a blob in the frame.

It's a really nice film, but it's expensive. I have some Ortho Plus in 35mm I wanted to test it against, but I can't see me getting any more of it at >£10/roll.

Shot of the roll would really be the note left on the bench on the path we walk down by the river.

 

[Mr Badger]

Hah yep! And these sheets are no exception!

Bumper threefer today as I had my download links from AG. Very pleased with the results!

1st roll is Kodak Gold through the little Olympus 35RC. It's just a silly fun camera to use and these are all messing about shots really. 3 project photos in there so not all wasted! Also - 39 frames!

View attachment 282570

Then a roll of Ektar through my T90. This was to test the newish 28mm f/2.8 FD as well as see what Ektar looks like. I don't really like it in 120 and I don't like it in 35mm.

View attachment 282571

It likes a *lot* of light methinks and I don't like how it renders the colours. Just deleted a whole paragraph trying to explain why, but it sounded like gibberish so I deleted it. 2 Frames for my numfup project though, and the 28mm is super. Really like the closeups.

Finally, a second roll of Tri-X through my HiMatic-F. It's very tough to choose between this and the Oly for a tiny 35mm camera, and the lens on it is superb. To my chagrin, I'm leaning towards the fully automatic Minolta

View attachment 282572

View attachment 282576

Yes, I'd agree that Ektar 100 can be a fickle mistress. Load up a roll on a lovely clear sunny morning and shoot typical British seaside shots, a classic car event, village fete, etc. and happy days for that picture postcard look (as long as you get the exposure right). Leave it till mid-afternoon and hazy sunshine and cock up the metering even slightly, then forget it!

As for the T90 Ektar shots, I'd like to see shot number 26 at larger size. From the contact print it looks like it has the makings of a Martin Parr type shot (neatly stacked recycling boxes next to a post box [mirroring the saturated red], in clipped-hedged and patched-up tarmac roaded suburban normality, that could be anywhere in England) and, if so, I think it's the best photo of the three rolls you shot. Lovely, understated, social commentary. Please tell me it looks OK full size?

 

[Harlequin565]

Please tell me it looks OK full size?

I guess "ok" is about right. I'm trying to use colour in my colour images, looking for compliments and commonalities. Green hedge + bins and red postbox + bins + bricks was what I was after here, but I think the composition is a bit untidy.



Similarly with this one, the red bin and the red van. It all gets a bit lost though.

This was *my* only keeper from that roll... "I'm Green Too!"

 

[FishyFish]

View attachment 283175

I guess "ok" is about right. I'm trying to use colour in my colour images, looking for compliments and commonalities. Green hedge + bins and red postbox + bins + bricks was what I was after here, but I think the composition is a bit untidy.

I quite like this one. It's the sort of thing I would spot too and the reds really pop. I would have perhaps gotten a little lower to have the kerb come in from the bottom right corner and not chop off the top of the TV aerial - although that might have reduced the effect of the seperation of the two hedges, which I like. It's one of those photos that annoyingly looks like it's leaning, even though it's not, because the hedge is on a slope, but that can't be helped.

I like it though - I could happily look at loads of photos like this. It's the sort of thing that most people would just walk past without a second glance.

 

[Harlequin565]

Great feedback Nige. Thanks.

 

[sirch]

TBH I prefer the third in that set, the faded box set apart from the others. On the first I would like a bit more space on the left, the house feels a bit tight at that edge. That said they are all good uses of colour IMHO with echos of reds and greens throughout.

 

[Harlequin565]

Thanks Chris. I'm really just a noob when it comes to colour. But this early practise is working out ok. Just need to have the light for it.

 

[Mr Badger]

View attachment 283175

I guess "ok" is about right. I'm trying to use colour in my colour images, looking for compliments and commonalities. Green hedge + bins and red postbox + bins + bricks was what I was after here, but I think the composition is a bit untidy.

View attachment 283177

Similarly with this one, the red bin and the red van. It all gets a bit lost though.

This was *my* only keeper from that roll... "I'm Green Too!"

View attachment 283176

I still think the bungalow is the strongest shot, perhaps with a little bit more room on the left hand side and just a little less on the right, if there was nothing in the way to detract. I think I'd photoshop the TV aerial out, or consider taking 2 shots, one to capture the composition, one to get the aerial on top of the pole, then clone it in in lower to aid composition but retain the suburban clutter.

 

[Harlequin565]

then clone it in in lower

That is *far* too much pp work for a tv aerial.

 

[Harlequin565]

So I took a punt on a used Tamron 28-300 from Ffordes and it arrived today. I spoke to Tamron beforehand and they said it "should" be ok, but no guarantees. I figured I could send it back if it didn't work properly. But it works absolutely fab on my EOS30. That's a one stop shop solution for me. AF is bang on and ultra quiet, VR is superb, and the quality is stellar. Blown away by it.

The contact sheet is yet *another* test roll, and Double-X was all I had out of the freezer, so I shot it at 500.



Mostly these were shot at 250-300mm, inside on a wet rainy day at 1/90sec. And they're pin sharp. Double-X gets very contrasty when you push it, and picking a black & white cat probably wasn't the best idea, but I got one nice portrait I'll print up for the Mrs this weekend.

Very happy with the purchase. Other lenses on fleabay today! Excuse the forum softening...

 

[FishyFish]

Glad the lens is working out for you Ian. Having a zoom with that range that produces results you're happy with is a useful thing to have.

It's always nice to see the usual cast of test subjects too: Monkey, chickens, the cats, and - now - angel!

 

[Harlequin565]

My 1st afternoon out with the camera since lockdown!! Finally got to meet @Mr Perceptive and have a virtual handshake and socially distance walk around...



The Rolleiflex is going to be on it's way I think. I am not enjoying TLR photography. 2 frames for my "this is what happened to my hair in lockdown" project and pretty much nothing else.


This was Ilford Ortho Plus (7 minutes this time) and it's very difficult to tell if it's ok because the Rollei is quite limited with shutter speed and aperture choices.

Quite like frame 1, and 3 was a shameles spinch from David's "Hartford" thread. Quite like my winky windows (frame 4) and my tree in frame 5. Also frame 8 looks a bit like a mini-me door.

I ran a roll of colour through my EOS-30 which I think might be better because of the flexibility of the zoom. The fixed 75mm on the Rollei was a bit of a pain, although I do quite like the Ortho roll.

 

[Harlequin565]

Two rolls back from AG and one more lesson learned...

Both are expired rolls I picked up from @Yardbent and look fine. Both shot through the EOS30 with my new-to-me (and working perfectly) Tamron 28-300. The two lenses that came with the EOS 30 are on eBay and one has sold already. If I get a tenner less than advertised for the other, then the camera cost me the sum total of £0!! My kind of value!

1st roll is the Agfa Vista 400 which I shot at our local soon-to-be-demolished college on the same day as the B&W above. The last 9 frames were just shot off when I got home so I could get it posted. Some worked, some didn't, and it would be good to go back and have a second crack at it, but I just haven't had the time. Frames 5 & 6 are the standouts for me as I am trying hard to actually "use" the colour in a scene. 1, 3 & 4 are documentary shots for my own benefit, and 13 made me smile. Shame about the distortion on #22, but fiddling in LR has fixed it. (Larger images in this thread.)

Overall, quite pleased, and quite pleased with the Agfa film. May try and hunt some more down because having a good 400 speed colour film is useful!



Now the Portra 400. And this roll was really just "gotten reid of" because I'm too cheap to send one roll off for dev and decided to shoot the Portra so I could send two. Problem is I ended up rushing the roll and it shows in the output. I'm also not a fan of how Portra 400 renders colour - especially muddying the greens (to my eyes).

1 shot for this month's FPoTY, 1 for my xBT project, and the rest is all a bit crap and uninspired. Pretty much an entire waste of film. Lesson learned though: If you finish one roll, don't be afraid to just send it off.