OK what happens next?

[Andysnap]

Right, so I've got my Nikon F3 and a Nikon 50mm E series f1.8, I've loaded the camera with Legacy Pro ASA 100 b&w film and I know what all the buttons and switches do.
Given that my skill level is reasonable, the camera is fully functional and the lens sharp, crisp and clean is there any reason why I shouldn't be able to produce images at least approaching the sharpness and cleanness of my D300?
I know this is a bit of a daft question but I see images on here that I can't believe have come from film cameras they are stunning and I want to produce the same. So far I've been fairly happy with the results of my film experiments but my pictures are missing that class, is it the developing, should I send all my films away to be dev'd or do Adsa produce stuff as good as Ilford/Peak imaging etc?
Anyway chew it over and tell me I'm talking carp if you want but I really want to know if I'm heading in the right direction.

Cheers

Andy

 

[colpepper]

Don't send the films away! You can talk developers all day but they fall broadly into fine grain devs, speed devs or a combination of both. Ordinary ID-11 or D-76 will give you perfectly developed images as will most other types, the knack is to match you exposures to your development time and be consistent from there on.

Underdeveloping will give you 'thin' negs, large clear areas with little darker detail demanding very high contrast paper to make a print. Overdeveloping makes for dark negatives which increase contrast and grain, to the point where there is limited clarity. A good neg will have the correct exposure and the right amount of development time and yield strong blacks, clear whites and fine shades of grey in between without undue grain clusters.

Start by looking at the edge numbers and maker's logo. Is it grey? (underdeveloped) Is it so dense the numbers bleed into a fuzzy haze? (overdeveloped) Once that's right, achieved by increasing or decreasing dev time, work your way back up the exposure chain by tweaking film speed or override until you get the negative you're looking for. Composition and aesthetics are a whole other story.

 

[excalibur2]

erm Well you could ask the member of the shot that you liked....how he did it, but quite a few people can't be bothered (or don't know how) to enhance/touch up/ the shot before posting, and it's a careful balance to not put a poster off by saying too much that is wrong.....so in being too kind the photographer doesn't learn from feedback.

 

[Ambermile]

+1 for not sending it away - you want any mistakes to be your own at the start, only way to learn in my eyes.

 

[TheBigYin]

is there any reason why I shouldn't be able to produce images at least approaching the sharpness and cleanness of my D300?

No reason at all - however, trying to out-clean digital seems a waste of time to me - if you want that look, just shoot digital. There are ways of treating scanned film shots to remove film grain noise, but that just seems like having a Cadillac and putting the motive power from a Toyota Prius into it :shrug:

I see images on here that I can't believe have come from film cameras they are stunning and I want to produce the same.

There are a few shots on here that I find amazing - usually taken on exotica such as 4"x5" and above, or specialised kit like the Hassy Xpan. They're usually landscape stuff, shot on slooooowww film and a sturdy tripod and the quality can be staggering. However, the real quality of these shots aren't going to be particularly visible on a 800px longest side shot on a computer screen.

So far I've been fairly happy with the results of my film experiments but my pictures are missing that class, is it the developing, should I send all my films away to be dev'd or do Adsa produce stuff as good as Ilford/Peak imaging etc?

There's no doubt that Ilford do a lovely job of Black and White dev & print, and I've always been happy with the quality I've had from Peak on colour stuff. However, recently, I've been getting more and more into doing my own developing, be it B&W, C41 or E6, and while some of my attempts aren't particularly amazing or colour accurate, I'm getting there, and I've found it a far more satisfying way of working. I'll probably still send off occasional rolls to Peak if it's something that I'm unable to re-shoot easily, or I want a bit more assurance that colour output will be on the nose, but generally I'm hoping to continue doing the whole process myself - as Arthur said "you want any mistakes to be your own..."

Anyway - in the extremely unlikely event that any of my pictures fall into the category of shots to aspire to - please feel free to ask anything - i'm certainly not precious about anything I do

 

[Ambermile]

Anyway - in the extremely unlikely event that any of my pictures fall into the category of shots to aspire to - please feel free to ask anything - i'm certainly not precious about anything I do

 

[TheBigYin]

Hey - at least I offered...

 

[Ambermile]

True, no point me offering...

 

[joxby]

if my film shots start looking like digital.....i'm gonna jack it in and take up cake decorating or something..

 

[Andysnap]

Thanks for all the advice guys. I think my first post wasn't thought through enough before I submitted it. I agree that the point of shooting on film is that it isn't digital and I think that its more the tonal quality, especially in b&w, that I'm after as it is so different from digital.
My problem with self developing is my eyes. I'm red/green colour blind and my night vision is atrocious so dark room stuff is almost impossible. I suppose that developing b&w negs would be reasonably easy and so its would just be a matter of a decent scanner and have them printed if necessary at Ilford etc.

Ok lots to think about, I may need to re-assess how I do things.

Cheers

Andy

 

[excalibur2]

Well another way of looking at photography is that the most important thing is when you press the shutter button and the end result presented in a print, jpg or whatever, and the bit in between can be very interesting as a hobby. For me, I prefer others to do the work (as I'm getting lazy in my old age) and if I had pots of money I would use the best lab and my contact sheet would be for each shot.....a print of 8X10".

 

[colpepper]

B&W printing works on the law of diminishing returns. Acceptable print: easy, with practice; good print: time consuming; fine/master print: a work of art in itself, expensive in materials, time and labour and you'll probably never decide between two or three versions. The road to success or madness.

 

[cowasaki]

if my film shots start looking like digital.....i'm gonna jack it in and take up cake decorating or something..

slurrrrp Caaaaake !

I'm with you on that one. I shoot film for the film look. I have a few direct comparisons from the studio and some images just work better with the grain etc of film.