Show us yer film shots then!

and even after that ,there's still people posting things like wow didnt know that could happen ,,,,,shame about the camera ,etc etc
 
The Matt said:
I call fake...
Click to expand...

Indeed as after about 90 film years we would all know if film was this dangerous :LOL:

...and Nigel nice shot of the fields and train, maybe you could go back and try and take a shot without the houses in the background as cropping this shot (IMO) doesn't work in that if you crop the houses you crop the nice smoke pattern
 
Last edited:
jgredline said:
Check this out. Hard to believe.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marknye/6768821519/in/photostream/
Click to expand...


gonetopiecesresize.jpg
[/IMG]
reminds me of something i did not long ago, not shot on film but a nice insight to the ridiculously complex guts of a film camera (was a broken om 10)
 
robhooley167 said:
This is why you should never stack Hitech filters with Velvia]
Click to expand...

There's something else going on there Rob, I've stacked up about 6 stops worth of hitech NDs on velvia before and never had anything even close to resembling that sort of shift. If anything it goes slightly magenta but not a nuclear red shift, that's almost the same as if you load velvia backwards in the graded bit
 
Its a long shot, but the light in the background looks quite orange like a sunset, and presumably bathing all over the hillside?.

I've shot a couple of sunsets on Velvia 50 and got results which looked like a stereotypical nuclear winter similar to yours as it does have a tendency to 'oversaturate' oranges to red.
 
Simon photo said:
gonetopiecesresize.jpg
[/IMG]
reminds me of something i did not long ago, not shot on film but a nice insight to the ridiculously complex guts of a film camera (was a broken om 10)
Click to expand...

I have something like that on my windowsill, it used to be a Minolta XD7 that I'd owned 2 days before it broke, permanently. :thumbsdown:
 
SAmurray said:
How are you finding the 680?, i quite like the idea of getting one with the 65mm lens for landscapes.
Click to expand...

I am really enjoying using the camera, in fact I really love it, I haven't touched my H1 since it arrived. It is a big begger though and only fits in one of my camera bags (Domke F1X) and there is not much room left over either (this bag used to hold 2 Canon 1 series bodies, with 5x L lenses, flash unit and other spares).

I nipped out this morning just to take a couple of images, it's like being a photographer again. It is not quick to operate though and does need a logical work flow. It is also deserving of a large tripod, I am using a Manfrotto 058 tripod with 410 geared head which seems to work quite well. I think it will be great for landscapes and architecture as it gives some of the benefits of 5x4 with the ease of use of medium format.

I am builing up a GX680 outfit now and I have won a few items on ebay to use with the camera and I am just waiting for them to arrive:

2x spare backs (one is a 10 on 6x7, although I have only paid 26$ for it)
65mm GX-M lens
180mm GX-M lens
Angle Finder
Spare focusing screen which I will draw out the size of my digital back onto
Adapter plate for Hasselblad V to GX680 (to enable my digital back to fit)
 
This has been stored for a while in the 'salvageable' pile awaiting some attention from Mr. Paint Shop. From my continuing love/hate Ektar saga:


The colour of sand by R. Alan Jones, on Flickr

Had I got round to getting the colour rolls developed sooner this would have been my postcard for the challenge I think, I suspect Moo would have done a better job with a colour image.
 
Ran a roll of Ektar through this to see if things were working,

img2238ez.jpg


Only the edges of the film seem to be in focus, could it be the film was not flat, or the lens has gone out of alignment with the film plane?

6823190422_c54cf2514e_o.jpg
 
Feel quite inadequate posting here after looking through the last few pages :LOL:

Captain Walker. Shot with my Minolta X300/28mm 2.8 (my favourite lens!) and XP2:



captain walker by rednorters, on Flickr

Thanks for looking (y)
 
Ooooo I do love Ektar. Super stuff Alan.

Andy
 
Cheers all (y) Grain's a bit rough in smooth areas but in detail areas it's totally invisible. This is of course on the occasions where Ektar plays ball. When it doesn't, it's plain nasty.
 
Had a bit of a surprise yesterday, I developed my first roll of HP5 that I was happy with.

I have over the years tried HP5 many times and never been happy with the contrast and grain, but after reading about how good it was processed in Caffenol I decided to give it another go. I exposed it at ISO400 and semi-stand developed in Caffenol CL for the full 65 minutes.

Okay, the images were just ones that were taken specifically to try the film in the developer and my main concern was that the subject matter had a full range of tones.

The results have blown me away to be honest, very little visible grain (even after scanning the 6x9cm neg at 6400dpi), great sharpness (although the tilt function on the GX680 probably helped that) and a full range of tones. I even think it may even be better than Tri-X but will have to do some more testing before I can be sure.

Will try another roll in the next few days alongside a roll of Tri-X and see which I prefer going forward.
 
A friend at work found some unexposed Tri-X at a relatives house and was going to throw it away and then remembered that I shoot film, so offered it to me. I put It through a Leica R8 and then stand developed in Rodinal for 1 hour with 20 inversions at the start and 2 more at 30 mins. The grain is pretty big and man is it contrasty. The reason I stand developed is because I thought it would give finer results so maybe I gave too many inversions.
I was initially told it was from the 70s but it is DX coded which I beleive was not introduced untill the early 80s.
Anyway here are the results with a, (takes cover) digital image of the film cannister.




1970's Kodak Tri-X pan by paul139, on Flickr




1970's Kodak Tri-X pan by paul139, on Flickr




1970's Kodak Tri-X pan by paul139, on Flickr




Tri-x pan 400 from the 70s/80s by paul139, on Flickr



I know there are some drying marks on a couple of the shots (my fault) and thanks for looking
 
My take on Ektar (Winkworth Arboretum, last October):
p801065962-6.jpg


And Velvia (same place, same time):
p94038595-6.jpg


Both shot with Kiev-60, scanned with V500
 
Last edited:
^ Blimey Alexy that tree nearly took my retinas out. I think if that was dijikal that would have been shot on the vivid setting :)
 
paul139 said:
^ Blimey Alexy that tree nearly took my retinas out. I think if that was dijikal that would have been shot on the vivid setting :)
Click to expand...

:) Thanks - it was probably more dark and colourful in real life but I do love Ektar renditions.
 
Starastin said:
and on at least pentax 645d :p
Click to expand...

That though cost quite a bit more than my setup. This was 6x6 Ektar shot on old Kiev-60 with 90mm f/2.8 soviet lens. Scanned on Epson V500 at 4800 dpi, spotted and PPed in PS and downsized to 3200dpi which resulted in a 48 megapixel file. So all hardware was pretty cheap ;-)
 
tell me about it (digital MF's :puke: )! I've had 2 of them Kiev's fantastic piece of kit , although heavy as hell. I now have a TLR and only wish I hadn't sold my Minoltacord for less than they go for now :( .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top