Show us yer film shots then!

Sorry if I came across incorrectly? My post was probably more in reference to previous threads where there has been a clear divide between those who will post process their analogue scans and those who believe that the only 'true' result is straight from the film. My argument was that even the analogue masters like Adams would spend days in the darkroom 'post-processing' his analogue photographs to get the result he desired. While the darkroom is more physical and hands on, the techniques are simply employed digitally in Photoshop so what's the difference?

I'd never go so far as replacing parts of an image like the sky (whether shot on film of digital) but working on contrast/saturation/masking etc is perfectly 'acceptable' as far as I'd see.
 
stevelmx5 said:
those who believe that the only 'true' result is straight from the film
Click to expand...

Even then unless you use tricks (e.g. taking two shots slightly different on a subject) or a special camera...a 2d picture will never be the same as seeing by the eye ;)
 
excalibur2 said:
Even then unless you use tricks (e.g. taking two shots slightly different on a subject) or a special camera...a 2d picture will never be the same as seeing by the eye ;)
Click to expand...

Even then, you'll need the optional extras of "MovieMode", "TemperatureSIm", "Smellorama" and "WindUp" together with the surround screen to get close :D

In reality (if not in reality) a photograph shouldn't really be seen as a scene but as an object in its own right :thinking:

Here's a Mamiya RZ67 photo of the back of John Lewis in Southampton.

ModernArchitecturePSfResizedSharpenedA3.jpg
 
Last edited:
stevelmx5 said:
Thanks Bryan. I'll pack up my cameras now and call it a day ;0)
Click to expand...

Well it is a challenge to try to get the shot to match seeing with the human eye ;)
Painters in the past solved one problem of crappy look 2d pictures in using a vanishing point.
 
stevelmx5 said:
To go along with getting the thread back on track, here's a photograph I took on the Peaks meet with my Yashica 44 on expired Kodak 400
Click to expand...

I like the way that the sprocket holes mimic caterpillar tracks and make me think tractors (not tanks!).
 
excalibur2 said:
Even then unless you use tricks (e.g. taking two shots slightly different on a subject) or a special camera...a 2d picture will never be the same as seeing by the eye ;)
Click to expand...

stevelmx5 said:
Thanks Bryan. I'll pack up my cameras now and call it a day ;0)
Click to expand...

excalibur2 said:
Well it is a challenge to try to get the shot to match seeing with the human eye ;)
Painters in the past solved one problem of crappy look 2d pictures in using a vanishing point.
Click to expand...


Oops, thought I'd logged onto a photography forum. Guess I must have been wrong.

*sells all cameras and just looks at stuff*
 
i have been scanning some old slides in a box in our shed -- I had several Agfacolor L UT18 of my Army Days which are on several Forums now such as QARANC .co.uk for Army Nurses but I also had a few 'Dufaycolor' slides in glass mounts taken about 1953 with my Ensign Selfix 16/20 Model II and cut square -- so if you have never seen Dufaycolor which was an 'Additve Process' here they are :
Dover Harbour
Dover Harbour about 1953 by Peter Elgar, on Flickr
Dover Harbour
Dover Harbour about 1953 by Peter Elgar, on Flickr
The Warren, Folkestone, Kent
The Warren, Folkestone, about 1953 by Peter Elgar, on Flickr
Folkestone Harbour
Folkestone Harbour about 1953 by Peter Elgar, on Flickr
 
pentaxpete said:
i have been scanning some old slides in a box in our shed -- I had several Agfacolor L UT18 of my Army Days which are on several Forums now such as QARANC .co.uk for Army Nurses but I also had a few 'Dufaycolor' slides in glass mounts taken about 1953 with my Ensign Selfix 16/20 Model II and cut square -- so if you have never seen Dufaycolor which was an 'Additve Process' here they are :
Dover Harbour
Dover Harbour about 1953 by Peter Elgar, on Flickr
Dover Harbour
Dover Harbour about 1953 by Peter Elgar, on Flickr
The Warren, Folkestone, Kent
The Warren, Folkestone, about 1953 by Peter Elgar, on Flickr
Folkestone Harbour
Folkestone Harbour about 1953 by Peter Elgar, on Flickr
Click to expand...

That's very interesting, Pete... I had a thread a few years ago about some boxes of Dufaycolors that we found in a box of my father's photographs (mainly 6*9 black and white negatives crammed into a wooden box). These were 6*9 Dufaycolors taken between about 1938 and late 1940s. The earliest ones were taken near Dover (he was REME and stationed there for a while pre-war). See the thread here...
 
A bit of a disaster with the roll of Rollei Retro 400s I ran through my OM-1, with pretty much every shot being under-exposed for some reason. Still, there are still quite a few that I like in a bleak sort of way. Here's one for starters...

1

FILM - On bleak winter days by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
StephenM said:
Even then, you'll need the optional extras of "MovieMode", "TemperatureSIm", "Smellorama" and "WindUp" together with the surround screen to get close :D

In reality (if not in reality) a photograph shouldn't really be seen as a scene but as an object in its own right :thinking:

Here's a Mamiya RZ67 photo of the back of John Lewis in Southampton.

View attachment 94756
Click to expand...

Great composition and Beautiful tones
It is surprisingly difficult to achieve that transparent sunshine look with Digital
 
pentaxpete said:
i have been scanning some old slides in a box in our shed -- I had several Agfacolor L UT18 of my Army Days which are on several Forums now such as QARANC .co.uk for Army Nurses but I also had a few 'Dufaycolor' slides in glass mounts taken about 1953 with my Ensign Selfix 16/20 Model II and cut square -- so if you have never seen Dufaycolor which was an 'Additve Process' here they are :
Dover Harbour
Dover Harbour about 1953 by Peter Elgar, on Flickr
Dover Harbour
Dover Harbour about 1953 by Peter Elgar, on Flickr
The Warren, Folkestone, Kent
The Warren, Folkestone, about 1953 by Peter Elgar, on Flickr
Folkestone Harbour
Folkestone Harbour about 1953 by Peter Elgar, on Flickr
Click to expand...


I shot a number of rolls of Dufay colour on a Rolleiflex but it never quite had the brightness of later films. I left them at home when I was in the army, and I think they must have been cleared out. I also had and still have an Ensign selfix 16-20 model ll, the Ross xpress lens is still clear and clean.
 
Dork Knight said:
Liking the underexposed photos Nige.
Click to expand...

Thanks Jason. Given that this level of underexposure was unexpected, I'm nontheless very happy how some of them have come out. Some shots are completely ruined though. Swings and roundabouts, eh? :)

VirtualAdept said:
That is very peculiar Nige... fancy throwing up a photo of the negs?
Click to expand...

Here you go.

negs.jpg
 
I don't suppose it's reciprocity failure*? Were you using a long shutter speed?

Edit to add

* Normally, opening up one stop and reducing the shutter speed by half will give the same exposure; or the other way round. That's the reciprocity law. But outside a certain range of shutter speeds, the law fails. Different films react to different extents, and even the shutter speed range varies between films. But outside the range 1/2 sec to 1/1000 sec you might have problems.
 
Last edited:
Or there something wrong with the aperture thingies and they're stuck? Is it consistent throughout the film or changing e.g. Gets better with use or gets worse?
 
*cross post from a dingbat thread*

FujiLove said:
This is MGIV semi-Matt, but I hear what you're saying. It's a lovely surface - haven't used it before.

I think I may be officially off-topic...

Trump's a d**k, Trump's a d**k!
Click to expand...
everybody needs an off topic F&C man cuddle in this thread..:)

I've tried em all and it begins and ends with glossy for me, I might dump some paper if you're interested

I've got a speedeezel for those borders, how are you doing yours cos it was a bit of a faff without it.
 
A quick update on my underexposed Rollei Retro 400. I've had a chat with the person at Peak who processed the roll who's detailed the processing used. Their advice, backed up by a few other sources I've found online since getting the negs back, is that the film is better rated at 200 or even 100 ASA, so the fault likely lies with me not researching the film better before shooting. I'll take it into account when I shoot the roll of 120 I have.

Given I actually really like some of the underexposed shots, it's not been a bad experience.
 
joxby said:
*cross post from a dingbat thread*


everybody needs an off topic F&C man cuddle in this thread..:)

I've tried em all and it begins and ends with glossy for me, I might dump some paper if you're interested

I've got a speedeezel for those borders, how are you doing yours cos it was a bit of a faff without it.
Click to expand...

Definitely interested in some paper as long as it's not too old.

I'm using a two blade 16"x12" LL Beard easel. It took a bit of time to measure the exact width required to get an even border, but once it's done it's sorted until you decide to use a different paper size (or in my case, forget where you jotted down the bloody notes). I love the LLB because it's really well built and weighs a ton. It stays in position even if you bump it by accident.

Here's a better shot of the print now it's dry and curly (it looks a lot less brown in the flesh). It's going to be mounted and framed as a house-warming gift...with a couple of alternatives slotted behind in case she hates this one!


32496320782_2d5c934507_c.jpg
 
I was happy to find this Wolseley 1500 parked at the side of the road while I nipped out to find a few shots one lunchtime earlier this week. I'd have taken more if I'd not been in a bit of a rush.

Olympus OM-1 and Rollei Retro 400s. Another from the roll I underexposed, but this one hasn't turned out too bad. Maybe a little dark under the car, but otherwise ok.


FILM - Wolseley by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
FishyFish said:
I was happy to find this Wolseley 1500 parked at the side of the road while I nipped out to find a few shots one lunchtime earlier this week. I'd have taken more if I'd not been in a bit of a rush.

Olympus OM-1 and Rollei Retro 400s. Another from the roll I overexposed, but this one hasn't turned out too bad. Maybe a little dark under the car, but otherwise ok.


FILM - Wolseley by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr
Click to expand...


Do you mean under-exposed, as there is no shadow detail under the car?
 
A few from my first roll of film since the Peaks Meet in September! :eek: :oops: :$

An old derelict petrol station that I've driven past a hundred times, and each time I do I think to myself, I need to visit that! I went down on Sunday in the rain to have a looksie. Turns out it's quite hard to hold an umbrella in the wind and rain whilst using a manual focus camera :LOL:

Tri-X pushed to 1600 and developed in HC-110(B) for 16 minutes. ETRS with 75mm lens.


F137S08.jpg



F137S09.jpg



F137S14.jpg
 
At last I finished a short length of 02/2007 dated Fuji ACROS 100 in my CANON FTbn -- it came out a bit under-developed even though I did everything as I usually do -- home-made MICROPHEN formula 1+3 for 11 mins but it was even 1oC Higher at 21oC -- but I scanned the best ones taken on a snowy/frosty day here in Brentwood, Essex, all on teh 50mm f1.4 Canon SSC lens
FTbn Snow 01 by Peter Elgar, on Flickr

FTbn Snow 02 by Peter Elgar, on Flickr

FTbn Snow 03 by Peter Elgar, on Flickr

FTbn Snow 04 by Peter Elgar, on Flickr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top