Show us yer film shots then!

Nice results Kevin. What sort of exposure times were you getting for the Pan F?
 
Peter B said:
Nice results Kevin. What sort of exposure times were you getting for the Pan F?
Click to expand...
Peter, on that day (mostly sunny) the base exposure was 2s @f161, but then add 5 stops for the ND filter used in the first two shots, takes it up to 60s, plus reciprocity = 174s! The last two shots used a red filter, which requires 3 stops, so that would be "only" 15 seconds which produces a very different result for the clouds.
 
Last edited:
Kevin Allan said:
Peter, on that day (mostly sunny) the base exposure was 2s @f161, but then add 5 stops for the ND filter used in the first two shots, takes it up to 60s, plus reciprocity = 174s! The last two shots used a red filter, which requires 3 stops, so that would be "only" 15 seconds which produces a very different result for the clouds.
Click to expand...
The filter factors explain quite a bit, but they've certainly worked well for these shots. (y)
 
One for @excalibur2 , I tried the SL66 with the lens reversed. I had it on a tripod because I was indoors with available light and it turns out to be next to impossible to focus like that. It would be better to hand-hold and rock back and forth but in the end I dug out a focusing rail to rack it back and forwards. Even so I don't think I nailed the focus.Apples6.jpg
 
sirch said:
One for @excalibur2 , I tried the SL66 with the lens reversed. I had it on a tripod because I was indoors with available light and it turns out to be next to impossible to focus like that. It would be better to hand-hold and rock back and forth but in the end I dug out a focusing rail to rack it back and forwards. Even so I don't think I nailed the focus.View attachment 252932
Click to expand...

Well when I reversed the lens I couldn't get anything razor sharp i.e the prints were just ok...maybe it was expecting too much from the Planar lens. When I get around to it, will find the negs and scan them and post my results.
 
You've done well, @sirch... I think when you get down towards 1:1 (even 1:2), using a tripod even with a close focusing lens is next to impossible. I found that turning the helicoid has the unfortunate effect of materially changing the subject to lens distance as well as the focus distance!. Like you, I found the best way was moving the whole camera, in my case hand-held. That's fine if it's quite bright, but your focusing rail sounds a good solution for lower light!
 
I did a lot of macro stuff a couple of years back (albeit on digital) and I found that, for moving subjects (insects etc.) the only way to get a chance at good focus was to fo it manually and then move my body and camera to get it just right. It sounds hard to believe, but that was the best way that I could get correct focus with a DOF of a fraction of a millimetre. This was done by eye via the optical viewfinder.

Still-life subjects were much easier as I could then use a tripod, plus the digital camera gave me the advantage of being able to zoom on the image in the display and perfect the focus which is something you don't get with film. Not having a focus rail, where possible I would place my subject on a piece of paper that would be out of frame, as it was much easier to carefully slide the subject towards and away from the camera on the paper until focus was perfect, than it was to move the tripod, or even use the focus ring.
 
A couple from a roll of expired Dixons branded 200asa film that expired in 2007 which I was using to test my faulty OM-1. Most of the roll came out with a noticable purple cast, but these two are quite nice. There's still a hint of purple, but it's served to make the reds explode!

Olympus OM-1
F.Zuiko 50mm f/1.8
Dixons 200 ASA film (expired 2007)

1

FILM - Rural living by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr

2

FILM - Letterbox by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr
 
This was shot on a Nikon N60, using a 35-80 lens. I used Ilford hp5 film, it was developed and scanned by Filmdev (learning is next on my list!!) .I then edited it in Photoscape X Pro. It's my first dabble into film, and only been shooting for just over a year. I love grungy, grainy, layered images, mixed media but in a photo!
FB_IMG_1566149425518.jpg
 
Just a couple from me from my week off last week, there's loads more but I'm not sure I want to subject you all to looking through my holiday snaps :LOL: The colours were shot on expired Portra 160VC and the BW is a return to XP2 for me after shooting a lot of it back when i started shooting film (which I'm loving again)

Southport Carousel by Andrew Roberts, on Flickr

Southport Pier Fish and Chips by Andrew Roberts, on Flickr

Miniature Golf at the Ice Cream Farm by Andrew Roberts, on Flickr

Nails polished by Andrew Roberts, on Flickr
 
FishyFish said:
Zeiss Mess-Ikonta 524/16
Fujifilm Provia 100F

Cropped to remove light-leak I accidentally caused. :(


FILM - Number 897 by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Talking of light-leaks when photographing cars; a couple of years ago the auto rewind jammed on my EOS 30 and I didn't realise until I opened the back of the camera to remove the film. Luckily, it only took me a second or so to see what had happened and close the back again, so the light-contamination wasn't too bad. However, I don't think it made or broke this shot either way. I think I'd have been better cropping out that distracting alloy wheel on the car next door!

 
Last edited:
Mr Badger said:
Talking of light-leaks when photographing cars; a couple of years ago the auto rewind jammed on my EOS 30 and I didn't realise until I opened the back of the camera to remove the film. Luckily, it only took me a second or so to see what had happened and close the back again, so the light-contamination wasn't too bad. However, I don't think it made or broke this shot either way. I think I'd have been better cropping out that distracting alloy wheel on the car next door!

Click to expand...

The main light-leak on this shot was below the car (under the headlight at the right of the shot) and I've now just notices a couple of artifacts where the backing paper has imprinted on the image (a couple of "01" marks under the headlight).

I'll post some more shots from the roll as I upload them - most of them have a least a little residual light-leak glow in the images, even after cropping, but a few have managed to avoid any issues.
 
excalibur2 said:
As you post a high standard of shots here, on my screen you have a magenta cast to correct to keep your reputation intact. o_O;)
Click to expand...

You're right Brian, there is, but it's actualy there on the film too if I look at it on a light table, so I didn't correct it. I looked it up online and found quite a lot of people mentioning a magenta / purple cast on Provia, so I guess it could just be a feature of the film (which is fresh stock). The Flickr group for Provia 100F also shows a number of pictures with a similar tint (although not all of them).

All that said, I've made a slight tweak in Lightroom which has removed some of it now.
 
FishyFish said:
You're right Brian, there is, but it's actualy there on the film too if I look at it on a light table, so I didn't correct it. I looked it up online and found quite a lot of people mentioning a magenta / purple cast on Provia, so I guess it could just be a feature of the film (which is fresh stock). The Flickr group for Provia 100F also shows a number of pictures with a similar tint (although not all of them).

All that said, I've made a slight tweak in Lightroom which has removed some of it now.
Click to expand...
I've often had a magenta cast on Fuji Superia 400 when home scanned, but so far the 400H Pro seems better in that respect.
 
Same wedding...

1435_028.jpg

All these shots were taken in near pitch black, 1/8th second at f4.5 as I remember.
Unfortunately it was a free bar so the second film was completely blank. Should have been shots of the violin player Christos. Might not have loaded the film correctly or forgot to take the lens cap off. Can't remember!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top