Show us yer film shots then!

The Rolleicords are brilliant if you can find one with a clean lens.
Many years ago I tried cleaning my VB elements with no luck whatsoever.
 
OK -- Still on 'The ROLLEI Kick' took lout my lovely 1969 Rolleiflex 2.8F Planar loaded with a roll of 07/2007 dated Fuji Superia 100 from a batch in Fridge for years -- still good 80 ASA --- I still think the 80mm f2,8 XENOTAR beats the 80mm f2.8 PLANAR for resolution -- here are some I took on PLANAR mostly f4. f5.6 and the lady with dog at f11 and 1/60rh -- Steady hand still !
2.8 f Planar Fuji 06 by Peter Elgar, on Flickr
2.8 F Planar Fuji 04 by Peter Elgar, on Flickr
2.8 F Planar Fuji 01 by Peter Elgar, on Flickr
2.8 F Planar Fuji 08 by Peter Elgar, on Flickr
 
River Don in Aberdeen, the first shot looks strange at first but the calm water cascades down a small waterfall giving the choppy waters so it looks like a split scene.
The second shot shows what it looks like from the other direction with a swan adding to the image.

Nikon F6 + Nikon AF 85mm f1.8 lens, Fuji Superia 400 film.

River Don split water.jpg

River Don warerfall swan.jpg
 
Last edited:
Finally got around to taking the 90 year old Kodak No. 1A out for a walk. The negs are scratched but that could be the paper film gate I made for adapting to 120 as much as the camera. The shutter seems good and the lens is sharp enough. There are some slight light leaks at the very edges and framing probably needs a dark cloth but overall I'm impressed for its age.

Kodak-No1A (1) by Chris H, on Flickr

Kodak-No1A (2) by Chris H, on Flickr

Kodak-No1A (3) by Chris H, on Flickr
 
Harlequin565 said:
One I took for Rainy then forgot about until I developed it at the weekend...

Tri-X @ 800, Zeiss Ikon ZM.
View attachment 341948
Click to expand...

I had something similar as a backup for the one I chose...

Olympus XA3
Kodak Tri-X Pan (expired 2003). Shot at 400asa and pushed one stop in development.
Ilfotec DD-X 1+4 10mins @ 20°


Rain by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr
 
This is Titchfield abbey near Farnham in Hampshire.
As you can see from the sky, it was not a great day for contrast.
 
Looks fine to me. Although, nit picking, maybe it needed a bit of spotting. But that might be because my monitor is a bit flaky.
 
No, it's not your monitor, I'm having a dust problem.
 
Spotting is the most tedious stage of scanning images. I try to do it assiduously but sometimes, particularly with found images, I just concentrate on bringing faces alive, never mind the noisy, scratchy backgrounds. Even that is a bit of a challenge sometimes. It's very easy to change a person's appearance altogether with a tiny edit.

I find it is extraordinary how much the spotting makes the images come alive, particularly with older pictures. A clean picture of a 100 year old scene, for instance, has a presence about it which belies the age. The spotting might just consist of a few dozen tiny corrections, but then the image isn't antique anymore, it becomes very immediate.

The picture I worked on for the longest, of my grandmother at school in 1902 or so, took me six hours to 'correct'. Luckily, I knew what my grandmother's and her cousins looked like so I don't think that the result was too bad.

Yer 'tis...

GlusburnBoardSchool1902_001_JPEG5.jpg

Lily Watson, nee Walmesley, is at the extreme left of the second row up.

A bit of attitude there.
 
PeterSpencer said:
Spotting is the most tedious stage of scanning images. I try to do it assiduously but sometimes, particularly with found images, I just concentrate on bringing faces alive, never mind the noisy, scratchy backgrounds. Even that is a bit of a challenge sometimes. It's very easy to change a person's appearance altogether with a tiny edit.

I find it is extraordinary how much the spotting makes the images come alive, particularly with older pictures. A clean picture of a 100 year old scene, for instance, has a presence about it which belies the age. The spotting might just consist of a few dozen tiny corrections, but then the image isn't antique anymore, it becomes very immediate.

The picture I worked on for the longest, of my grandmother at school in 1902 or so, took me six hours to 'correct'. Luckily, I knew what my grandmother's and her cousins looked like so I don't think that the result was too bad.

Yer 'tis...

View attachment 342039

Lily Watson, nee Walmesley, is at the extreme left of the second row up.

A bit of attitude there.
Click to expand...
I dunno what I feel about this type of 100 year old school year book picture.
On one hand, its a snap from the past with shed loads of historical interest, on the other the people in it appear completely joyless.
A reflection of the hardships they are/will have to endure, maybe dead pan portraiture was the accepted look of the time, seen and not heard, I dunno.
They definitely have a look of foreboding about them, except ribbon girl who squeaks out a sly one.
Well, it is a school after all, I doubt we were doing micro aggressions and safe spaces in 1902.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top