Show us yer film shots then!

soupdragon said:
This is Titchfield abbey near Farnham in Hampshire.
As you can see from the sky, it was not a great day for contrast.
Click to expand...
Nowt wrong with it, you have detail in the sky which adds some life to the scene and the contrast is imo just fine.
 
I don’t like prints behind glass or Perspex, however I do find that they often benefit with a decent frame/ border so I’ve decided to make a start with my prints.
Doubt I’ll do them all as too much backlog and the cost is prohibitive .
C61803FB-B990-49AD-A8EA-8C1710353B9A.jpeg
 
joxby said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, I understand what you mean, although it seems to be deeply poignant, as are all the other school photos I have. My grandmother looks quite suspicious wouldn't you say, and perhaps that sums up the children's feelings. I wouldn't have carried out the renevation had not my grandmother, great aunts and uncles been in the picture. After all, at their age, very few photographs of them exist.

On the other hand, it is a tiny reminder of almost 120 years ago.

What's a micro agression, by the way? Is there a cream for it?

If we were to carry on this discussion should it be in a separate thread. I feel we are miles off-topic?
 
LeeRatters said:
Orion on Film!!

Pretty happy with this considering I'm used to clinically clean digital night sky images!


*** by Lee, on Flickr
Click to expand...
YESSS!
A digiyte converted to the dark side :p
Astro on film , there’s no turning back now .

Clinically clean is overrated anyway :exit:
 
Asha said:
YESSS!
A digiyte converted to the dark side :p
Astro on film , there’s no turning back now .

Clinically clean is overrated anyway :exit:
Click to expand...

:ROFLMAO:

I've had this film camera since it was bought for me back in the mid 90's :) Been using it more lately with the main aim to be star trails as I'd rather a single film image than having to import, batch edit, export, stack, blend, etc etc 300 digital images!! Plus I set the film up for a 30 minute star trail & let that run whilst shooting digital inbetween. Works out well :)

Also taken using a lockable cable release I was given by a certain kind person :)
 
soupdragon said:
Please share your technique/exposure details.
Click to expand...

It might be cheating...... But I know roughly what the digital settings are needed. So I use a photography light meter app to convert those settings to suit the film speed & aperture available to give me the shutter speed.

This was ASA200, f/2.8, 4 minutes on a MSM tracker mount.

Making me wonder what lens I used now? I thought it was the 50/1.9? Might have been the 28/2.8? But it looks too tight for 28mm in all honesty.......
 
This reminds me of the results I used to get with Tri-X and the Paterson speed enhancing developer which I seem to remember being called Acuspeed, correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe the results were a bit more contrasty though.
 
PeterSpencer said:
This reminds me of the results I used to get with Tri-X and the Paterson speed enhancing developer which I seem to remember being called Acuspeed, correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe the results were a bit more contrasty though.
Click to expand...
I've only pushed Tri-X on one occasion, and that was an expired roll, so maybe not representative, but I noticed much more grain than HP5+ gives when pushed. Both were developed in DD-X.
 
Been Experimenting with 'Staining Film Developers' -- I made up the famous '510-Pyro' -- I got a 'Sludge' probably the Ascorbic Acid or some of the Pyrogallol as well in the thick 'TEA - Triethanolamine' concentrate so I have to try to mix it before taking any out -- I have to be very careful NOT to get any on my Fingers as PYROGALLOL is Cargenogenic !
I used a 1991 dated ORWO NP22 film in my 1956 ROLLEIFLEX T with 16-on Kit and the 75mm f3.5 Zeiss TESSAR lens . SCANS with PlusTek OpticFilm 7200
510 Pyro 02.jpg510 Pyro 04.jpg510 Pyro 05.jpg510 Pyro 06.jpg510 Pyro 07.jpg
 
Last edited:
Plain Nev said:
I do like the colours of Kodak Gold. But what's going on with the edges?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure, the whole negative was like it, it's the first time it's happened. The tetenol chemicals were on the last film recommend so possibly something to do with that. I've got rid of them and using new chemicals next film
 
pentaxpete said:
Been Experimenting with 'Staining Film Developers' -- I made up the famous '510-Pyro' -- I got a 'Sludge' probably the Ascorbic Acid or some of the Pyrogallol as well in the thick 'TEA - Triethanolamine' concentrate so I have to try to mix it before taking any out -- I have to be very careful NOT to get any on my Fingers as PYROGALLOL is Cargenogenic !
I used a 1991 dated ORWO NP22 film in my 1956 ROLLEIFLEX T with 16-on Kit and the 75mm f3.5 Zeiss TESSAR lens . SCANS with PlusTek OpticFilm 7200
View attachment 342867View attachment 342868View attachment 342869View attachment 342870View attachment 342871
Click to expand...
I know nothing about staining film developers, but it does seem to have worked well (if rather high contrast) with that old ORWO roll! I used a couple of rolls of (fresh) ORWO NP22 when I was working in Bulgaria in 1970, and got some very nice shots with it on my Werra 1! (I've trotted out my London to Mexico Rally shot taken in Sofia from the office, a couple of times.)
 
I gave my 1956-59 Rolleiflex E2 XENOTAR and outing to use up some outdated Fuji Superia 100 from the Huge Film Stash I got from my Deceased Great Friend. Although the 80mm f2.8 taking lens was badly scratched by the Press Photographer the original owner the LENS is still sharp --
ROLLEI E2 Xenotar Fuji Superia 100 01 by Peter Elgar, on Flickr
ROLLEI E2 Xenotar Fuji Superia 100 03 by Peter Elgar, on Flickr
ROLLEI E2 Xenotar Fuji Superia 100 04 by Peter Elgar, on Flickr
ROLLEI E2 Fuji Superia 100 -- my 'TEST' 5 trees by Peter Elgar, on Flickr
 
pentaxpete said:
I gave my 1956-59 Rolleiflex E2 XENOTAR and outing to use up some outdated Fuji Superia 100 from the Huge Film Stash I got from my Deceased Great Friend. Although the 80mm f2.8 taking lens was badly scratched by the Press Photographer the original owner the LENS is still sharp --
ROLLEI E2 Xenotar Fuji Superia 100 01 by Peter Elgar, on Flickr
ROLLEI E2 Xenotar Fuji Superia 100 03 by Peter Elgar, on Flickr
ROLLEI E2 Xenotar Fuji Superia 100 04 by Peter Elgar, on Flickr
ROLLEI E2 Fuji Superia 100 -- my 'TEST' 5 trees by Peter Elgar, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with the results from that lens Pete. (y)

I hope to join you soon in sharing some square hipster images soon as I’ve just finished a roll of FP4 today though my recently acquired Yashica 635.

If the IQ of my negs come close to what you’ve achieved, I’ll be a happy bunny;)
 
E94Gj5.jpg


North Weald, January 2022

Pentax 645N/Pentax 45-85/HP5+/DDX/Nikon CS9000

0014_1080.jpg
 
Last edited:
The sky looks more overcast than anything, and a yellow filter wouldn't make much difference to that. I think SM17 is painted blue (am I correct?) and a yellow filter would darken the blue paint, and probably reduce the contrast between that and the gunwhale (black or grey?). A blue filter would lighten the blue paint.

Otherwise, to add contrast either move the sliders :)exit:) or increase the development. Or, if darkroom printing, a harder grade of paper.

The lack of shadows suggests a low contrast scene.

Edit: my profile hides my exact location to protect the guilty, but I live in Hove, so the 259 isn't exactly unknown to me.
 
Last edited:
Having just scanned a strip of negs from the first roll through my 'new to me' Yashica, I realise that I seriously dislike this digital reproduction process of film based images.

I think that I'll occupy myself in the darkroom with the remaining frames.

Yashica635
FP4 ( 120)
HC-110 'B' solution
Epson V700

Sans titre-1.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top