Show us yer film shots then!

Sandstone & Ivy
Fomapan 100 5x4
7139280207_555931c82e_b.jpg
[/url] Sandstone & Ivy by Marvin d martian100, on Flickr[/IMG]

Mart
 
essexash said:
A few from Sennen on a dank wet murkey day. Ilford hp5+ and Rodinal. Im sure im following the dev times but they all seem to come out dark. Will try another minute next time and see what happens.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ashleyssnaps/7125616787/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ashleyssnaps/7125605629/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ashleyssnaps/7125603867/
Click to expand...

I've only dev'd a couple of films so have almost no idea what I'm talking about. But I've read that if they come out too dark that can indicate *overdevelopment*.

Can someone who knows clarify this for me and ash?
 
martsharm said:
I've only dev'd a couple of films so have almost no idea what I'm talking about. But I've read that if they come out too dark that can indicate *overdevelopment*.

Can someone who knows clarify this for me and ash?
Click to expand...

Further to this, it could be that I've read the *neg* is too dark if overdeveloped, so then the print/scan would be brighter the longer the development. Please help!
 
A negeative that is too dark could be caused by overdevelopment and/or overexposure.

One of the things you can do is check the frame numbers, usually if the film is developed correctly the frame numbers will look black and sharp, if they are black and fuzzy then you have probably overdeveloped the film, if they are grey or faint then you have probably underdeveloped the film.

The biggest mistake newcomers to film photography make is to 'just give it a bit extra exposure just to be sure' and just give it a minute or so longer in the developer 'just to be sure'. What you then end up with is a very dense negative which has been 'overexposed and overdeveloped'.

It may be worth getting hold of some books which include film use (prettty much anything published before 1990 will do).
 
Assuming that your scanner is not affecting the end result.

If the neg is too dense the print/scan will look pale and washed out, if the print/scan is too dark then it could mean that the negative has not received enough exposure or enough development.
 


From Chinese New Year - only just got round to uploading it (this was from the parade at the end of January).
 
Nguss, those are some absolutely lovely frames, it must be awesome to have positives that large to look at!
 
Mr_T said:
Nguss, those are some absolutely lovely frames, it must be awesome to have positives that large to look at!
Click to expand...

+1

my only issue with them is that now he posted his after my picture, mine is bound to get looked over :bang: :LOL:

(and rightly so!)
 
Thanks, they are lovely to look at, almost make me want to try 8x10.

Apologies Mr Freecom sir I was just going to say that, looking at your uploads is making me seriously hanker after a TLR. You have posted some really great black and whites.
 
A couple from the Lakes in March on a Nikon F100, Nikon 28-105mm and Kodak Ektar. There's a few more in the Photos from Film section if you're interested (actually they're there even if your not interested).


Waterfall1 by andysnapper1, on Flickr


Daffodil by andysnapper1, on Flickr

Cheers

Andy
 
Nguss said:
Apologies Mr Freecom sir I was just going to say that, looking at your uploads is making me seriously hanker after a TLR. You have posted some really great black and whites.
Click to expand...

No apology necessary at all, please - your shots are of excellent standard and I have already mentioned that it isn't a type of photography that particularly interests me normally, but you pull out the best in it (y)

Don't go down the GAS road! :LOL:
 
Some great shots lately from everyone. It is one of the quirks of this thread, if you don't pounce and comment quickly then half a dozen new shots appear!

Always worth a look, though!
 
This is my second roll of film. Taken by Nikon L35AF and Kodak Ektar.

QD0001025.jpg


I like this camera a lot and the lens quality is very good but one problem is the flash would pop up once the light isn't enough but it made lots of the photo look far too bright. Is there anything i can do about it? or you guys can advise me other camera? thanks
 
hoftwi said:
one problem is the flash would pop up once the light isn't enough but it made lots of the photo look far too bright. Is there anything i can do about it? or you guys can advise me other camera? thanks
Click to expand...

The flash is fully automatic so you can't disable it, you might be able to put some sort of ND filter over it to calm it down a bit.
 
Fantastic detail Ed, very impressive.
 
Thanks for your comments gents. I am really enjoying the large format thing, I can see the benefits for product photography, still lifes, landscapes and things that don't move too much, but I have a lot of work to do to do anything well in the portrait line with a monorail.
 
joxby said:
Samsung hi def...:thinking:

Top two are tidy, though the second one looks a little green.
The last two look like they're on the edge of scanability.
You're way over due shooting some slide jgredline..:D

overcooked these a bit, the whole roll, think it was Astia or something, not my usual slide anyway.
Three for fun...
Click to expand...

The 'Relics' shot in this post is just fabulous. I'm catching up on this thread.

Page 13 by the way.
 
Last edited:
After seeing Ed's shot and looking through the copy of East 100th Street I just bought, I suddenly want a 4x5 camera now!
 
trevorbray said:
The 'Relics' shot in this post is just fabulous. I'm catching up on this thread.

Page 13 by the way.
Click to expand...

I've been here 4-5 years and I still go back to page 1 of this thread every once in a while, and work my way through it again, there's some great pics in it.
Shame the Flickr links are busted..:(
 
hoftwi said:
Kodak Ektar
Click to expand...

Looks a bit green, you ought to try and colour balance it a bit.
I'd say that scene would be very difficult to control the highlights in and maintain detail in the blacks, sweet lookin dog though..:)
 
joxby said:
I've been here 4-5 years and I still go back to page 1 of this thread every once in a while, and work my way through it again, there's some great pics in it.
Shame the Flickr links are busted..:(
Click to expand...

I keep meaning to copy this thread into the staff dungeon and spend a couple of hours weeding out the dead links and references to them... Problem is, chances are, by the time I'd finished tidying up the copy, there'd be another half a dozen posts in the original thread.

It's got so big, that i'm a little scared to work on the original thread though... and if I put a temporary :lock: on the thread it'd scare half of you to death :LOL:

Edit: I saved a "backup copy" and I've managed to lose a few of the blank/null posts in the thread, mainly the ones that have either dead flickr links or shots that were in the TP Gallery that aren't there any more. It's just taken half a hour for the first 20 pages, so it could be a long-ish job...
 
From the sublime beauty of Ed's bramble leaf to the ridiculous retroness of some found film

7004177846_caae894b4b.jpg
[/url]
Ensign Fulvue -3 by Raglansurf, on Flickr[/IMG]

7004177632_2835b224fd.jpg
[/url]
Ensign Fulvue -2 by Raglansurf, on Flickr[/IMG]

7150269425_9b8f822eac.jpg
[/url]
Ensign Fulvue -1 by Raglansurf, on Flickr[/IMG]

I bought an Ensign Fulvue from a junk shop the other day, I didn't look at it properly and if I'd had a little more time to examine it I probably wouldn't have bought it because the shutter doesn't work, it's missing the red window and it's pretty tatty. But when I got it home I did discover a roll of Kodak Verichrome Pan so I sent it off to The Darkroom in Cheltenham for processing and there were only three images on the roll. From the clothes and cars I would think these were taken in the early 60's.
 
TheBigYin said:
I keep meaning to copy this thread into the staff dungeon and spend a couple of hours weeding out the dead links and references to them... Problem is, chances are, by the time I'd finished tidying up the copy, there'd be another half a dozen posts in the original thread.

It's got so big, that i'm a little scared to work on the original thread though... and if I put a temporary :lock: on the thread it'd scare half of you to death :LOL:

Edit: I saved a "backup copy" and I've managed to lose a few of the blank/null posts in the thread, mainly the ones that have either dead flickr links or shots that were in the TP Gallery that aren't there any more. It's just taken half a hour for the first 20 pages, so it could be a long-ish job...
Click to expand...

It puzzles me why this thread isnt in the photos from film section, seems that that section is always pretty quiet?
 
Mainly Rob, because it was started before the Photo's from Film section was set up, mainly as a way of showing film shots in a "non-critique stylee" without people asking to see the colour version of a FP4+ shot or complaining that the 1600 ISO was a bit noisy :LOL:

Also, in a "pipe and slippers" kind of way, its sort of comforting to have "old faithful" still going in F&C, just in case someone decides that Photo's from Film isn't busy enough to pay for it's "real estate"
 
robhooley167 said:
It puzzles me why this thread isnt in the photos from film section, seems that that section is always pretty quiet?
Click to expand...

I think the photos from film thread was started because this one got so big and cumbersome and it was felt that it should be somewhere else, unfortunately some of us are too lazy to make the long journey over to a different part of the forum :whistle:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top