Show us yer film shots then!

thorton said:
Considering this is 8x10 the quality of this is actually quite poor... :shrug:
Click to expand...

Maybe you should look at it on Flickr at its largest size 2048X1643 if your monitor will show it at that size. On a 32 inch monitor it looks really good even allowing for Flickrs resolution.

C
 
thorton said:
Considering this is 8x10 the quality of this is actually quite poor... :shrug:
Click to expand...

Like any photographer, you are entitled to your own opinion, however I would like to know why you consider the quality is poor......To criticise a shot without explaining your reasons is imo a little disrespectfull to the person to whom the photograph belongs.
 
It's been a while since I've shot anything on film. Provia 100F on a Canon 50E. Excuse the lousy scan.

8245497370_8591a57f36_o.jpg
 
Mohain said:
It's been a while since I've shot anything on film. Provia 100F on a Canon 50E. Excuse the lousy scan.

8245497370_8591a57f36_o.jpg
Click to expand...

Like it a lot, another great example of why Provia is my go to colour film (y)
 
Mohain said:
It's been a while since I've shot anything on film. Provia 100F on a Canon 50E. Excuse the lousy scan.

8245497370_8591a57f36_o.jpg
Click to expand...

Very nice capture of a beautiful cloud inversion...gets my vote!
 
freecom2 said:
With all due respect to Ed, could you elaborate?

Bear in mind it's a flatbed scan (quality loss), it was probably lossy compressed (quality loss) to upload to the web, it's on flickr (quality loss).

EDIT: additionally, because it's been downsized slightly by vBulletin - almost certainly some quality loss there as well.
Click to expand...

Simon photo said:
Looks lovely to me?
Where do you see it failing?
Click to expand...

Ceejay said:
Maybe you should look at it on Flickr at its largest size 2048X1643 if your monitor will show it at that size. On a 32 inch monitor it looks really good even allowing for Flickrs resolution.

C
Click to expand...

Asha said:
Like any photographer, you are entitled to your own opinion, however I would like to know why you consider the quality is poor......To criticise a shot without explaining your reasons is imo a little disrespectfull to the person to whom the photograph belongs.
Click to expand...

I looked at it on flickr at full size and came to that conclusion.

There is some seeeeeerious halo'ing around the actual flower and anything in focus, and at all sizes it looks pretty soft on top of that.
 
Mt first go at home developing! ...it went badly. Everything is scratched. But it's a learning curve, right? Fomapan 400, Pentax MX.

8247319493_77783883f0_b.jpg


If anyone can tell me why the photos are so soft (all the above were tweaked digitally, an original is here), I'd be grateful. Not sure if it was the film or the developing. Everything was quite low-contrast.
 
mothdust said:
Mt first go at home developing! ...it went badly. Everything is scratched. But it's a learning curve, right? Fomapan 400, Pentax MX.

8247319493_77783883f0_b.jpg


If anyone can tell me why the photos are so soft (all the above were tweaked digitally, an original is here), I'd be grateful. Not sure if it was the film or the developing. Everything was quite low-contrast.
Click to expand...

Hi Charlotte,

Firstly congratulations on your first home developing.....a learning curve it is and indeed one never really stops learning regardless of experience.

It's interesting to see that your image is lacking contrast and appears soft as I ave found very similar results with Fomapan Action 400 ISO film.

Admittedy I've used the film in some very old cameras but the poor results seem to be pretty much consistent regardless of kit.

I've used Fomapan Classic 100 iso for quite a while and generaaly speaking found the results pretty much ok/good but the faster speed film doesn't imo come up to the same standard.....I personally won't be purchasing anymore when i finish the batch i have.

It's not necessarily just the film at fault but from my experience, it could well be playing a major part.
 
Thanks very much Asha - I expected more from Fomapan but a few people have said its a bit pants! The first time I used it, I did so with an orange filter, and the results were vastly different. Really monochrome shots, it's interesting to see the difference.
 
When you scan them they will come out quite low contrast as that's what negatives are supposed to be like! When their printed on paper though the contrast increases but with the scanner it just scans what is there (i.e a low contrast image). Just go into Photoshop or whatever editor you have and using curves give it an S-curve that suits your taste in contrast. As to the softness, all digital images whether scanned or not need a degree of unsharp mask.
 
Just to add to that ^^^ although yes, the negatives are usually quite flat (the recommended developing times are usually to yield those kind of negatives), it's certainly not always the case - very easy to have a much more contrasty neg, or other characteristics, by changing times/agitation/developer when processing.
 
Oh! I didn't know that, thanks :) I played about with them in Lightroom, alas there is no "invert" option on there, how annoying!
 
If you have v3 or v4 you can invert an image using the point curve (not parametric) panel - just grab the two ends and flip them to the other end the y-axis.
 
always a good idea to try and get a good exposure to start with ,,,,,then make sure you get all the powder to dissolve in the water ( slapped legs ) looks like you had bubbles sitting on the film when developing ( the black dots ) give the pot a bit of a bang on a work surface or something after inverting .if you want to get more contrast , give it a bit more developement ( time wise , say another 30 secs longer than the quoted time ) although if you get the exposure right in camera it shouldnt be much of a problem . how did you manage to get the scratches ? keep your fingers off the film , try to handle it by the edges only ,,,the only time i touch the film face , is when i drag the leader a third of the way round the spiral before winding the film on ..
 
Last edited:
donutagain said:
always a good idea to try and get a good exposure to start with ,,,,,then make sure you get all the powder to dissolve in the water ( slapped legs ) looks like you had bubbles sitting on the film when developing ( the black dots ) give the pot a bit of a bang on a work surface or something after inverting .if you want to get more contrast , give it a bit more developement ( time wise , say another 30 secs longer than the quoted time ) although if you get the exposure right in camera it shouldnt be much of a problem . how did you manage to get the scratches ? keep your fingers off the film , try to handle it by the edges only ,,,the only time i touch the film face , is when i drag the leader a third of the way round the spiral before winding the film on ..
Click to expand...

Oh getting the film on the reel was a farce, I mangled it up good and proper. Also used cold water instead of warm when mixing the developer (oops). :nuts:
 
Musicman said:
If you have v3 or v4 you can invert an image using the point curve (not parametric) panel - just grab the two ends and flip them to the other end the y-axis.
Click to expand...

I tried this, but it kept snapping to the top, it wouldn't let me invert it properly. I ended up with a rather Z-shaped curve.
 
mothdust said:
Oh getting the film on the reel was a farce, I mangled it up good and proper. Also used cold water instead of warm when mixing the developer (oops). :nuts:
Click to expand...

and they say blokes dont bother with instructions !:LOL:

the water needs to be quite hot i think ,,,,,and make sure the reels are really dry ,,,,
 
Last edited:
David, they are both stunning close up monochromes, very sharp, lovely range of tones and great Blacks! Cracking shots all round in my view. The second one is like a Georgia O'Keeffe painting!
 
Last edited:
Fantastic shots. Should try shooting them with some slide film, the results would be superb!
 
Superb stuff Dave....the 2nd one made me say WOW out loud.
 
Liam said:
Its been a while..
Click to expand...

Too long Liam, cracking shot really nice muted colours.

And David, those b&w still lives are fantastic, they must be good I've never heard Andy say 'wow' out loud before :LOL:
 
RaglanSurf said:
Too long Liam, cracking shot really nice muted colours.

And David, those b&w still lives are fantastic, they must be good I've never heard Andy say 'wow' out loud before :LOL:
Click to expand...

he did when his megamahoosive gigantic burger turned up when we went to the pub to eat when he came down to that there London

img058_640x480_.jpg



:LOL:















sorry mate couldnt resist :exit:
 
That wasn't mahoosive, it was a tiny, little, infinitesimally small thing, hardly worthy of a bite, it just looks big in my dainty little hands.
 
My favourite compact at the moment, I thought I would do some conversions to see what happened.

#1
27730034CS5.jpg



#2
27730006CS5.jpg



#3
27730004CS5.jpg
 
Jao said:
David, they are both stunning close up monochromes, very sharp, lovely range of tones and great Blacks! Cracking shots all round in my view. The second one is like a Georgia O'Keeffe painting!
Click to expand...

freecom2 said:
Fantastic shots. Should try shooting them with some slide film, the results would be superb!
Click to expand...

Andysnap said:
Superb stuff Dave....the 2nd one made me say WOW out loud.
Click to expand...

RaglanSurf said:
...And David, those b&w still lives are fantastic, they must be good I've never heard Andy say 'wow' out loud before :LOL:
Click to expand...

Thanks Chaps.
 
Guildford Cathedral, yep it really was lit this colour.

Provia from my Rollei

8261239166_db0594a54f_b.jpg
 
MindofMel said:
Gorgeous!

Some from a set of 30 - taken at a doctors vs students annual football game! Might turn them into a set of little prints or something at uni
Click to expand...

St. George's footballers, as motley a crew as ever they were!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top