Show us yer film shots then!

FishyFish said:
Nikon F80
Nikkor 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-
Kodak Colorplus
Lab developed. Home scanned and converted with Negative Lab Pro.


Illumination by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Great colour and love the composition with the juxtaposition between the lighthouse and the modern lighting, works very well.

Also to say that the Nikon 28-80 f3.5 -5.6 lens is a real sleeper at a low price, I have all three versions. :)
 
Peter B said:
As promised/threatened, I ran the roll of Kentmere 100 through the FC-1 with 40mm f1.8 and devved it with Xtol-R. To be fair, the light was pretty poor, but I'm not taken with this film and developer combo.

Tayport Low lighthouse

View attachment 402915

Keeper's Cottage for the Low lighthouse

View attachment 402916

Crop of date stone above door.

View attachment 402917
Click to expand...

A very good set of three and you have had good success with the Kentmere 100, much better than I have ever had with this film.
 
Three (older) photos on a theme - see if you can spot it. From top to bottom (and north to south)

1. PLockton
2. York
3. Weald and Downland museum, Sussex

cpic032x.jpgcpic037x.jpgcpic047x.jpg
 
UIL, UBD and ACD.

If intentional camera movement can have it's own TLA, so can unintentional light leak, unintentional bad development (it looks like a development issue to me) and accidental double exposure.

The connection is that they are all spectacular failures to prove that I can do it (with ease, due to my experience with same).

I mentioned somewhere a long time ago I should post some that weren't alright on the night, and here are a few.

The prod that lead to my posting was I came across a directory with them in while looking for a file.
 
StephenM said:
UIL, UBD and ACD.

If intentional camera movement can have it's own TLA, so can unintentional light leak, unintentional bad development (it looks like a development issue to me) and accidental double exposure.

The connection is that they are all spectacular failures to prove that I can do it (with ease, due to my experience with same).

I mentioned somewhere a long time ago I should post some that weren't alright on the night, and here are a few.

The prod that lead to my posting was I came across a directory with them in while looking for a file.
Click to expand...

The second looked like a double-exposure with a range of hills / mountains shot in landscape mode. :)
 
EPDLiC.jpg


Nikon F3/Nikkor 35mm f2.8 (I think)/HP5@400/Perceptol
 
Got a new film scanner, Yipeee:beer::beer:!! Tough to get a decent scan though if the exposure is not good!

Kentmere 400 - Voightlander bessa R, Voightlander color scopar 35mm

Untitled-(10).jpgUntitled-(2).jpg
 
Last edited:
Well done for persevering - I hope each scan is reasonably quick to do.
 
The scanner is a plustek 8200i, its not bad for scanning a few negatives but after a while it gets tiring. I find the dynamic range the biggest negative and wouldn’t like to print from a digital scan. So looking forward to finishing the darkroom, nearly there, just need to sort out ventilation.
 
Nikon F80
Nikkor 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-
Kodak Gold
Lab developed. Home scanned and converted with Negative Lab Pro.


Narrow street by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr

EDIT: Can people see this as an embedded photo? It shows for me as an icon with a X mark for some reason, although it appears fine if I edit the post? This happens from time to time and I've never figured out the reason why.

EDIT 2: It seems that it's the 1600 pixel wide link that's causing the problem. Switching to 1024 pixels wide resolves it. Again, this only seems to happen occasionally on certain images, but at least I have a workaround. :)
 
Last edited:
FishyFish said:
Nikon F80
Nikkor 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-
Kodak Gold
Lab developed. Home scanned and converted with Negative Lab Pro.


Narrow street by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr

EDIT: Can people see this as an embedded photo? It shows for me as an icon with a X mark for some reason, although it appears fine if I edit the post? This happens from time to time and I've never figured out the reason why.
Click to expand...
I see the icon with the X but when I click on it I go to your Flikr page/photo. BTW when I quoted your post the picture showed in my post?

Edit now I have posted it the picture is replaced with the icon X.

Edit 2 nice shot BTW.
 
Last edited:
Topsy said:
I see the icon with the X but when I click on it I go to your Flikr page/photo. BTW when I quoted your post the picture showed in my post?

Edit now I have posted it the picture is replaced with the icon X.

Edit 2 nice shot BTW.
Click to expand...

Thanks Paul. Yeah, it's a head-scratcher as to why it happens (but only on certain pictures).

@sirch Any idea as to why this happens? Is it a forum bug, or a Flickr issue do you know?
 
Try edit the post and paste the link again Nige. When it happens to me i just delete and repost. The link still appears broken
 
Like everyone else (?) I can only see it when I click on the icon and go to flickr.

I've seen these X-icon images on other fora, I just assumed a broken link and didn't click. Now I might, if only to see if it's a common problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top