wildlightphoto Posted March 6, 2011 Share #21 Posted March 6, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Fujichrome Provia 100F: Kodachrome 200: Fujichrome Provia 400F: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 Hi wildlightphoto, Take a look here The Film Thread. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
treeplanter Posted March 6, 2011 Share #22 Posted March 6, 2011 Tri-X Efke 25 Jim B. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
photogsjm Posted March 6, 2011 Share #23 Posted March 6, 2011 Very nice. By the way, I read that APX 100 (in 35mm format, at least) is back from the dead. Were you aware of that? I get it from my local department store Anttila.. I think they have always had it in stock.. They used to sell changing bags, developing drum, agfa chemicals and at some point even agfa B&W paper. Now they only keep the film. Next time I am there I will pickup a few more rolls.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted March 7, 2011 Share #24 Posted March 7, 2011 Kodachrome 64 Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/140571-the-film-thread/?do=findComment&comment=1609285'>More sharing options...
Keith (M) Posted March 9, 2011 Share #25 Posted March 9, 2011 M7, ZM 35mm Biogon f2, Kentmere 100 in Ilfosol 3 @ 1+14 for 7mins 30secs. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/140571-the-film-thread/?do=findComment&comment=1611142'>More sharing options...
Steve Ash Posted March 9, 2011 Share #26 Posted March 9, 2011 Leica M7, Summilux 50 Asph., Adox CMS20, Adotech Dev. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/140571-the-film-thread/?do=findComment&comment=1611215'>More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted March 9, 2011 Share #27 Posted March 9, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Photo 1 : Mont Blanc (4810m) R4s Elmar 90mm Velvia slide Photo 2: Haute Savoie (French Alpes) R4S Summicron 50mm Ilford Delta Photo 3 : Sunflower in slide (the last) R8 35-70mm K64 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Photo 1 : Mont Blanc (4810m) R4s Elmar 90mm Velvia slide Photo 2: Haute Savoie (French Alpes) R4S Summicron 50mm Ilford Delta Photo 3 : Sunflower in slide (the last) R8 35-70mm K64 ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/140571-the-film-thread/?do=findComment&comment=1611287'>More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted March 9, 2011 Share #28 Posted March 9, 2011 Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! La Clusaz (Haute Savoie) 2700m France R4S 50mm Summicron Fuji Velvia Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! La Clusaz (Haute Savoie) 2700m France R4S 50mm Summicron Fuji Velvia ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/140571-the-film-thread/?do=findComment&comment=1611302'>More sharing options...
sm23221 Posted March 9, 2011 Share #29 Posted March 9, 2011 Nice images but I'm not sure how posting digitized images (from scanned negatives I assume) from a particular film is any different than what an M8 or M9 can produce. Maybe it would be better to scan your darkroom-made prints and then post them... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted March 9, 2011 Share #30 Posted March 9, 2011 Nice images but I'm not sure how posting digitized images (from scanned negatives I assume) from a particular film is any different than what an M8 or M9 can produce. Maybe it would be better to scan your darkroom-made prints and then post them... Why do you assume that? Why would we be interested in M8 or M9 results, e.g. with sharp clipping on high lights and moire. And why would it be better to scan prints? I'll give you perhaps we would be better trolling on the D camera fora, more fun in that dont you think? Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted March 10, 2011 Share #31 Posted March 10, 2011 Nice images but I'm not sure how posting digitized images (from scanned negatives I assume) from a particular film is any different than what an M8 or M9 can produce. Maybe it would be better to scan your darkroom-made prints and then post them... I may surprise you but I do not agree with you. Sorry to be frank ! I now have 2 years of practice with M8 and nearly one year with M9. dear Mike, it's not worth the film, especially in color I still shoot with my film cameras That's what I said in every threads here, the film remains high fidelity in the image as the high fidelity in sound (vacuum preamplifier and amplifier) ! Regards Henry PS: thanks for your intervention Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhabedi Posted March 10, 2011 Share #32 Posted March 10, 2011 Nice images but I'm not sure how posting digitized images (from scanned negatives I assume) from a particular film is any different than what an M8 or M9 can produce. If you can't see the difference, then I suppose that's good for you. Be happy with what you have... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveYork Posted March 10, 2011 Share #33 Posted March 10, 2011 This thread is a good idea, but there's no more fun then getting a half dozen rolls each of the different films and seeing the difference for yourself. As a film user, I feel very fortunate to still have such a selection. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith (M) Posted March 10, 2011 Share #34 Posted March 10, 2011 Ref my post #25, the image below is perhaps a better one for showing the detail and fine grain that the roll of Kentmere provided. WDYT? Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/140571-the-film-thread/?do=findComment&comment=1611999'>More sharing options...
sm23221 Posted March 10, 2011 Share #35 Posted March 10, 2011 Apparently my comment touched some nerves. My comment has no reference to the "which is better film or digital" debate. As a hobbyist still considering the purchase of a new MP (I'm using a dusted-off Contax G at the moment with Tri X to satisfy my current film-shooting desires) and returning to film, but still as of yet undecided, let me explain and expand my point that might have been misinterpreted. I still maintain that posting scanned images (most likely scanned negatives) that may have been photoshopped to illustrate the merits of different film types is misleading to individuals who are considering a return to film. It would be far more useful to scan a direct darkroom print without digital enhancements and then post the merits of various film types for comparison. It would nice for the posters to state that the photo has or hasn't been digitally altered; and if so, how it was altered. The photos that have been posted are impressive but some comments to go along with them would be most welcome. With my caveat, it is still a fun thread to peruse. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted March 10, 2011 Share #36 Posted March 10, 2011 I still maintain that posting scanned images (most likely scanned negatives) that may have been photoshopped to illustrate the merits of different film types is misleading to individuals who are considering a return to film. It would be far more useful to scan a direct darkroom print without digital enhancements and then post the merits of various film types for comparison. It would nice for the posters to state that the photo has or hasn't been digitally altered; and if so, how it was altered. Hi 1st the photos are very nice. But I'd suggest you are being optimistic, people may dress up their images before publication, as they would do for a D cam photo, this illustrates the possibilities of a film just the same, if the highlights are blown they are blown, if the highlights are not neutral (i.e. have a color cast) photoshop wont do too much for them. A straight wet print is also unlikely, and as unrepresentative. A home or lab processed film may have been developed in many different ways, so even a straight print does not tell you too much about a films potential. E.g. if you need more contrast from a film you can develop in a softer working developer e.g. D23. Some film people have multi coated lenses for dull days and single coated lenses for sunnydays... You can get information from the manufacturers data sheet. Then I'd suggest you need to try for yourself. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty Posted March 10, 2011 Share #37 Posted March 10, 2011 I still maintain that posting scanned images (most likely scanned negatives) that may have been photoshopped to illustrate the merits of different film types is misleading to individuals who are considering a return to film. I agree both with your point and that it was misunderstood a little. I am still in my early film days trying out different types and conditions to discover what works best and how. What I haven't done is produce any darkroom prints. So far it has been scans only. And those vary wildly depending on the scanner, software and individual settings thereof. At this moment I am not sure if any of my scans even come close to what I would see in a direct print, nor if a wet print would be representative to start with as Noel points out. This is a bit frustrating. On the other hand a similar problem exists with digital photos, where you can never be sure that what you see is what was shot; there is simply always some processing involved. Comparing out-of-camera jpegs is always futile - witness the current X1/X100 shootout: first the differences are hotly argued, then in the end all is inconclusive because it is a) the web or not raw or c) the lens etc. Going back to the OP's idea, to show film types at their best, is not so bad though. To show a minimally processed scan of every film type is one thing and obviously not very useful, but to demonstrate what sort of quality you can squeeze out of it with a little extra work is quite interesting. I can't deny that some of the pictures here are inspiring me to try out some other film, and some are confirming my experiences with the films that I have already tried. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty Posted March 10, 2011 Share #38 Posted March 10, 2011 Two not yet seen. Kodak Portra 400 Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Kodak Gold 400 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Kodak Gold 400 ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/140571-the-film-thread/?do=findComment&comment=1612449'>More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted March 11, 2011 Share #39 Posted March 11, 2011 It would be far more useful to scan a direct darkroom print without digital enhancements and then post the merits of various film types for comparison. It would nice for the posters to state that the photo has or hasn't been digitally altered; and if so, how it was altered. Okay, fair enough. Post #24 above was taken in the Sahara Desert (near Timbuktu) in 1988. It was taken on a Nikon FE2, with an IFED 180mm f/2.8 telephoto, and a UVa filter. I don't recall what the f stop was, but the shutter speed will have been in the region of 1/500th (I was on a boat) - my guess is that it was f/5.6 or f/4. The scan was made directly from a the slide (using an Epson Perfect V700, and the Epson scan software). No post processing (what would be the point? and in all honesty, I haven't worked out how to do it). I should add that I prefer images straight out of the camera - when using film, anyway. Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sm23221 Posted March 11, 2011 Share #40 Posted March 11, 2011 It's a beautiful and well composed photo - thanks for the supporting data. I agree that post-processing could not have made this photo any better. One of the major reasons I am considering a return to film is exactly for this reason - I'm getting tired of sitting in front of my computer. It seems that film needs little if any post-processing in comparison to M9 RAW files. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.