I like film...(open thread)

[Cuthbert]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If you see the highlights of the shirt in the first pic and in the fountain you'll notice the same effect, I used the C-41 version of the film so I don't really control on the development.

 

Here you can see how differently BW400CN performs:

 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Doc Henry]

If you see the highlights of the shirt in the first pic and in the fountain you'll notice the same effect, I used the C-41 version of the film so I don't really control on the development.

 

Here you can see how differently BW400CN performs:

 

Cuthbert, It's a nice picture , well balanced in b&w tone

Best

Henry

[LeicaBraz]

Hi Cuthbert,

 

1) I don't own an M5 and have no experience with Neopan 400

2) I'm not saying that the light meter of your camera is wrong; actually, it seems to be working quite ok

3) looking at the M5 instructions, I see that the patch measured by the light meter is quite small (thus your term "spot" meter) and quite smaller than

the one used by the M6 and very different from the averaged, pondered area of the M7 which renders very well in the "A" setting.

4) thus one should be very attentive when photographing a subject that has a wide range between highlights and shadows, as there is no "averaging".

Consequently, metering for the shadows might not bring the best results in all instances.

 

So I don't think it is a filter problem, or a film issue or a developing one.

In the end, it is to a certain extent subjective. And I believe you are happy with the results as otherwise

you would not be posting here.

 

So all is good, methinks.

 

Brgds

[A miller]

If somebody else complains about my pics with Neopan 400 I can show him this:

 

Sincerely very funny, Cuthbert.  But this image is also over exposed and my same constructive comments from above apply to it.   There are hardly any dark tones in zones 0-2 in the image.

Looks like an "expose for the shadows" approach w/o the follow through on the "dodge and burn."

How do you PP your images??

I am only trying to be helpful to you and in no way am "complaining" for the sake of complaining. 

[Doc Henry]

As i love climbing the mountain,  here another picture

 

Kodak Ekt 100

MP 135 mm

 

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!

 

Best

Henry

[christoph_d]

NYC

M-A, 28mm elmarit pre-asph, portra  400

Hi Adam,

 

Some comments from my side on your picture of the selfie taker. You really caught her at a perfect moment, with an interesting pose and expression. (The perfection overall is, IMHO, slightly diminished by the onlooker directly behind her but then this is street). The main subject reminds me a bit of that of a woman in an image by Winogrand (there is a street sign: "no left and u turn" in said picture).

 

I think one aspect that strikes me with your picture is, how recognizable it  is. I think that  the photographic body of work that has been created by Winogrand, Meyerowitz and others, defines a certain look with respect to "the streets of NY", which makes similar images instantly recognizable and familiar (one could say the same of certain kinds of photography in Paris). Using Film only strengthens that impression.

 

Well done,

 

Best regards

 

Christoph

[Cuthbert]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sincerely very funny, Cuthbert.  But this image is also over exposed and my same constructive comments from above apply to it.   There are hardly any dark tones in zones 0-2 in the image.

Looks like an "expose for the shadows" approach w/o the follow through on the "dodge and burn."

How do you PP your images??

I am only trying to be helpful to you and in no way am "complaining" for the sake of complaining. 

 

A, 

    you're proving my point, because this is indeed a picture taken with Neopan C-41, but I didn't use the M5 for this picture, it was taken with my Nikon F2AS, that has an average centered lightmeter, actually relatively broad (traditional Nikon 60%-40% split), and the 60% area is the receiver of the gun that is not overexposed. I used a tripod and a relatively long exposure of 2 seconds. 

 

I repeated the same shot in colour (Portra 400) with my Pentax KX, and the results have been different also because the max exposure time is 1 sec if my memory serves me correctly.

 

 

For PP, in my pictures there's none, what you see is what is on print, even if usually prints are better than scans.

 

 

Hi Cuthbert,

 

1) I don't own an M5 and have no experience with Neopan 400

2) I'm not saying that the light meter of your camera is wrong; actually, it seems to be working quite ok

3) looking at the M5 instructions, I see that the patch measured by the light meter is quite small (thus your term "spot" meter) and quite smaller than

the one used by the M6 and very different from the averaged, pondered area of the M7 which renders very well in the "A" setting.

4) thus one should be very attentive when photographing a subject that has a wide range between highlights and shadows, as there is no "averaging".

Consequently, metering for the shadows might not bring the best results in all instances.

 

So I don't think it is a filter problem, or a film issue or a developing one.

In the end, it is to a certain extent subjective. And I believe you are happy with the results as otherwise

you would not be posting here.

 

So all is good, methinks.

 

Brgds

 

 

1) Yes I got that.

2) Well you said the overexposure is due to the spotmeter of the M5, I dispute that, IMO it's a characteristic of this film that needs to be taken into account when you use it.

3) That is correct, I think it's 8%, so a spot or a semispot according to your definition of lightmeter, some people consider true lightmeter just under 5%. I'm an avid user of Canon SLRs like the FTb and the F-1 with "P" screens, they are similar to the M5 but the partial area is 12%. I also have spotmeter screens for my F-1N and I use the spot of the T90, these kind of metering are useful when you shoot pictures with high light contrasty areas but if you are using films that badly digest overexposure like Superia you can get bad results. On the other side Ektar and Portra ALWAYS perform well with no burned highlights.

4) That's my point for Neopan, the film doesn't behave like BW400CN, Delta 400 or the usual B&W I use and I noticed when I developed the test rolls I shot, for instance these shots are fine because there are no highlights:

 

 

 

This one is not, because half of the picture is in shadow and hald in bright light:

 

 

This is a BW400CN shot, taken with my FTb, 50 mm f1.4 and a YG filter...I was metering inside black kiosk:

 

 

IMO the difference is not the metering of these cameras, my lack of skills etc...but it's how these film perform, and Neopan to be used at its best requires more attention to the highlights.

 

That's just my opinion, of course.

Edited June 12, 2015 by Cuthbert

[A miller]

Hi Adam,

 

Some comments from my side on your picture of the selfie taker. You really caught her at a perfect moment, with an interesting pose and expression. (The perfection overall is, IMHO, slightly diminished by the onlooker directly behind her but then this is street). The main subject reminds me a bit of that of a woman in an image by Winogrand (there is a street sign: "no left and u turn" in said picture).

 

I think one aspect that strikes me with your picture is, how recognizable it  is. I think that  the photographic body of work that has been created by Winogrand, Meyerowitz and others, defines a certain look with respect to "the streets of NY", which makes similar images instantly recognizable and familiar (one could say the same of certain kinds of photography in Paris). Using Film only strengthens that impression.

 

Well done,

 

Best regards

 

Christoph

Many thanks, Christoph.  Very thoughtful.  I agree 100% that there is no perfection here.  Fortunately, I don't take these images too seriously.  When I look at this photo, I think how mildly interesting it looks now but how much more interesting it may look 10 years from now.  Same for most of my photos...  I just have to wait and see.  Best regards, Adam

[A miller]

A, 

    you're proving my point, because this is indeed a picture taken with Neopan C-41, but I didn't use the M5 for this picture, it was taken with my Nikon F2AS, that has an average centered lightmeter, actually relatively broad (traditional Nikon 60%-40% split), and the 60% area is the receiver of the gun that is not overexposed. I used a tripod and a relatively long exposure of 2 seconds. 

 

I repeated the same shot in colour (Portra 400) with my Pentax KX, and the results have been different also because the max exposure time is 1 sec if my memory serves me correctly.

 

 

For PP, in my pictures there's none, what you see is what is on print, even if usually prints are better than scans.

I trust you on the prints.  And I think the point here is that you don't digitally dodge and burn your scans to achieve optimal exposure.   For such a controlled setting for a shot so carefully executed, I'm surprised at how contrasty your color shot is.   Also the WB is off the gun metal is yellow instead of the color of gun metal, unless you have a tungsten light shining on it and the wrong film, even that can be corrected digitally although using Cinestill 800T would have been optimal).  But, again, I guess you are just posting the unedited scans.

Edited June 12, 2015 by A miller

[A miller]

A, 

    you're proving my point, because this is indeed a picture taken with Neopan C-41, but I didn't use the M5 for this picture, it was taken with my Nikon F2AS, that has an average centered lightmeter, actually relatively broad (traditional Nikon 60%-40% split), and the 60% area is the receiver of the gun that is not overexposed. I used a tripod and a relatively long exposure of 2 seconds. 

 

I repeated the same shot in colour (Portra 400) with my Pentax KX, and the results have been different also because the max exposure time is 1 sec if my memory serves me correctly.

 

 

For PP, in my pictures there's none, what you see is what is on print, even if usually prints are better than scans.

 

 

 

 

1) Yes I got that.

2) Well you said the overexposure is due to the spotmeter of the M5, I dispute that, IMO it's a characteristic of this film that needs to be taken into account when you use it.

3) That is correct, I think it's 8%, so a spot or a semispot according to your definition of lightmeter, some people consider true lightmeter just under 5%. I'm an avid user of Canon SLRs like the FTb and the F-1 with "P" screens, they are similar to the M5 but the partial area is 12%. I also have spotmeter screens for my F-1N and I use the spot of the T90, these kind of metering are useful when you shoot pictures with high light contrasty areas but if you are using films that badly digest overexposure like Superia you can get bad results. On the other side Ektar and Portra ALWAYS perform well with no burned highlights.

4) That's my point for Neopan, the film doesn't behave like BW400CN, Delta 400 or the usual B&W I use and I noticed when I developed the test rolls I shot, for instance these shots are fine because there are no highlights:

 

 

 

This one is not, because half of the picture is in shadow and hald in bright light:

 

 

This is a BW400CN shot, taken with my FTb, 50 mm f1.4 and a YG filter...I was metering inside black kiosk:

 

 

IMO the difference is not the metering of these cameras, my lack of skills etc...but it's how these film perform, and Neopan to be used at its best requires more attention to the highlights.

 

That's just my opinion, of course.

Cuberth - sorry to be seeming to gang up on you of late, and please tell me to stop if it is truly bugging you, but these images also have gray blacks and not true blacks...  I guess you will just have to invite us over to view your prints...

[Doc Henry]

Cuthbert and Adam, in my opinion in b&w and I like much "deep black" and "nice gradual grey"  , Kodak TX400 is perhaps the best film !  Sometimes the scanner for posting is also partly responsible in "general rendering" of b&w tone and as I said above , a print (in analog paper I mean)  is sometimes different in rendering of a picture.

In any case, for several days I develop in my home lab on "Ilford" glossy paper from Ilford and Kodak film, that's what I see.
I will show you some examples.

 

All that to say that it also depends on the film brand , for being in the subject of your exchanges

....  and to talk about film currently marketed, but I remember that Agfa has also a deep black

Best

Henry

Someone who shoot since 40 years with only Leica gear

Edited June 12, 2015 by Doc Henry

[Cuthbert]

I trust you on the prints.  And I think the point here is that you don't digitally dodge and burn your scans to achieve optimal exposure.   For such a controlled setting for a shot so carefully executed, I'm surprised at how contrasty your color shot is.   Also the WB is off the gun metal is yellow instead of the color of gun metal, unless you have a tungsten light shining on it and the wrong film, even that can be corrected digitally although using Cinestill 800T would have been optimal).  But, again, I guess you are just posting the unedited scans.

 

The shot has been taken indoors in a dark environment (that's the reason why I needed such a long exposure and tripod), that's the colour of the lamp in my bedroom and the nickel finish of the Uberti is so shining that created the crisis for the Neopan I assume.

 

For this shot in colour, I had to use the KX as it was the only camera loaded with colour and I wanted to have a baseline with the other B&W shot, it's so contrasty ans saturated because it's not exposed, plus the max shutter time of that camera is 1 sec, the lightmeter doesn't work for that time, I suspect  the correct exposure time would have been in the 2 sec range for this Ev, but I should have used an AE priority camera like my LX or the F-1AE, or the M7 that I don't have.

[Cuthbert]

Cuberth - sorry to be seeming to gang up on you of late, and please tell me to stop if it is truly bugging you, but these images also have gray blacks and not true blacks...  I guess you will just have to invite us over to view your prints...

 

Miller, you're starting to become annoying...are the blacks in this image blacks enough?

 

 

Or do I have to wash my negatives with this?

 

[A miller]

very funny.  

This may skirt the border of online bullying, but may I ask whether you are annoyed b/c you don't agree with me or you are annoyed b/c you don't like critiques?

[Doc Henry]

Hi Cuthbert , honestly I find that there is a light veil on my screen of the rose ? (reason: scanner, laboratory development etc ...? ) and black is  not black enough as I like !

I hope you do not mind Cuthbert

Try to post treat with LR

Best

Henry

Edited June 12, 2015 by Doc Henry

[A miller]

To try to articulate myself more clearly, here is an example of a photo I took recently at the Sept 11 Ground Zero Memorial (M3, 75mm summilux, delta 100).  I more or less exposed for the shadows and was hoping to rely on the flexibility in the highlights.
The first image is the file that came straight from my scanner.  No editing has been done.  It is flat as can be.   I view it as a clean canvas as the highlights are not blown and there is plenty of detail in the rose.  
I am not the best editor, and my rendition in the edited version is not really to my satisfaction, but I show this to demonstrate the potential to dodge and burn your images digitally or analogically (word?) so that the tonal range in played with in a way that achieves the desired image.
I was actually expecting a cleaner image from the low ISO delta 100.  I may do a test print in the dark room (EDIT: I may arrange to have someone ELSE do the print for me at an exorbitant price) just to see how the film really performed.
I think I shot this at f4 or f2.8

I am more than open to any critiques...

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!

Edited June 12, 2015 by A miller

[Ellie]

Just as an example, the Draken shot I posted in previous page has a lot of black, but it's still not total black. Se the histogram from my LR below,

 

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!

 

[honcho]

I don't usually photograph churches inside or outside unless I'm being paid to do it, but the church of St. Michael de Rupe is a little different.  It's a good spot for watching the sun go down.

 

Leica MP

35mm summicron asph

Heliopan O22

Fuji Acros 100 in RO9

 

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!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Cuthbert]

Just as an example, the Draken shot I posted in previous page has a lot of black, but it's still not total black. Se the histogram from my LR below,

 

lr.jpg

 

As far as I remember the human eye in a completely dark room doesn't see "black" but a very dark grey, so I assume everybody has his level of "blackness" he prefers according to his vision.

 

 

very funny.  

This may skirt the border of online bullying, but may I ask whether you are annoyed b/c you don't agree with me or you are annoyed b/c you don't like critiques?

 

 

I assume you didn't get the ironic part of the comment with the special product to wash black garments...

 

 

Hi Cuthbert , honestly I find that there is a light veil on my screen of the rose ? (reason: scanner, laboratory development etc ...? ) and black is  not black enough as I like !

I hope you do not mind Cuthbert

Try to post treat with LR

Best

Henry

 

 

Ok I hope you'll like my next shot then:

 

 

Better than the rose?

Edited June 12, 2015 by Cuthbert

[chrism]

An example from the rodinal semi-stand I mentioned above (M7, Summicron 90, XP2 @400, Imacon 848 scan):

 

Pippa by chrism229, on Flickr

 

and one to show the difference by exposing @200 (MP, Lux 35ASPH, X1 scan):

 

Seat by chrism229, on Flickr

 

Chris