I like film...(open thread)

[gsgary]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I started this year with only one new years resolution. I want to start developing my own Black an White film at home in 2016.

 

I order a "Starter Kit" with Rodinal and planned to shot a few cheap test films from my local drug store to start with.

Nevertheless I couldn't wait anymore and developed a Tri-X @ 1600 full of great shots. I failed. -.-

Maybe you noticed my thread in the darkroom area...

 

Thanks to the Forum I know what I got wrong and shot a cheap drug store film to give it a second try [emoji38]

I think it worked quite well.

 

As always, M6 with 35 Summicron IV and yellow filter. Shot on APX 100.

 

 

 

 

Wish you all a happy new year, Max!

I wouldn't class Agfa apx as a cheap film well not in the quality you get from it, one of my favourite films

[Trev]

These are good to see because I have just been given some out od date Kodak Gold

 

Thanks. Shot these at one stop over box speed.

Edited January 10, 2016 by Trev

[gsgary]

Thanks. Shot these at one stop over box speed.

Overexposed at iso100?

[chrism]

All these fantastic b&w photos have me wanting to shoot more of that. I usually use Tri-X and Double-X which I really like. But great as they are I'm beginning to want to shoot something more fine-grained.

 

I only use HC-110 and Diafine so would you, esteemed members, know which of the slow fine-grained b&w films out there (in 135) will work well with these developers? 

 

Thanks in advance

philip

You will always get less grain with HC-110 than with Diafine, which might be a function of the speed increase Diafine gives, allowing relative underexposure of the film. Generally I find the weaker dilutions of HC-110 for longer times are the best for minimising grain. Dilution E seems to be the happy medium for nice results without waiting too long.

[lleo]

Great, beautiful light and overall appearance.

 

I started this year with only one new years resolution. I want to start developing my own Black an White film at home in 2016.

 

I order a "Starter Kit" with Rodinal and planned to shot a few cheap test films from my local drug store to start with.

Nevertheless I couldn't wait anymore and developed a Tri-X @ 1600 full of great shots. I failed. -.-

Maybe you noticed my thread in the darkroom area... 

 

Thanks to the Forum I know what I got wrong and shot a cheap drug store film to give it a second try   

I think it worked quite well. 

 

As always, M6 with 35 Summicron IV and yellow filter. Shot on APX 100. 

 

 

 

 

Wish you all a happy new year, Max!

[lleo]

Is that your office? Hey if you ever have any vacancy, let me know. Lol

 

 

I take my M6 everywhere, even work.

These are some co-workers clowning for the camera.

M6
Summarit 35mmf/2.5
HP5+ @400
HC-110B

[rpavich]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You will always get less grain with HC-110 than with Diafine, which might be a function of the speed increase Diafine gives, allowing relative underexposure of the film. Generally I find the weaker dilutions of HC-110 for longer times are the best for minimising grain. Dilution E seems to be the happy medium for nice results without waiting too long.

 

Thanks, I didn't know that. I'll see what increasing my times with lower dilutions does for me.

[rpavich]

Is that your office? Hey if you ever have any vacancy, let me know. Lol

Lol...will do.

[rpavich]

Shot a roll of color; my favorite cheap film $1.99 per roll her in the U.S. Kodak UltraMax 400.

I developed a full roll and accidentally used the Blix first!!!! I washed the film as well as I could, and then started over with the developer but the roll came out blank.

So then I wondered if it was my mistake or if the chemicals were fully depleted.

So I removed a few frames from another roll and developed them and this is a shot from that roll. The good news is that my chemicals are still doing ok. I have developed 15 rolls with this particular kit so far.

This is a shot of my wife taking a picture of me while I take a picture of her.

[Trev]

Overexposed at iso100?

 Yep

[maxip]

Thank you @rpavich - yes it was a combination of fixing and washing. 

 

@Michael Hiles - yes I will! I bought a few roles at the drug store. Probably give it a try with my Olympus Point and Shot too. 

 

@wattsy - Gorgeous, specially the last one. 

 

@Keith - Thanks Mate!

 

@philipus - Thanks! Yes, the first one is also my favorite. 

 

@gsgary - Yes APX(3,25€ - local drug store) isn't a cheap film but way cheaper than a Tri X(7.00€ - local camera shop) for example(which I wasted in my first try).

 

@IIeo - Thank you!  

Edited January 10, 2016 by maxip

[gsgary]

Thank you @rpavich - yes it was a combination of fixing and washing.

 

@Michael Hiles - yes I will! I bought a few roles at the drug store. Probably give it a try with my Olympus Point and Shot too.

 

@wattsy - Gorgeous, specially the last one.

 

@Keith - Thanks Mate!

 

@philipus - Thanks! Yes, the first one is also my favorite.

 

@gsgary - Yes APX(3,25€ - local drug store) isn't a cheap film but way cheaper than a Tri X(7.00€ - local camera shop) for example(which I wasted in my first try).

 

@IIeo - Thank you!

I bought 100 feet of a very good film called Orwo UN54 you should be able to buy that cheap in Germany they also do a 400 speed film

[Trev]

Shot a roll of color; my favorite cheap film $1.99 per roll her in the U.S. Kodak UltraMax 400.

 

I developed a full roll and accidentally used the Blix first!!!! I washed the film as well as I could, and then started over with the developer but the roll came out blank.

 

So then I wondered if it was my mistake or if the chemicals were fully depleted.

 

So I removed a few frames from another roll and developed them and this is a shot from that roll. The good news is that my chemicals are still doing ok. I have developed 15 rolls with this particular kit so far.

 

This is a shot of my wife taking a picture of me while I take a picture of her.

 

 

Robert. So great that you can go shoot together.

[rpavich]

Robert. So great that you can go shoot together.

 

Well,  It's not her favorite thing to do but she'll do it.

Edited January 10, 2016 by rpavich

[Suede]

Hi All, what interests me is being able to compare images and see what comes closest to reality without aggressiveness,

with a soft side if possible "artistic" or a view of the nature as we see and we feel every day.

 

REALITY CHECK

 

In the following picture, reality appeared so unreal that it might be hard to pass as such. The sun lit our little corner of the world  that morning in a phenomenal way for a fleeting few minutes. The neighbours who witnessed the light and rainbow were quickly scurrying around seeking an appareil photo to capture the scene. I saw my immediate neighbour, still in her nightgown and bedroom slippers, heading in the direction of the rainbow with her iPad held out at arm's length. When she saw me, she uttered the words, "Je n'ai jamais vu ça de toute ma vie!" And she's no less than 70. Since I had never seen her taking a photograph before, I quietly suspected that she was actually going for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. I digress. . .

 

The light was eerily dramatic, especially with the dark sky to the west as a backdrop. Instinct told me that it would not last.

 

I was inwardly very excited but managed to stay calm enough to first mentally locate where all the cameras were stored in the house, and then, got them out one by one and took a couple of shots with each: first, the FM3a (which was the one loaded with colour film – not a good idea to get the rainbow colours with the M6 in black and white, I reasoned), then the digital D700 and lastly the mobile phone. I felt quite proud to have executed the task with the cool-headed resolute calm of a sniper, as I put the tools down. By now, the magic was over.

 

I looked at the mobile phone pictures immediately and rubbished them in my mind as unrealistic. I have not looked at the digital file from the D700 as yet, even though it has easily been a month and a half since. I retrieved the film from the lab in Grenoble last week and the scanned photograph is attached to share.

 

Doc Henry wrote about aggressiveness and closeness to reality (quoted above). My ideas are broadly in harmony with his thoughts on the subject.

 

Is this photograph bizarre? Over the top? Unreal? I would be happy to hear the thoughts of members here.

 

The film used is Kodak Ektar 100. No saturation has been added in post-processing. I don't know what scanner was used by the lab, let alone scan settings.

 

Over to you... 

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!

[A miller]

REALITY CHECK

 

In the following picture, reality appeared so unreal that it might be hard to pass as such. The sun lit our little corner of the world  that morning in a phenomenal way for a fleeting few minutes. The neighbours who witnessed the light and rainbow were quickly scurrying around seeking an appareil photo to capture the scene. I saw my immediate neighbour, still in her nightgown and bedroom slippers, heading in the direction of the rainbow with her iPad held out at arm's length. When she saw me, she uttered the words, "Je n'ai jamais vu ça de toute ma vie!" And she's no less than 70. Since I had never seen her taking a photograph before, I quietly suspected that she was actually going for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. I digress. . .

 

The light was eerily dramatic, especially with the dark sky to the west as a backdrop. Instinct told me that it would not last.

 

I was inwardly very excited but managed to stay calm enough to first mentally locate where all the cameras were stored in the house, and then, got them out one by one and took a couple of shots with each: first, the FM3a (which was the one loaded with colour film – not a good idea to get the rainbow colours with the M6 in black and white, I reasoned), then the digital D700 and lastly the mobile phone. I felt quite proud to have executed the task with the cool-headed resolute calm of a sniper, as I put the tools down. By now, the magic was over.

 

I looked at the mobile phone pictures immediately and rubbished them in my mind as unrealistic. I have not looked at the digital file from the D700 as yet, even though it has easily been a month and a half since. I retrieved the film from the lab in Grenoble last week and the scanned photograph is attached to share.

 

Doc Henry wrote about aggressiveness and closeness to reality (quoted above). My ideas are broadly in harmony with his thoughts on the subject.

 

Is this photograph bizarre? Over the top? Unreal? I would be happy to hear the thoughts of members here.

 

The film used is Kodak Ektar 100. No saturation has been added in post-processing. I don't know what scanner was used by the lab, let alone scan settings.

 

Over to you... 

 

wow, a double rainbow?  I can understand the hysteria!

As the old saying goes, "it is what it is."  In this case, it is pretty darn surreal, so you shouldn't expect less from your photograph, especially with the Ektar.

It appears that the Ektar has grabbed a hold of the red hues in your image and held them for ransom   This is quite common and easily fixable in both the manual scanning process (by making WB corrections when it looks way off) and/or in your editing software.

Your resulting image looks ok, but it renders more like an old polaroid.  The automated scanning process is the culprit, for sure.

Here is a version that (i) makes a quick and dirty WB correction (more tinkering could be made), (ii) makes a slight crop to remove the ugly truck from the far right and some of the dead space in the circular street (which also seems to make the primary rainbow frame the two trees to the immediate right quite nicely, along with the inverse circular row of hedge bushed in the foreground) and (iii) adjusts the luminance a little so the whites aren't so much brighter than the other light tones.

Is this more along the lines of what you saw?

Back over to you...

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 January 10, 2016 by A miller

[otto.f]

Nice but I did not find the original much off-WB. This kind of light can be quite norrmal at 17h under these weather circumstances

[A miller]

Nice but I did not find the original much off-WB. This kind of light can be quite norrmal at 17h under these weather circumstances

 

I don't know about that.  Anytime you see the reds permeate throughout everything, including infiltrating the whites in the truck and garage door and making the sky and street purplish and the shrubs and grass brownish, in my mind it suggests a WB imbalance.

The tentative corrected version is aimed at giving true colors to each subject, from white whites, to green shrubs and grass, to dark gray street, to brown wood on the house, to bluish sky (rather than purplish).  Absent some kind of a reddish glow that can be traced to a source (such as an obvious sunset or sunrise), my eyes expect to see true colors...)

What do others think?

Edited January 10, 2016 by A miller

[pico]

All these fantastic b&w photos have me wanting to shoot more of that. I usually use Tri-X and Double-X which I really like. But great as they are I'm beginning to want to shoot something more fine-grained.

 

I only use HC-110 and Diafine so would you, esteemed members, know which of the slow fine-grained b&w films out there (in 135) will work well with these developers? 

 

Thanks in advance

philip

 

T-Grain films work well with those developers - or as well as one can expect given the film's atrocious response curve.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[philipus]

T-Grain films work well with those developers - or as well as one can expect given the film's atrocious response curve.

 

 

Thanks Pico, I'll try some of those. What do you mean by "the" film - any one in particular?

br

Philip