Jump to content

I like film...(open thread)

Doc Henry

By Doc Henry
in Other

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 94.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Doc Henry

    13495

  • A miller

    6032

  • Ernest

    3884

  • stray cat

    3030

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Michael Hiles
Michael Hiles

Bonjour Henri,   I still prefer black and white film (I use almost no colour). The advantages of digital don’t mean much to me. Seeing instant results is not so useful, since what comes out of a cam

grahamc
grahamc

Kodak Ultramax & 35:1.4v2 , MP 

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!

Cyril Jayant
Cyril Jayant

This photo is from a series from some of my crazy, extreme photo adventures I  had photographing Mountains "Alpinists " and rock climbers. This is Alpes mountain range which is called   "Le Massive du

Posted Images

gbealnz

gbealnz

Posted
Posted

Thanks Henry...I was basically planning on pointing my SWC in the same direction as I did last year with my D810/24mm prime; SWC is close to a 24mm equivalent lens in 35mm terms.  If for example, I like a 20sec exposure in a digital test at 800iso, f/4.0...where would you set the timer for Portra pushed to 800?  Keep the same the 20sec or should I set the Reciprocity app with Portra 100/400 at 20sec and use the value of 51sec to expose the film?

 

Marc,

Ah, I see what you are now meaning. OK, the area is not all that dark then, if 20 secs gives this. I'd perhaps tone it back a little.

 

My suggestion to "point at the radiant" would mean either aiming left or right by about 90º. You need to find the location that these foreign objects are originating from, and point it there, that way you will get many "coming straight at you", and a succession of shots stacked will show heaps over a period of time, all "radiating" towards you, but also "away" from you. Hard to explain but a wonderful sight of a wonderful phenomenon.

Gary

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
philipus

philipus

Posted
Posted

Adam, thanks for sharing your opinions.

 

Philip - I don't know, I think it is quite apt.  In investment banking parlance, what Fuji is doing is a typical "fit and focus" re-tooling of its lines of business by divesting of business that are not profitable and detract from the focus that they should be applying to the business segments that are profitable.  We should just be lucky that they view the "premium" film as profitable enough to keep. (I stopped by the lab here in Tel Aviv to check on my Velvia 50 processing and can tell you that not only me but the 40+ lab owner were creaming in our pants.)  I don't agree with you that saving $2-3 per roll is going to encourage any critical mass of normal folk to jump into film.  A film workflow is already very nearly cost prohibitive relative to digital alternatives.  I just don't buy that argument.

 

At the risk of pissing you off (which is not my intention), I think this development is proof positive of the thesis that I advanced here...

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/257093-why-does-it-make-any-sense-at-all-to-use-non-professional-grade-film-stocks-in-this-day-and-age/

 

Marc, I looked into film-based astrophotography a while ago (and posted a bit about it about a year ago in this thread). Tri-X has rather poor reciprocity failure characteristics (20s = 2mins). Acros is better I believe. But why shoot b&w for something as beautiful as the Perseid Meteors? I would have picked colour film myself (and I believe Ektar isn't really recommended for astro due to colour casts, fwiw).

 

If you have time to source it, Provia 400 pushed a stop will give very nice results (and will not have any reciprocity failure above 2 mins). The scanned TIFFs are very "malleable" in post. But I agree with Gary that digital is the way to go for astro and if you have an 810 it's about as good as it gets. That said, if you want to see some really amazing analog astro photo, look up James Cormier at Flickr (posts under "nightfly" at APUG and some of the astro fora). He shoots medium format (Pentax 67 I think). 

 

Some inspiration for you from NASA's APOD :)

 

br

Philip

 

Looking for some guidance on shooting the Perseid Meteor shower.  I was able to make a nice capture on my D810 last year at 20sec, ISO800 at f4.  I'm going back to the same location and expect the same skies and light conditions.  Where would you shoot/expose Tri-X and T-Max400 given the above exposure settings.  Also, can I reasonably calibrate to a digital 35mm test shot and a lens of equivalent focal length?  Thanks!

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
philipus

philipus

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Apologies I missed this post Marc. For analog astro MF is the considerably better than 35mm film so the SWC is a very good choice. Slide film will, however, have the edge on C41 due to much less visible grain. I would stick to the same exposure as last year but bracket. You've perhaps seen this guide at Sky and Telescope. Search for wide field astro for more guides.

 

You probably want to have as little smearing as possible on the Milky Way stars so it's a bit tricky to find a balance between obtaining long meteor trails and getting pinpoint stars. But the SWC is wide which will counter-act smearing a bit as the stars are smaller relative to the field of view. Since you'll be shooting towards the horizon the declination will be rather low. This means there's a risk for smeared ovalish stars. Generally speaking, for declination from 0 to about 30 degrees with a 25mm lens (in 35mm though but in my testing it's about the same for 6x6) you can shoot between 15-30 sec without the stars becoming elongated. Of course all this depends on what you're happy to accept (as a comparison a 50mm lens (35mm film) will at such declination only be able to shoot half that time.

 

Thanks Henry...I was basically planning on pointing my SWC in the same direction as I did last year with my D810/24mm prime; SWC is close to a 24mm equivalent lens in 35mm terms.  If for example, I like a 20sec exposure in a digital test at 800iso, f/4.0...where would you set the timer for Portra pushed to 800?  Keep the same the 20sec or should I set the Reciprocity app with Portra 100/400 at 20sec and use the value of 51sec to expose the film?

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
EoinC

EoinC

Posted
Posted (edited)

One more for today.  

Thank you, Wayne. Even if they have deteriorated, they are still great to see. I'm sure you are getting a buzz out of the memories stirred up as you go back through these slides.

Edited by EoinC
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
gsgary

gsgary

Posted
Posted

Seems to have effectively stopped the invading hordes, Gary. I've long wondered how such a low wall could be effective, and now I understand.

Lots of stone was taken to build churches, I'm not sure how tall it would have been when built

 

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
vhfreund

vhfreund

Posted
Posted

Stunning and wonderful black grey shade with the M-A.

What lens ?

Welcome Theodor and glad you join us

More please :)

 

Best

Henry

Henry, thank you! The shot was taken with the Summilux 35 FLE at F 2,8

 

Theodor

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
philipus

philipus

Posted
Posted

Here is a first result of the Rollei Retro 80S in Diafine, exposed at box speed or thereabouts. This was shot in Perast in Montenegro with my M4. A bit of a boring motif but hopefully it gives an impression of the film's characteristics.

 

I like this film (and the fact that it can be bought in bulk). It's very fine grained in an old-fashioned sort of way.

 

I look forward to comparing it to PanF which I've read online needs to be over-exposed because it tends to block up shadows a bit. I didn't feel that's necessary with the Rollei.

 

br

Philip

 

28871326445_3c407cb74a_b.jpg

Flickr

35/1.4A

 

  • Like 13
Link to post
Share on other sites
erl

erl

Posted
Posted

Philipus, the motif is not boring at all. I like the way the clouds are 'cradled' in the mountain pass and I appreciate the subtle vignetting that really enhances the whole image. A hard copy print would look fine I feel.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
MT0227

MT0227

Posted
Posted

Thats what I think I'm going to try for starters, I have a several rolls.  I also have Potra160/400; Ektar, Velvia 100...no Provia.  If the skies cooperate, I hope to try a few.

 

Then why not use tmax 400; it doesnt push as well as tri x but has much better RF characteristics than trix and portra

Link to post
Share on other sites
MT0227

MT0227

Posted
Posted

Thanks Philip....I plan to be out there with my digital gear, and because capturing meteors isn't a challenge in itself...why not add a little to it and try with film..lol.  I going go try and see how well I can replicate a digital capture to film (in a night scenario), and perhaps calibrate the results for future use.   I was going with B&W because the have a good amount of light pollution by me and the skies tend to look B&W with not much color; if I was deep in the Rockies, I wouldn't think B&W.  Thanks again for the info!

 

Adam, thanks for sharing your opinions.

 

 

Marc, I looked into film-based astrophotography a while ago (and posted a bit about it about a year ago in this thread). Tri-X has rather poor reciprocity failure characteristics (20s = 2mins). Acros is better I believe. But why shoot b&w for something as beautiful as the Perseid Meteors? I would have picked colour film myself (and I believe Ektar isn't really recommended for astro due to colour casts, fwiw).

 

If you have time to source it, Provia 400 pushed a stop will give very nice results (and will not have any reciprocity failure above 2 mins). The scanned TIFFs are very "malleable" in post. But I agree with Gary that digital is the way to go for astro and if you have an 810 it's about as good as it gets. That said, if you want to see some really amazing analog astro photo, look up James Cormier at Flickr (posts under "nightfly" at APUG and some of the astro fora). He shoots medium format (Pentax 67 I think). 

 

Some inspiration for you from NASA's APOD :)

 

br

Philip

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
gbealnz

gbealnz

Posted
Posted

Thanks Philip....I plan to be out there with my digital gear, and because capturing meteors isn't a challenge in itself...why not add a little to it and try with film..lol.  I going go try and see how well I can replicate a digital capture to film (in a night scenario), and perhaps calibrate the results for future use.   I was going with B&W because the have a good amount of light pollution by me and the skies tend to look B&W with not much color; if I was deep in the Rockies, I wouldn't think B&W.  Thanks again for the info!

DOH!!!

You've thought also about a "Light Pollution" filter? I have used them occasionally while deep sky imaging from my backyard. I'm a little on the fence with them actually, as my backyard is decently dark, well, it used to be, but slowly light is encroaching. The reason I still use them is that while the level of light pollution isn't "that" severe (relative terms here of course), they also seem to assist with any moisture exacerbating the pollution issues.

 

Biggest issue will be getting BIG enough for the SWC (good idea the SWC, nice images across the field I would expect/hope). In my case I used a simple in-line 48mm which is the astro industry standard, (with step-up/down rings to go differing sizes if I was using a smaller camera lens).

 

Either way, take plenty of gear, take plenty of pics, take a dew strap too.

Gary

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...