I like film...(open thread)

[Keith (M)]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Near & distant views of the Red Lion in Avebury village.  I could get to quite like this camera!  

 

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!

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Well, the results of today's test roll (Tri-X rated at ISO 320, dev in Rodinal 1:50 for 11mins 45secs) came out not too bad at all.    Avebury was quite chilly this morning.

I should mention that all were taken with a yellow/green filter.

 

First two:-

 

Fantastic mate.....welcome to MF

[gbealnz]

I agree with Neil, fantastic.

Gary

[Mute-on]

Looks like the 'blad is working out pretty well for you there, Keith

 

This is not helping, mate

[EoinC]

 

After all these Hasselblad shots, I feel compelled to get back to the "35mm aesthetic" that I love. However, the latter term can cover a lot of different 35mm looks and the ones in the two photos below are not likely to be the look that most people are seeking. Actually, both of these were from two rolls that were developed by a really admirable hand-development lab in Chiang Mai that six months ago developed films for me with no scratches, clean negatives and spot-on development.

 

This time, however, something went wrong and the lab severely underdeveloped two rolls of Tri-X. The rolls were "stand developed" — it was supposed to be a 1:100 dilution of Rodinal for 1 hour with inversion after 30 minutes — and the last time the results were very good. I could tell that it was obviously underdevelopment rather than exposure by the extremely thin negatives and the fact the the writing "KODAK TRI-X" on the film is so light that it's barely visible. I think the problem was not using enough Rodinal: it's supposed to be 3.5ml per roll.

 

The Lightroom histogram of the "scan" (digitalization using the Leitz BEOON copy stand/Focotar 2 lens/M-Monochrom camera) is just a sliver in the center of the x-axis: no way these frames could have been printed in the darkroom. Indeed, moving the Lightroom Black slider even 1 point has major effect of the overall brightness or darkness of the image. These two frames had to be post-processed very carefully.

 

M6 | DR-Summicron-50 | Tri-X @ 400 | Stand development in Rodinal

 

M6 | DR-Summicron-50 | Tri-X @ 400 | Stand development in Rodinal

 

_______________

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

 

The end results are good. The problem may indeed be with the amount of Rodinal available. When using R09 at 1:100, I use at least 600ml in the tank, regardless of whether it is 1 or 2 films being developed.

I was in Chiangmai last weekend on a family visit. I'll pull out a few photo's from the city and post them.

[EoinC]

Another from Fall in Central Park, NYC...

H 503CW, Z 80mm planar, Ektar

I like this a lot, Adam. The greens and reds are crisp against the blue sky.

[EoinC]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well, the results of today's test roll (Tri-X rated at ISO 320, dev in Rodinal 1:50 for 11mins 45secs) came out not too bad at all.    Avebury was quite chilly this morning.

I should mention that all were taken with a yellow/green filter.

 

First two:-

Good work, Keith. How was the experience?

[Guest]

The end results are good. The problem may indeed be with the amount of Rodinal available. When using R09 at 1:100, I use at least 600ml in the tank, regardless of whether it is 1 or 2 films being developed.

I was in Chiangmai last weekend on a family visit. I'll pull out a few photo's from the city and post them.

Thanks. As I see it, even 600ml for two rolls is not enough. For 3.5ml per roll at 1:100 Rodinal the mixture would be (350.0 + 3.5) x 2 = 671ml. If the lab used a 500ml tank for two rolls, that would be way short of the 671ml. The solution would be a bigger tank or 5 or 6ml per roll in a 500ml tank. The lab is closed for a few days, I'll find out what they did.

[Guest]

Adam's 1-5: imo it might be the Hassy, the film etc...but mostly the human - the photographing artist

Even if ever restricted to a phone or a disposable-Fuji-fim-toy you'd create "Millers"

Many thanks for your pictures over the years!

[Guest]

Here are some Portra 400 shots from the only roll I’ve shot since coming back from digital to my M6 for the first time in six years. It strikes me as a wonderful film, forgiving of exposure and hugely malleable in post-processing digitally, in line with the "interpretation" necessary for color negative film that, in any case, is necessary because there is no color reference, unlike slide film. Before I went digital the only color I shot was transparencies. 

 

My initial impression from this, though, is that  I haven't seen an advantage in using Portra 400 to shooting the M9, which I think can produce spectacular color, both in daylight and at night (shooting at ISO 640, pushed in Lightroom). Does anyone see this differently?

 

Now, the shots below (all with the DR-Summixron) were shot in two days, with virtually only one type of light. I haven’t tried either full, blaring tropical light nor night shooting. For night, perhaps I might like the roughness of pushing Portra 1 or 2 stops or pushing Portra 800 one shot. I’ll have to try it.

 

 

Bangkok

 

 

 

Bangkok

 

 

 

Bangkok

 

 

 

Bangkok

 

 

 

Bangkok

 

 

 

Bangkok

 

_______________

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

[EoinC]

Chiangmai (SWC w/ Tri-X)...

C001 by Eoin Christie, on Flickr

 

C002 by Eoin Christie, on Flickr

[EoinC]

Thanks. As I see it, even 600ml for two rolls is not enough. For 3.5ml per roll at 1:100 Rodinal the mixture would be (350.0 + 3.5) x 2 = 671ml. If the lab used a 500ml tank for two rolls, that would be way short of the 671ml. The solution would be a bigger tank or 5 or 6ml per roll in a 500ml tank. The lab is closed for a few days, I'll find out what they did.

I've not had a problem running with 600ml (it's always 'at least', therefore is probably ~605ml). I suspect that there is a safety margin in the 3.5ml minimum per roll, which is really directed at single-roll processing, where a small reduction may have a relatively large effect.

 

In general, though, I tend to reserve stand developing for slower films (ie <= ISO 100).

[EoinC]

2

I really like this series of shots, Adam, but No. 2 is the standout.

[EoinC]

Here are some Portra 400 shots from the only roll I’ve shot since coming back from digital to my M6 for the first time in six years. It strikes me as a wonderful film, forgiving of exposure and hugely malleable in post-processing digitally, in line with the "interpretation" necessary for color negative film that, in any case, is necessary because there is no color reference, unlike slide film. Before I went digital the only color I shot was transparencies. 

 

My initial impression from this, though, is that  I haven't seen an advantage in using Portra 400 to shooting the M9, which I think can produce spectacular color, both in daylight and at night (shooting at ISO 640, pushed in Lightroom). Does anyone see this differently?

 

Now, the shots below (all with the DR-Summixron) were shot in two days, with virtually only one type of light. I haven’t tried either full, blaring tropical light nor night shooting. For night, perhaps I might like the roughness of pushing Portra 1 or 2 stops or pushing Portra 800 one shot. I’ll have to try it.

 

_______________

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

I don't have a M9, and I seldom shoot Portra 400 (usually Ektar, if I'm shooting colour), but I do like what it does. To me it is very subtle, and it somehow moves the viewing away from looking at a picture, to looking at what's in the picture. I don't know if that makes sense as written, but it is that subtle humanisation / naturalisation that can bring a sense of being there.

i like your above shots, as they have the feeling of Thailand coming through.

 

It doesn't work for all content, and Adam has been working hard at demonstrating how the same scene renders differently using different C41 and E6 emulsions.

[Frank Sellitto]

Here are some Portra 400 shots from the only roll I’ve shot since coming back from digital to my M6 for the first time in six years. It strikes me as a wonderful film, forgiving of exposure and hugely malleable in post-processing digitally, in line with the "interpretation" necessary for color negative film that, in any case, is necessary because there is no color reference, unlike slide film. Before I went digital the only color I shot was transparencies. 

 

My initial impression from this, though, is that  I haven't seen an advantage in using Portra 400 to shooting the M9, which I think can produce spectacular color, both in daylight and at night (shooting at ISO 640, pushed in Lightroom). Does anyone see this differently?

 

Now, the shots below (all with the DR-Summixron) were shot in two days, with virtually only one type of light. I haven’t tried either full, blaring tropical light nor night shooting. For night, perhaps I might like the roughness of pushing Portra 1 or 2 stops or pushing Portra 800 one shot. I’ll have to try it.

 

 

Bangkok

 

 

 

Bangkok

 

 

 

Bangkok

 

 

 

Bangkok

 

 

 

Bangkok

 

 

 

Bangkok

 

_______________

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

 

Mitch,

 

Image four carries me right in.  Nice work!

 

Frank

[Guest]

Eoin, I absolutely love the SWC. Some six years ago I picked up in Paris a pristine, black 903SWC for about $4,000 — my first impulse purchase of a camera. My intention was to go whole hog analogue with it — no scanning — but having B&W film developed and printed by the best darkroom printer in Bangkok at the time, with whom I had made friends. However a month later, when I got back to Bangkok, I found out that he had died tragically in a car accident. One of the nicest people I knew. 

 

I also learned that the person reputed as the next best printer had left for Laos, following a girlfriend, and never been seen again. While now there are several good small, darkroom labs in Bangkok, in 2010 there were none — of course there were a couple of large labs, but I had bad experience with both and ended up selling the 903SWC for what I had paid for it.

 

Since this is a picture thread and not a gab-fest, here is another image from one of the severely underdeveloped TRi-X rolls, shot with the M6 and DR Summicron, shot at a lychee plantation, nearing sunset:

 

Wiang Pa Pao

_______________

 

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

[Guest]

...Portra 400...I do like what it does. To me it is very subtle, and it somehow moves the viewing away from looking at a picture, to looking at what's in the picture. I don't know if that makes sense as written, but it is that subtle humanisation / naturalisation that can bring a sense of being there.

i like your above shots, as they have the feeling of Thailand coming through...

 

Thanks for the kind words, Eoin.

 

You may have a point there. I was musing above that perhaps I could do the same thing with the M9 — but it occurred to me that first roll of Portra 400 had an inordinately large number of "keepers", which may be related to what you say. (I mean keepers in the sense of pictures from which one would make work prints, i.e., "initial keepers".

_______________

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

[EoinC]

Nothing wrong with a bit of a gab-fest, Mitch.

With Tri-X, my current standard path is to shoot it at ISO 200, and develop in 1:50 R09 (Rodinal equivalent) for 13 minutes. For Acros, I usually shoot at ISO 50, and develop for 13-1/2 minutes.

 

I use a couple of Patterson Universal tanks, making it easy to develop 2 x 135, or 1x 120 films in about 25 minutes from start to hung-up to dry.

[atournas]

Here are some Portra 400 shots from the only roll I’ve shot since coming back from digital to my M6 for the first time in six years. [...]

Now, the shots below (all with the DR-Summixron) were shot in two days, with virtually only one type of light. I haven’t tried either full, blaring tropical light nor night shooting. For night, perhaps I might like the roughness of pushing Portra 1 or 2 stops or pushing Portra 800 one shot. I’ll have to try it.

 

Hi,

 

Could you kindly elaborate on how you measured light? Specifically, did you set to "box ISO" without pushing and use camera's internal meter? I'm about to use Portra for the first time and I feel unprepared as regards light measurement, so I follow the posts here.

 

Thanks,

 

Paul

Edited November 19, 2016 by atournas

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[EoinC]

Back in Lampang, 1 month before harvest starts. Artifacts are from my crappy digitising. SWC w/ Tri-X...

B006 by Eoin Christie, on Flickr

 

B005 by Eoin Christie, on Flickr