I like film...(open thread)

[Guest JMF]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I was off for a while . Too much work lead to a - pneumonia / lung inflammation. Things are ok now... but I missed a lot of Your pics. Also, I'll be off ( without computer ) for a couple of weeks in January / February as I have to slow down due to my health problems. Nothing heavy now, but I do not want to freak around with that kind of things.

On the other hand, I was allowed to get some nice vintage toy from Santa Claus ( on December 6t we have this Holy Man who comes to children who have been kind and gentle all year long...;-) ) and so he brought me a ... well these are some shots of the first film I shot with it. The camera was built from 1956 to 1959. But it has a much longer story, of course. I think there must be some of You who know immediately.

Film is - as usual - Kodak Tri-X 400. Rollfilm / 120

Here are the pics, taken on a short walk around the house. Hope You enjoy.

Jean-Marie

 

 

 

Jolies photos !

Wishing you a full and prompt recovery !

Cheers, Jean-Marc.

[Advertisement]

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

[Guest]

SUPERB Ian nice contre jour not possible in digital with all details in color in foreground

Best

Henry

 

Henry - I also like wattsy's photo, but must say that the tone of this thread would be better without the recurrent sniping against digital. For example, it's not only film that can show "all details in color in foreground."  Of course, there can be differences in the look and feel between film and digital — and it can be interesting to discuss specific aspects of that — but nothing is gained by simply putting digital down because you like film: it simply gives a negative aspect to this thread that is neither credible nor desirable.

_______________

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine 

Edited December 15, 2016 by Guest

[Doc Henry]

Henry - I also like wattsy's photo, but must say that the tone of this thread would be better without the recurrent sniping against digital. For example, it's not only film that can show "all details in color in foreground."  Of course, there can be differences in the look and feel between film and digital — and it can be interesting to discuss specific aspects of that — but nothing is gained by simply putting digital down because you like film: it simply gives a negative aspect to this thread that is neither credible nor desirable.

_______________

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine 

 

Hi Now , just an intervention to answer you.

 

As I said above I have arguments to clarify what I said.

I never say without proof.

Here are 2 uncorrected photos (contre-jour sunset) taken at the same time

and at the same place , one with a 28mm lens (equivalent to 35mm in M8)

and an analog cam M7 with 35mm lens.

 

I let you guess which has no color details in the shade > Insufficient sensitivity and dynamic !

Important : same Isos on both cameras 160 Isos

 

Just also notice that color of sky is not the same too !

 

Le Crotoy (Normandie)

November 2016

 

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!

 

 

I am lucky to still have the two systems to compare (not sold) and as we are

in film thread I want  to show you the imperfection of one of the system in difficult

light condition . That will be useful for all for us .

 

Best

Henry

Edited December 15, 2016 by Doc Henry

[Doc Henry]

Thanks to all of You for Your kindness aswell as Your wonderful pics ! I am happy Henry is back , too - before I collapsed, we worried about him missing. I like all of You photos, knowing the love You put in. Dirk uses a Rolleiflex 3.5 F with Planar, mine is the E, - same age than I do, and probably very close to Dirk's camera, even if I haven't got his talent. Keith posted superb pics , so does Philip with his abstract pic.

I don't remember if I posted one or two pics I shot with the Mamiya 654 /1000 S, but I prefer the much older Rolleiflex, my dad's Voigtländer from 1949 and of course the Leica IIIf. I know the vintage lenses are less performant than modern lenses. But they have something I miss with ultra-perfect modern and contemporary lenses. Probably I am just an old romantic guy who's somehow back to childhood / youth. But it is a lot of fun to see how well these old machines do their job - after 50, 60, 70 years .

 

I did this self-portrait the other day, Rolleiflex E , Planar 3.5 ( around 1957) and Tri-X 400

( I scan the photos on Ilford Baryta Paper, not the negatives. This explains several strange effects, especially as some of the paper is 20 years old )

Jean-Marie

 

 

Jean Marie , you are always welcome here and we are glad see you back

Very nice picture in b&w

Best

Henry

[Guest]

...Here are 2 uncorrected photos (contre-jour sunset) taken at the same time

and at the same place , one with a 28mm lens (equivalent to 35mm in M8)

and an analog cam M7 with 35mm lens...Just also notice that color of sky is not the same too !

I am lucky to still have the two systems to compare (not sold) and as we are

in film thread I want  to show you the imperfection of one of the system in difficult

light condition . That will be useful for all for us

 

I'm really not seeking an argument, particularly one based on the sophistry of an "uncorrected" file from a digital camera, when it is common knowledge that shooting into the light an M9 (and presumably an M8) has huge scope for lifting the shadows — indeed that is how one shoots with an M9 in this situation: that is not a problem it's an advantage. In any case, the shots are from different viewpoints and are nor comparable in how the light falls on the lenses and how it's reflected in the water in one of the pictures. 

 

Again, it's not necessary to keep on hitting digital on the head, particularly with false, or not thought out, arguments. Some people like shooting with one type of system and others with another — and some with both types. But, as I stated in my earlier post, I feel that this type of sniping at digital detracts from the pleasure of this thread. 

_______________

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

[gbealnz]

Right, some more colour.

Fuji RD

Gary

 

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!

[gbealnz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

And our next door neighbours.

Contax N1

Film unknown, but I can crack the mount apart if it's really important.

Gary

 

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!

[Doc Henry]

 

I'm really not seeking an argument, particularly one based on the sophistry of an "uncorrected" file from a digital camera, when it is common knowledge that shooting into the light an M9 (and presumably an M8) has huge scope for lifting the shadows — indeed that is how one shoots with an M9 in this situation: that is not a problem it's an advantage. In any case, the shots are from different viewpoints and are nor comparable in how the light falls on the lenses and how it's reflected in the water in one of the pictures. 

 

Again, it's not necessary to keep on hitting digital on the head, particularly with false, or not thought out, arguments. Some people like shooting with one type of system and others with another — and some with both types. But, as I stated in my earlier post, I feel that this type of sniping at digital detracts from the pleasure of this thread. 

_______________

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

 

Thanks for your reply. I will remember your request . I will continue to photograph to compare

In the photos above, there is a small shift it is true but this is not the only photo where I noticed this

insufficiency. I have already posted other examples above color as b&w in comparison .

 

I will not talk any more but I will not post more photos , either if you are shocking.

Long live to this film thread. 

 

Thousands of photos were made with my 2 M8 M9 digital and I can tell you what I have noticed in my experience

I'm not talking about moiré or aliasing or dusty sensor (I have a few hundred pictures taken in Asia just for the trash

because I do not want to remove them) and an image too sharp (edges and lines sharp as a razor = Structure accentuated because of square pixels)  detracts the artistic quality of the picture !

 

One last thing. The colors come from Kodak sensor as film. So they know what color is.

Someone who shoot 6 years digit.

Best regards

H.

Edited December 15, 2016 by Doc Henry

[Doc Henry]

Right, some more colour.

Fuji RD

Gary

 

Nice color in this picture Gary really nice.

Color succeeds you !

Rg

H

Edited December 15, 2016 by Doc Henry

[gbealnz]

Thanks Doc. It's a love/hate. These hail from an older time when I shot almost exclusively with slide film, before digital arrived.

 

Now I shoot B&W most of the time, but I have tried the odd roll of colour neg in the M7 and the SWC. To me my film interest is B&W with colour mainly on holidays and with digital.

 

Each to their own, and from my perspective, neither is wrong, and both are right.

 

Gary

[Keith (M)]

Another from my recent roll of Ektar 100 shot on the Marlborough Downs (Hasselblad 500C, Planar 80mm)

 

Frost in the Shadows

 

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]

 

I'm really not seeking an argument, particularly one based on the sophistry of an "uncorrected" file from a digital camera, when it is common knowledge that shooting into the light an M9 (and presumably an M8) has huge scope for lifting the shadows — indeed that is how one shoots with an M9 in this situation: that is not a problem it's an advantage. In any case, the shots are from different viewpoints and are nor comparable in how the light falls on the lenses and how it's reflected in the water in one of the pictures. 

 

Again, it's not necessary to keep on hitting digital on the head, particularly with false, or not thought out, arguments. Some people like shooting with one type of system and others with another — and some with both types. But, as I stated in my earlier post, I feel that this type of sniping at digital detracts from the pleasure of this thread. 

_______________

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

 

I don't disagree with you although it is one of the things about this thread that I have never let bother me.  But I suppose these type of digital vs film comments strike different cords with different people.

I will respectfully say, though, that this thread is really more of a "user-oriented thread" than a "viewer-oriented thread"...

Edited December 15, 2016 by A miller

[A miller]

Another from my recent roll of Ektar 100 shot on the Marlborough Downs (Hasselblad 500C, Planar 80mm)

 

Frost in the Shadows

Lovely Keith, although I notice quite a bt of magenta cast in the shadow int he foreground.  Perhaps tweak the tint a bit there?

[A miller]

I staked out this shot but no need more drama in the sky/clouds.  Shall be back...

125th Street Amtrak Station, Harlem (sunrise) 

503cw, 250mm Superachromat, Ekar

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 December 15, 2016 by A miller

[Bateleur]

same person?

Yup :-)

[Keith (M)]

Lovely Keith, although I notice quite a bt of magenta cast in the shadow int he foreground.  Perhaps tweak the tint a bit there?

Thanks, Adam.  I should have spotted that...  Too late to change post #24907 so my attempted correction is 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!

[Guest JMF]

Henry - I also like wattsy's photo, but must say that the tone of this thread would be better without the recurrent sniping against digital. For example, it's not only film that can show "all details in color in foreground."  Of course, there can be differences in the look and feel between film and digital — and it can be interesting to discuss specific aspects of that — but nothing is gained by simply putting digital down because you like film: it simply gives a negative aspect to this thread that is neither credible nor desirable.

_______________

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine 

 

Hi Now , just an intervention to answer you.

 

As I said above I have arguments to clarify what I said.

I never say without proof.

Here are 2 uncorrected photos (contre-jour sunset) taken at the same time

and at the same place , one with a 28mm lens (equivalent to 35mm in M8)

and an analog cam M7 with 35mm lens.

 

I let you guess which has no color details in the shade > Insufficient sensitivity and dynamic !

Important : same Isos on both cameras 160 Isos

 

Just also notice that color of sky is not the same too !

 

Le Crotoy (Normandie)

November 2016

 

Image16crotoykodektar100m7lfht+++-550.jpg

 

L1017212crotoym8cron28lfht+++550.jpg

 

I am lucky to still have the two systems to compare (not sold) and as we are

in film thread I want  to show you the imperfection of one of the system in difficult

light condition . That will be useful for all for us .

 

Best

Henry

 

 

Henry,

 

please let me share a little video (baddly digitally compressed):

 

 

Cheers, JM

 

Cousins by JM__, on Flickr

 

Ektar 100 - M6- 35 lux v2

[Keith (M)]

I staked out this shot but no need more drama in the sky/clouds.  Shall be back...

125th Street Amtrak Station, Harlem (sunrise) 

503cw, 250mm Superachromat, Ekar

going back-1.jpg

Very dynamic!  Does one really need more drama in the sky?  As shown the sky forms a gentle backdrop to the main subject.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Made me smile!

Thanks.

looks like it went off while you had nodded off

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bill Livingston]

Hi Now , just an intervention to answer you.

 

As I said above I have arguments to clarify what I said.

I never say without proof.

Here are 2 uncorrected photos (contre-jour sunset) taken at the same time

and at the same place , one with a 28mm lens (equivalent to 35mm in M8)

and an analog cam M7 with 35mm lens.

 

I let you guess which has no color details in the shade > Insufficient sensitivity and dynamic !

Important : same Isos on both cameras 160 Isos

 

Just also notice that color of sky is not the same too !

 

Le Crotoy (Normandie)

November 2016

 

Image16crotoykodektar100m7lfht+++-550.jpg

 

L1017212crotoym8cron28lfht+++550.jpg

 

I am lucky to still have the two systems to compare (not sold) and as we are

in film thread I want  to show you the imperfection of one of the system in difficult

light condition . That will be useful for all for us .

 

Best

Henry

 

 

Not really Henry.

 

There is a LOT of work that can be done in the digital files to correct your supposed complaint... and recovery from shadow on DNG is one of the strengths of digital, particularly of the digital M files. Anyone competent could redress the file example you have shown, as I suspect you know. Simply adding that these were 'uncorrected' doesn't help your argument at all... it just negates it. 

 

A sensible discussion on this may be valid, although I am not sure this thread is the right place for it... Simply two different disciplines that require different approaches. Why not just present the photography and add information where relevant and leave it at that?

 

I like looking at this thread as I enjoy the photography (in the main). But it does get a bit tiresome with this incessant sniping.

Edited December 15, 2016 by Bill Livingston