I like film...(open thread)

[A miller]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Good man, Phil.   Thanks for the feedback.  Particularly since I was able to expense the laundry of my clothes and shoe cleaning overhaul. I think it was worth the effort.  

Adam that is drop dead gorgeous. Am enjoying the stories of your trials and tribulations in pursuit of your art. For what it's worth - the results completely justify the effort.

 

Thanks for your opinion, Richard.  I'd be interesting in seeing Ektar and Velvia 50 with the 50APO and how the fine grain and sharp film renders with that lens...

 

 

Thanks Adam, I'll share some more in a moment with the 50APO. I acquired it thinking I'd pair it with an M10 but then realised I'm all in with film, no digital anymore.

Now I do have it, I'd never give it up, it's superb for colour and b&w (as you'd expect.)

 

Love the underpass shots, I think the square is hugely superior here. The way the bottom-left pulls it all in/out and the relationship between the top third/bottom third, the square delivers! I generally only crop the square for a blank sky or to effect a shift with buildings. I'm still working towards a practical workflow to print, mat and frame my own square shots.

 

 

[Advertisement]

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

[A miller]

Take solace from the fact that at least they cleaned the Thames up enough that there are fish alive in it these days.

You got yourself a great shot of Tower Bridge for your troubles.

 

A few more from sunrise with MP/50APO, Portra 160.

All of these are from wide open up to f/5.6 by the end I'd imagine (given it was sunrise/160 speed film.)

 

 

(Still shocked they allow driving on huge sand dunes in a National Park)

 

 

 

 

Looking back away from the sea, to give a sense of scale of the dunes (those are full height gum trees)

 

I've got some really nice B/W ones with the 50 I'll upload later..

Ha ,ha, that's funny.  I didn't see any fish.  But I did see a lot of green moss or algae or whatever it is.  And it is quite gross; but then again I am a city person.

 

Wow, those photos are crazy amazing.  The third of the sand dune is out of control in its sharpness and color.    That lens is in good hands.

[sblitz]

I was dumb enough to crawl in my work clothes along the Thames river long the muddy rocks for the sunset a couple of weeks ago.  I got this shot, but also got (i) a lot of laughs and teases from people on the pedestrian path above as they watch me struggle inch by inch over every rock trying not to slip on my ass and (ii) my work shoes, camera bag and rain jacket completely covered with disgusting mud, which I had to my hotel completely wash and clean.  I remember reaching out and putting my hand against the inner wall of the river bank for balance only to find it slip down about 2 inches of thick disgusting green mud that is probably 1000 years old.  

 

But I got this photo....

SWC, Ektar

sunset, Tower Bridge.jpg

 

ah the price artists must pay for their work!  :-)  great job!

[Wayne]

A welcome spectator as I prepared for a photo tour of a derelict production site. It may just be the camera, but she, the cat, looks sort of French to me.

 

img547 by W P_, on Flickr

 

Semflex Otomatic TLR 6x6, Angenieux 3.5, Ektar 100

[Wayne]

img552 by W P_, on Flickr

 

Semflex Otomatic 6x6 TLR, Angenieux 3.5, Ektar 100

 

[gbealnz]

I was dumb enough to crawl in my work clothes along the Thames river long the muddy rocks for the sunset a couple of weeks ago.  I got this shot, but also got (i) a lot of laughs and teases from people on the pedestrian path above as they watch me struggle inch by inch over every rock trying not to slip on my ass and (ii) my work shoes, camera bag and rain jacket completely covered with disgusting mud, which I had to my hotel completely wash and clean.  I remember reaching out and putting my hand against the inner wall of the river bank for balance only to find it slip down about 2 inches of thick disgusting green mud that is probably 1000 years old.  

 

But I got this photo....

SWC, Ektar

sunset, Tower Bridge.jpg

With a shot like that, well worth the mess.

Beautiful.

Gary

[Reeray]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Solitude

 

Contax G2 21mm Biogon, Ilford XP-2

 

[stray cat]

Having been without, firstly, my scanner (now fixed!!) and secondly my computer (the old Mac Pro finally died. I am waiting on a new iMac which #&$%@! Apple seem to have "lost" for the last couple of weeks and am using a borrowed computer with the drives from my old computer), I have been neglectful in regards to this forum.

 

Anyway, I've been noticing a lot of conversation around the relative merits of various colour films. Whilst I think we all have our favourites, and with good cause, I'd just like to add a small consideration of processing to the conversation. It can potentially make a vast difference to the end result, at least as displayed on our monitors - and this is independent of whether the original picture was taken using digital, colour negative, slide or black and white film.

 

As an example, here are two different treatments of the same picture from my recent trip to Cape Light ...er Cape Cod. The negative is on Portra 160. One of these examples was scanned as a transparency, the other as a colour negative (using Vuescan) and both were processed to the best of my ability - ie I tried to get the picture as aesthetically pleasing as possible, while keeping it reasonably accurate to my memory of the scene.

 

Perhaps you prefer one or the other? I'd be interested to hear any comments anyone might care to make:

 

 

 

Wellfleet, Massachusetts June 2017

M6TTL, 35mm Summicron, Portra 160

[erl]

Phil, you are right on the money about handling (post processing  .... am I allowed to say that in this thread? ).

In the first place it is essential to extract the max from your film (or file) and secondly it is, IMO, necessary to bias the final image to your desired outcome, which is not often 'straight OOC'.

 

Your first pic, to me, emulates Ektar, (heavy on red) ,whereas the second looks like Portra with better greens.

[Doc Henry]

ah the price artists must pay for their work!  :-)  great job!

 

Yes Steve around a Champagne Veuve Clicquot or Moet Chandon cup in Adam exposition

at NYC ?   What do you think Steve and Adam ?

Picture of the London bridge is SUPERB Adam !  I don't tell this comment with  HD1 digital !

The color is natural and that's what I like

Thanks Adam for posting

Best to both of you

Henry

[stray cat]

That's an interesting observation, John, and one that is acutely observed - it is one's own bias, or preference, which determines your desired outcome, and therefore how the world at large will look at ("experience") the image.

 

Interesting, too, that one negative can "seem" to be from entirely different film stocks.

 

BTW - Post Processing - no! Wrong place.

[Doc Henry]

Take solace from the fact that at least they cleaned the Thames up enough that there are fish alive in it these days.

You got yourself a great shot of Tower Bridge for your troubles.

 

A few more from sunrise with MP/50APO, Portra 160.

All of these are from wide open up to f/5.6 by the end I'd imagine (given it was sunrise/160 speed film.)

 

 

(Still shocked they allow driving on huge sand dunes in a National Park)

 

 

 

 

Looking back away from the sea, to give a sense of scale of the dunes (those are full height gum trees)

 

I've got some really nice B/W ones with the 50 I'll upload later..

 

One word SUPERB pictures, superbe search of composition, superb color

mood and soft really nice

Thank you Richard

Best

Henry

[Ratzfatz]

P30 Architecture:

 

170708_1_M5_0027.jpg

M5, 35, Ferrania P30,Rodinal, svn

 

Christoph, thank you for sharing. I am not sure what I should think about the Ferrania film .... For this kind of sujet and for the following portrait the Farrania works very fine for me. But the landscape (II) ... mmmmhhhh. You are right, perhaps you should tried the film with ISO50...?

 

I love this (#36869) and I can't say exactly why ... I look's like of the begin form previous century

 

Best

Gregor

Edited July 25, 2017 by Ratzfatz

[stray cat]

Yes Steve around a Champagne Veuve Clicquot or Moet Chandon cup in Adam exposition

at NYC ?   What do you think Steve and Adam ?

Picture of the London bridge is SUPERB Adam !  I don't tell this comment with  HD1 digital !

The color is natural and that's what I like

Thanks Adam for posting

Best to both of you

Henry

 

If Adam ponies up for some Perrier-Jouët at his opening, count me in!

[Ratzfatz]

I was dumb enough to crawl in my work clothes along the Thames river long the muddy rocks for the sunset a couple of weeks ago.  I got this shot, but also got (i) a lot of laughs and teases from people on the pedestrian path above as they watch me struggle inch by inch over every rock trying not to slip on my ass and (ii) my work shoes, camera bag and rain jacket completely covered with disgusting mud, which I had to my hotel completely wash and clean.  I remember reaching out and putting my hand against the inner wall of the river bank for balance only to find it slip down about 2 inches of thick disgusting green mud that is probably 1000 years old.  

 

But I got this photo....

SWC, Ektar

sunset, Tower Bridge.jpg

 

Congratulations Adam ...! Great work and it was a hard work .. hahahaha. But in the end you have glory and honor, a clean rain jacket... and a fantastic photo.

 

Best

Gregor

[Doc Henry]

A welcome spectator as I prepared for a photo tour of a derelict production site. It may just be the camera, but she, the cat, looks sort of French to me.

 

img547 by W P_, on Flickr

 

Semflex Otomatic TLR 6x6, Angenieux 3.5, Ektar 100

 

Yes Wayne,  first time I ask myself what is this picture of Wayne and in looking more

carefully , I see our cat friend.  Well done Wayne and beautiful color

Thank you

Henry

[Doc Henry]

Solitude

 

Contax G2 21mm Biogon, Ilford XP-2

 

 

Ray great picture, great black grey and white tones

Best

Henry

[Doc Henry]

Having been without, firstly, my scanner (now fixed!!) and secondly my computer (the old Mac Pro finally died. I am waiting on a new iMac which #&$%@! Apple seem to have "lost" for the last couple of weeks and am using a borrowed computer with the drives from my old computer), I have been neglectful in regards to this forum.

 

Anyway, I've been noticing a lot of conversation around the relative merits of various colour films. Whilst I think we all have our favourites, and with good cause, I'd just like to add a small consideration of processing to the conversation. It can potentially make a vast difference to the end result, at least as displayed on our monitors - and this is independent of whether the original picture was taken using digital, colour negative, slide or black and white film.

 

As an example, here are two different treatments of the same picture from my recent trip to Cape Light ...er Cape Cod. The negative is on Portra 160. One of these examples was scanned as a transparency, the other as a colour negative (using Vuescan) and both were processed to the best of my ability - ie I tried to get the picture as aesthetically pleasing as possible, while keeping it reasonably accurate to my memory of the scene.

 

Perhaps you prefer one or the other? I'd be interested to hear any comments anyone might care to make:

 

 

 

Wellfleet, Massachusetts June 2017

M6TTL, 35mm Summicron, Portra 160

 

Phil red is superb here and with the sun reflection more beautiful

Great pictures

Thank you

Henry

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Doc Henry]

I am always and still in admiration when I watch film pictures.

Not a case in digital , that's the reason I don't comment in another

threads because the majority of the pictures is digital , Leica pictures

yes indeed, but digital ! I am sincere with myself

 

The color is not faithful in comparison with film , not "natural" I said

and too sharp !

 

 

I remind to be in this place during many hours to catch the sun rise

and waiting for fishing boats back

The color is wonderful , nobody on the beach and a deep silence around me

What pleasure to breathe the morning air of the sea ! great moment

 

 

Quang Nam (sept 2016)

 

 

 

Kodak Ektar 100-Leica M7-35 Summilux Asph

not too much light at 6 am but color always faithful. Film is great !

 

 

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!

 

Someone who uses digital M during 8 years , now abandon for film.

 

Best

Henry

Edited July 25, 2017 by Doc Henry

[edwardkaraa]

Having been without, firstly, my scanner (now fixed!!) and secondly my computer (the old Mac Pro finally died. I am waiting on a new iMac which #&$%@! Apple seem to have "lost" for the last couple of weeks and am using a borrowed computer with the drives from my old computer), I have been neglectful in regards to this forum.

 

Anyway, I've been noticing a lot of conversation around the relative merits of various colour films. Whilst I think we all have our favourites, and with good cause, I'd just like to add a small consideration of processing to the conversation. It can potentially make a vast difference to the end result, at least as displayed on our monitors - and this is independent of whether the original picture was taken using digital, colour negative, slide or black and white film.

 

As an example, here are two different treatments of the same picture from my recent trip to Cape Light ...er Cape Cod. The negative is on Portra 160. One of these examples was scanned as a transparency, the other as a colour negative (using Vuescan) and both were processed to the best of my ability - ie I tried to get the picture as aesthetically pleasing as possible, while keeping it reasonably accurate to my memory of the scene.

 

Perhaps you prefer one or the other? I'd be interested to hear any comments anyone might care to make:

 

 

 

Wellfleet, Massachusetts June 2017

M6TTL, 35mm Summicron, Portra 160

In my opinion, the differences are quite minimal and I wouldn't prefer one over the other. Scanning color negative as a positive requires a lot of post processing, and I'm not sure it's worth the trouble when it's possible to get close results with software automation.