I like film...(open thread)

[stray cat]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

May I echo what blackandwhite and Steve have said above - this thread is just going from strength to strength (not too bad after 1,878 pages!). There are indeed many fine photographers represented here, and everyone's contributions - without exception - just reinforce what a wonderful medium film is to use.

 

 

 

Phil ,  in film (I don't speak in digit because it's still special),  when you overexpose ,with too much light

color as b&w ,  you lose all details and  the picture is lost

but when you underexpos. as you said you can keep these details and a little correction can give a fine

picture.

Agree wiith me Phil ?

Best

Henry

 

I agree partially, Henry.

 

Black and white film, apart from the chromogenics, I find generally speaking that they work best at box speed. Chromogenic films like Ilford XP2 Super are at their best overexposed by 2/3 to 1 stop (this is also what Mary Ellen Mark advised me). This is because they are, essentially, colour negative films repurposed for monochrome. However, as ChrisM has kindly demonstrated, these can be successfully underexposed in certain conditions, if one is prepared to forsake the convenience of handing it to the local C41 lab.

 

With colour transparency film it is more complex. I used to underexpose Kodachrome by about 1/3 stop. Not a lot on the surface, but it created magic in the transparency (and I tested it quite a bit). With Velvia 50 in 35mm, I generally overexpose it by 1/3 to 1/2 a stop, as I find it too dense otherwise. Strangely enough, I rate it at box speed when using it in 120 size. With other transparency films I rate them at box speed - this is the approach I'll take initially with the new Ektachromes and with the Ferrania if we ever see either.

 

Colour print film - well, that's another mixed bag. Ektar is a strange one in that it obviously reacts badly to exposure that is too far off the box speed either way. Generally, with the Portras, I am much more comfortable overexposing by a stop, although I don't find this quite as useful with Portraits 160 as I do with Portra 400.

 

So, in general, there are not too many current-production films that I'd be generally underexposing without doing the necessary adjustments to processing that would entail.

 

 

 

 

Very well seen & taken (I'd like to think I would hopefully have spotted an opportunity like that!)

 

Thanks Keith. I saw it out of the corner of my eye as I flashed by driving to a nearby town and made a mental note to take a closer look on my way back home. by then the clouds were moving in and I had to work pretty quickly, but I was happy with the result.

 

It seems you've seen the light. Like it.

Rgds

C.

 

Thank you sincerely, Christoph. I guess light is so basic to photography, and we are having some lovely winter light this year. Arguably we had some pretty amazing winter light when you were here - in summer!

 

For me, this is special. I cannot say exactly what it is, but for some reason the photograph makes me contemplate the existence of scene....and want to see other things in the same way. Film does this to me sometimes, and normally not when exposure is spot-on.......Sort of like the "reality" of something, stripped bare.

 

I have never really considered the significance of contre jour in quite this way. The Sun, being the thing that that normally allows enhanced perception of what is before us, can also obscure; leaving only the most significant artifacts of that things existence. In past, I have always averted my eyes from the discomfort of contre jour. Maybe it is one of the more valid ways to actually evaluate the core of what is to be photographed..............Even if you return to photograph it later, when the sun is not so harsh.

 

Thank you Wayne - your comment made me go back to Henry's shot and far more deeply than I had think about the things you said in relation to centre-jour. 

 

One more from the test roll put through my 'new' R5 last week.  60mm Macro Elmarit-R & Acros100.

 

After the rain-shower.

 

 

Keith - a masterpiece. Truly a wonderful photograph that I can't see could be improved in any way. You must print this and hang it on a wall. (You can hang it on mine if you like!).

Edited August 2, 2017 by stray cat

[Advertisement]

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

[stray cat]

Vintage car porn continued. 

 

 

 

 

Love this one, 16 - puts us in direct relation to the car, imaging what it would be like to sit in it. Great colours too - I know it's not, but to me it looks a little like Cinestill?

[B.Toews]

Bronica SQ-A, 80/2.8 PS, Tmax 400, D76:

 

Untitled by Brendan | Toews, on Flickr

[stray cat]

Superb Brendan.

[sblitz]

sunset at the reservoir in central park. summicron r 90mm leica 6.2 portra 400 (I think, could've been 160) . . . . . 

 

 

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!

[sblitz]

and the sunset .....

 

 

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!

[atournas]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

One more from the test roll put through my 'new' R5 last week.  60mm Macro Elmarit-R & Acros100.

 

After the rain-shower.

 

In my opinion, one of the very best B&W landscape photographs ever shown in this thread!

 

Paul

Edited August 3, 2017 by atournas

[Doc Henry]

One more from the test roll put through my 'new' R5 last week.  60mm Macro Elmarit-R & Acros100.

 

After the rain-shower.

 

Keith, I agree with Paul and SP

Great with the reflection on rain water on the road

Well seen and well done

Great landscape

Best

Henry

.... and I add must be print , frame and hang on wall Keith

Edited August 3, 2017 by Doc Henry

[Doc Henry]

 

Bronica SQ-A, 80/2.8 PS, Tmax 400, D76:

 

Untitled by Brendan | Toews, on Flickr

 

 

Another great picture Brendan with nice contrast between black and white

Thank you

Henry

[Doc Henry]

sunset at the reservoir in central park. summicron r 90mm leica 6.2 portra 400 (I think, could've been 160) . . . . . 

 

and the sunset .....

 

Steve I see you have beautiful ladies who admire the sunset like you

Well framing

Thank you Steve

Best

Henry

[Keith (M)]

Wonderfully subtle gradation of the colours in this eye-catching composition.

 

Wow - lots of nice pictures, - the thread is getting better all the time :-)

I also read about scanning negatives and/or darkroom printing. I do both, especially as I have some stock of vitage paper. And , no, honestly : it is not exactly the same when a negative is scanned or darkroom develloped. On the other hand, my wife scans my negatives ( aswell as her negatives) as this spares chemicals and time and we can focus on the best shots. For rendering on a Computer screen, I believe that the scans make no real difference, as one also would have to scan the lab print ( as I often do) or as one has to take a digital photo/picture of the develloped paper print ...

To me , most of this makes no difference, - it is fun and I act as my instinct of the moment tells me to do.

About exposure times - I almost always stick to the indicated ASA/Din, and most of the time lightly over-expose.

But for today, something different. My chap Artie still had a couple of Agfacolour Portrait 120 rolls ( 160 Asa ) . This film does not exist anymore, it is a pity.

Here's a first example. No retouching at all, except the little dust /thin hair in my wife's scanner). I am not a fan of colour photography, but I must admit this kind of photo is worth colour.

Rolleiflex C, Planar 3.5, Agfacolour 120 Roll Film "160 Portrait", expired 2006

 

Web.Fleurs AgfaColor 1 Rolleiflex 17 .jpg

 

 

May I echo what blackandwhite and Steve have said above - this thread is just going from strength to strength (not too bad after 1,878 pages!). There are indeed many fine photographers represented here, and everyone's contributions - without exception - just reinforce what a wonderful medium film is to use.

 

 

 

 

 

Keith - a masterpiece. Truly a wonderful photograph that I can't see could be improved in any way. You must print this and hang it on a wall. (You can hang it on mine if you like!).

 

 

In my opinion, one of the very best B&W landscape photographs ever shown in this thread!

 

Paul

 

As to the two comments above from Paul & Phil - blush!  What can I say, other than thank you    Sometimes one is in the right place at the right time...

 

With regard to printing and framing - well, yes BUT - my wife has vetoed any more Ridgeway and/or Marlborough Downs landscapes being hung in the living room and study as the walls are full of them!  

[Doc Henry]

M6 - 50cron - agfavista200

 

 

Reflection, table , glass good choice for a beautiful picture

Superb color of Vista SP

Thank you

Henry

[Doc Henry]

May I echo what blackandwhite and Steve have said above - this thread is just going from strength to strength (not too bad after 1,878 pages!). There are indeed many fine photographers represented here, and everyone's contributions - without exception - just reinforce what a wonderful medium film is to use.

 

 

I agree partially, Henry.

 

Black and white film, apart from the chromogenics, I find generally speaking that they work best at box speed. Chromogenic films like Ilford XP2 Super are at their best overexposed by 2/3 to 1 stop (this is also what Mary Ellen Mark advised me). This is because they are, essentially, colour negative films repurposed for monochrome. However, as ChrisM has kindly demonstrated, these can be successfully underexposed in certain conditions, if one is prepared to forsake the convenience of handing it to the local C41 lab.

 

With colour transparency film it is more complex. I used to underexpose Kodachrome by about 1/3 stop. Not a lot on the surface, but it created magic in the transparency (and I tested it quite a bit). With Velvia 50 in 35mm, I generally overexpose it by 1/3 to 1/2 a stop, as I find it too dense otherwise. Strangely enough, I rate it at box speed when using it in 120 size. With other transparency films I rate them at box speed - this is the approach I'll take initially with the new Ektachromes and with the Ferrania if we ever see either.

 

Colour print film - well, that's another mixed bag. Ektar is a strange one in that it obviously reacts badly to exposure that is too far off the box speed either way. Generally, with the Portras, I am much more comfortable overexposing by a stop, although I don't find this quite as useful with Portraits 160 as I do with Portra 400.

 

So, in general, there are not too many current-production films that I'd be generally underexposing without doing the necessary adjustments to processing that would entail.

 

Yes Phil only beautiful pictures in color and in b&w in these pages

A great thread with great photographers

Bravo !

Thank you Phil for your encouragement

 

 

 

 

In reading Phil useful remark about exposure, I think when you are looking for perfection

it's not so easy to obtain a nice picture ... a great job !

 

Just a summary what Phil said :

 

Ilford XP2 > overexposed by 2/3 to 1 stop

Kodachrome > underexpose by about 1/3 stop

Velvia 50 in 35mm> overexpose it by 1/3 to 1/2 a stop

new Ektachromes rate at box speed

Ektar the « strange one » (I like this Expression Phil and that's correct) reacts badly to exposure that is too far off the box speed

Portras  (400) >overexposing by a stop

In general > underexposing without doing the necessary adjustments to processing that would entail.

 

Is it correct Phil ?

Thank you for showing us your experience

Best

Henry

Edited August 3, 2017 by Doc Henry

[stray cat]

Yes Phil only beautiful pictures in color and in b&w in these pages

A great thread with great photographers

Bravo !

Thank you Phil for your encouragement

 

 

 

 

In reading Phil useful remark about exposure, I think when you are looking for perfection

it's not so easy to obtain a nice picture ... a great job !

 

Just a summary what Phil said :

 

Ilford XP2 > overexposed by 2/3 to 1 stop

Kodachrome > underexpose by about 1/3 stop

Velvia 50 in 35mm> overexpose it by 1/3 to 1/2 a stop

new Ektachromes rate at box speed

Ektar the « strange one » (I like this Expression Phil and that's correct) reacts badly to exposure that is too far off the box speed

Portras  (400) >overexposing by a stop

In general > underexposing without doing the necessary adjustments to processing that would entail.

 

Is it correct Phil ?

Thank you for showing us your experience

Best

Henry

 

 

Yes, Doc, a great summary. Just the last bit may not be so clear - in my opinion, underexposure almost always requires adjustments to processing (i.e. "pushing" the processing) to correct it. In other words (again in my opinion), there really aren't any current films that react well to inadvertent underexposure , and the only way to correct for that if it happens is for some adjustment to be made in processing.

Edited August 3, 2017 by stray cat

[Doc Henry]

Another picture of Castle Fontainebleau I visit last sunday

two days ago... referring to box speed M7

 

 

Kodak Portra 160-Leica M7-Summilux 35 Asph

 

 

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!

 

 

Best

Henry

 

 

[A miller]

 

Breathtaking to the point of near bodily harm

M2 -35mm.jpg

 

Leica M2 & 35mm Summicron - Fuji Sensia

 

 

Keith - you are reinventing that scene over and over again in such a masterful way Bravo!!

 

One more from the test roll put through my 'new' R5 last week.  60mm Macro Elmarit-R & Acros100.

 

After the rain-shower.

 

Love it, Brendan. Congrats.

  

Bronica SQ-A, 80/2.8 PS, Tmax 400, D76:

 

Untitled by Brendan | Toews, on Flickr

 

 

Beautiful, Steve. Love the colors and energy.

 

and the sunset .....

[Doc Henry]

More I look , more I find that the texture of Kodak TX400 is wonderful

giving a "natural" view in b&w with a nice balance between black

and white, without correction like in this picture.

 

The contrast is superb IMO , giving a nice perspective effect , not

flat at all  ! The grain is also superb and "natural" (I mean not coming

artificially from a photo software) !

This film is really great  I understand why Leica gives you one 

roll of TX when you purchase the M-A

 

King Pavillon

Fontainebleau Castle

July 2017

The duck supervises me   

 

Kodak TX400-Leica MP-Summicron 35 Asph

(TX dev in pure Kodak Pro D76)

 

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!

 

Best

Henry

 

Just to tell you the size of this picture 50 Mo in Tiff , with all these details

in b&w

Edited August 3, 2017 by Doc Henry

[Doc Henry]

This picture is for Adam (ref his windows tower in NYC) 

and also in Kodak TX400 with beautiful grain !

 

 

Kodak TX-Leica R8 MP-35-70 VarioElmar 50 Summilux Asph

Sorry for the mistake

 

... reflection and geometry on French National Library tower

Paris

 

 

 

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!

 

Best

Henry

Edited August 3, 2017 by Doc Henry

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[philipus]

Adam, I'm afraid I don't know much about the zone system so it is difficult for me to comment. For instance, I don't know which zone is considered as the baseline for the speed (wikipedia suggests it's zone 1) but in any event since you use an external meter and a complex system it is difficult to say exactly whether and how much you're over- resp. under-exposing. I guess if you metered in-camera at the same time at box speed you would have a reference point. For the heck of it you could set the meter one or two stops over some time and see what happens. 

 

I've shot metered film cameras since the 1980s and have only very rarely had troubles, though when they occur it is usually because I haven't paid attention to the scen.

 

Dumb meters, by which I mean those which do not make any adjustments themselves to exposure based on the values encountered in the metering area, require the photographer to pay attention to what is in the frame, such as excessively bright or dark areas which may "fool" the meter. These are the most common meters and are found in the film Leica Ms and also in my Hasselblad.

 

More intelligent meters, such as the meters in Canon's EOS cameras and Nikon's colour matrix system, are supposedly able to make "intelligent" adjustments to exposure based on the light (and, as I understand it, in the case of Nikons matrix system also based on the colours in the metering area). I only have experience (but a lot of experience) with the EOS system and I can say that it is quite impressive, but naturally not infallible.

 

Regardless of whichever meter the camera has the photographer needs to be prepared to adjust the readings based on experience. Or just be prepared to accept whatever comes out of the camera and deal with it in post. That certainly works very well in most cases for colour negative film in light of its amazing latitude. And I find it works well enough for my photography, given how forgiving most films are and my own scanning and post-processing skills.

 

br
Philip

 

 

Philip - No worries at all.  And please forgive my density on this subject.  I think it has to do with my severe distrust of in-camera meters.   I just don't have much faith in the ability of a relatively little spot inside of a camera that purports to be able to look at an entire scene and set the exposure "correct".   That's why I don't use them.

 

Let me ask my question a different way:  let's say that I wanted take a portrait of you in an evenly lit setting (such as bright overcast).  I am using portra 400.  What I would normally do (if I were doing it OCD precisely) is plug in ISO 400 in my 1 degree Minolta Spotmeter and walk about two feet from your face and put the spot on a point in your face that represents an average EV relative to your entire face.  That meter reading would put that point in your face on zone 5.  I would then increase the exposure by 1.5 to 2 stops, depending on what other background subjects I wanted to capture and the EVs of those subjects.  This would put the said point on your face on zone 6.5 to 7.  

 

What would you say that I have done exposure-wise relative to the box speed of the film?  I would say that I at most overexposed the film by .5 to 1 stop, assuming (and this is a BIG assumption) that zone 6 was strictly the optimal EV for that point on your face (and I put that point on zone 6.5 or 7).  So I guess I would be considered to rate the Porta 400 at 300 or 200.   But I would add the extra exposure b/c (i) the film can handle it and (ii) I might realize when I see the scan or print that your face really should have been brighter than zone 6, and it is easier to dial down the exposure a little than dial I up.   If I ultimately concluded that I needed every bit of that extra exposure to properly expose your face (such that the said point on your face was rightly, say, zone 7), the way to figure out how this translates into how I rated the film is to take a precise incident meter reading on the light falling on the said point on your face.  This would give me the exposure for middle gray at box speed.   The extent to which the exposure I chose using my approach with the spot meter is greater than this incident meter reading is the extent to which I have rated the film at lower than box speed.  

 

Th thing is that I don't normally do this cross check with my incident meter.  So I don't therefore really know how much my rating of the film deviates from box speed.  My guess is that in the above example it probably deviates by a stop or so.  But a wide range of variables play into it....

 

I like this one. Can I ask where it was shot?

br

Philip

 

Lamp

M6, 50cron, agfavista200

 

 

Dear Henry, I'm veryvery sorry to hear of your mother's passing.

 

Wayne thank you ... i was at Marseille just for my mother who passed away recently

Henry

 

Terrific photo, Steve. 

 

sunset at the reservoir in central park. summicron r 90mm leica 6.2 portra 400 (I think, could've been 160) . . . . . 

[erl]

Henry, that pic looks like it has 'sprocket hole' flair, mainly in the sky area, but extending right across the frame.