Jump to content

I like film...(open thread)


Doc Henry

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just continuing on from that exposure discussion earlier, this is the sort of shot I seem to have difficulty with. Bright sunshine. I don't like that, if I try to bring up the shadows a little, the grain or some sort of scanning artefact with the appearance of salt sprinkled on the film becomes visible. I exposed with an incident meter so it will have been about 1/250 f11 or f16 as I'm shooting this Neopan 400 at 250. The shadow areas look a bit small and uninteresting to put them in zone 3 as suggested earlier. Because it's direct sunlight, it's a high contrast scene. Any tips? Unfortunately, Tracey's face had just entered some shade.

Pete

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!

  • Like 13
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is how I edited it

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!

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is another I wasn't sure if I could have done better. Here I took a reading from under the bridge to see how it would come out. Should I have dropped the exposure a bit? It was all quite dark to be fair, but I'm just surprised at how little contrast there seems to be. Perhaps it's because it was all green?
Pete

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!

  • Like 13
Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is how I edited it

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!

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, benqui said:

Really beautiful Adam! I like these "autumn" colors. But honestly, the brown frame is a bit disturbing for my eyes. It draws off my attention.

Thanks, Marc, and sorry for the disturbance!

17 hours ago, frame-it said:

Leica M5 + 50mm Summilux f1.4 ASPH + Kodak Ektar 100

Restricted Afternoon

 

 

Love these colors!!

14 hours ago, Wayne said:

 

Canon EF, FD 35/2 (Chrome nose,) Foma 200

Gorgeous set, Wayne.  

11 hours ago, Doc Henry said:

Rural  fog with Ilford HP5 400 Isos for Wayne

Leica MP-50 Summilux Asph  - Ilford dev in Ilfosol S

 

Best

H

Very well done, Henry.  Very peaceful and pleasing to view.

4 hours ago, oldwino said:

Under the American River Bridge, Folsom, CA

Leica IIIc / Canon RF 35/2.8 / Eastman XX / Xtol replenished

Very effective contrast and composition; impressive for such old gear.

2 hours ago, Stealth3kpl said:

Just continuing on from that exposure discussion earlier, this is the sort of shot I seem to have difficulty with. Bright sunshine. I don't like that, if I try to bring up the shadows a little, the grain or some sort of scanning artefact with the appearance of salt sprinkled on the film becomes visible. I exposed with an incident meter so it will have been about 1/250 f11 or f16 as I'm shooting this Neopan 400 at 250. The shadow areas look a bit small and uninteresting to put them in zone 3 as suggested earlier. Because it's direct sunlight, it's a high contrast scene. Any tips? Unfortunately, Tracey's face had just entered some shade.

Pete

In the middle of the sunny with the sun beating downward, I really don't know what more you could have expected.  I am imagining this is exactly what the scene looked like in terms of light coverage.  Everything is fairly evenly lit except for the shadow under the bridge.   I think it looks fine the way it is.  If I knew that I was going to be shooting a roll in this light and in this type of scene I might have gone with either Delta 100 or 400 as these stock are very mid-tone rich and would have produced more creamy tones for this type of light (i.e., would have lessened the contrast). You could then mold the contrast level after scanning as you wish.   I honestly don't think there is much to be gain by deepening the shadows under the bridge.  I actually think the more detail you can grab from under there the more interesting this image would be.  And the chunky contrast on the far left (including the shadow) is distracting and a lower contrast film would have blended that into the scene better.  A lower contrast film would have also lessened the impact of the shadow in your lovely wife's face.  These are just my observations.  

2 hours ago, Stealth3kpl said:

And this is another I wasn't sure if I could have done better. Here I took a reading from under the bridge to see how it would come out. Should I have dropped the exposure a bit? It was all quite dark to be fair, but I'm just surprised at how little contrast there seems to be. Perhaps it's because it was all green?
Pete

I actually like the smooth tones in the greenery and under the bridge.  The only thing that I would want to tame are the highlights in the sky - I think it is too bright and distracting.  The film should have plenty of latitude to reduce the highlights.

2 hours ago, Stealth3kpl said:

This one came out quite good though (I like it, anyway). Again it was very dark

Pete

I like this a lot.  Focuses the eye exactly on the middle of the bridge.  Slight distraction of the eye to the upper right corner, but in a way this counter-balances the deep shadows on the far left side of the image.  

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Stealth3kpl said:

This one came out quite good though (I like it, anyway). Again it was very dark

Pete

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!

Hi Pete , this one has more contrast and definition but i would like a little less contrast

I prefer to have details in the shadows like under the bridge or reflection on water 

Nice shot

Best H

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Stealth3kpl said:

And this is another I wasn't sure if I could have done better. Here I took a reading from under the bridge to see how it would come out. Should I have dropped the exposure a bit? It was all quite dark to be fair, but I'm just surprised at how little contrast there seems to be. Perhaps it's because it was all green?
Pete

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!

This original picture looks like "real"   and "soft"  when watching not agressive for eyes Pete

The rendering also depends from your scanner but the real rendering is on silver print

Best

Henry

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SunnySixteen said:

Ski tour, Engelberg Switzerland, February 2018

TMAX 100 - Summicron 50mm - M6

 

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!

Superb  shot SunnySixteen ,  white of snow in film is really white not grey like in digital  because converted color to b&w

Best

H

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wayne said:

Deer Season.

Canon EF, FD 35/2, Foma 200

Wayne nice black and real atmosphere of rural fog in this picture Foma seems a good film for fog too.

I like a deer in background

Best

Henry

Edited by Doc Henry
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, A miller said:

 If I knew that I was going to be shooting a roll in this light and in this type of scene I might have gone with either Delta 100 or 400 as these stock are very mid-tone rich and would have produced more creamy tones for this type of light (i.e., would have lessened the contrast).

Thanks for your input Adam. I'm trying to use up my Neopan 400 before I start on my stock of Tmax400 and Deltas 100 and 400. As you say, the Neopan isn't really the right stock for what I'm trying to do, but I don't often go to a town and I don't want to throw it away. It's clogging up the fridge and occupying all my reusable cassettes. Just 13 more to go!

Pete

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Stealth3kpl said:

This one came out quite good though (I like it, anyway). Again it was very dark

Pete

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!

Pete, There is quite a useful rule of thumb when using negative film: Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights. What that means is that you need enough light from the shadow part of the scene to make a mark on the negative (the part which would otherwise be clear), and you cut the development time so that the highlights (ie the dark part of the neg) still have some detail. Of course this is easier with sheet film where one can expose and develop every picture with a bespoke exposure and development, but when using 35mm one can take a guess: 'today everything was very contrasty, I need to look after the shadows and cut back on the development.'

I know that I have often been guilty of giving a little bit of extra development 'for luck', and spoiling an important shot.

Having said all the above (and sounding like a pompous know-all!), I have the feeling that if you are scanning and digitally printing prints you may need to make a slightly different work-flow. I know very little about digital printing. When 'wet printing' you will find that the negative can carry a much longer tonal range than the print. But that is where dodging and burning comes in.

Please forgive me if you know all this. I have to say I think your woodland pictures are beautiful; but I can see the problem of trying to extract everything that you visualised when you pressed the shutter. 

Edited by Beresford
Spelling
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...