Jump to content

I like film...(open thread)

Doc Henry

By Doc Henry
in Other

 Share

Recommended Posts

Ramesh

Ramesh

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Tennis action at the Australian Open 2017.

 

Leica M6, 90mmAPO, Reala

 

 

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 12
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 94.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Doc Henry

    13495

  • A miller

    6032

  • Ernest

    3882

  • stray cat

    3030

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Michael Hiles
Michael Hiles

Bonjour Henri,   I still prefer black and white film (I use almost no colour). The advantages of digital don’t mean much to me. Seeing instant results is not so useful, since what comes out of a cam

grahamc
grahamc

Kodak Ultramax & 35:1.4v2 , MP 

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!

Cyril Jayant
Cyril Jayant

This photo is from a series from some of my crazy, extreme photo adventures I  had photographing Mountains "Alpinists " and rock climbers. This is Alpes mountain range which is called   "Le Massive du

Posted Images

A miller

A miller

Posted
Posted (edited)

Tel Aviv


M-A, 28mm elmarit pre-asph, Portra 400


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 by A miller
  • Like 15
Link to post
Share on other sites
mikemgb

mikemgb

Posted
Posted

Two photographs from my most recent roll.

 

Chicago, Leica IIIa, Elmar 5cm, Fuji Superior 400, home developed at 30c.

 

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 11
Link to post
Share on other sites
A miller

A miller

Posted
Posted (edited)

Like the gift that keeps on giving, this picture rewards multiple views because, while outwardly quite simple, there is so much to see and appreciate. Great juxtaposition and so well seen.

 

Thanks for sharing my appreciation, Phil.  I am a sucker for good skin tones, strong colors and a mix of shapes.   :)

Edited by A miller
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Henry

Doc Henry

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

No. I probably was the only guy at the Tennis shooting the action with a 35 year old manual camera and an expired film :-)

 

Ramesh , many young people shoot now film and want to have even their lab if they can financially 

another reason because "good" digital camera is still expensive for them

Henry

Edited by Doc Henry
Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Henry

Doc Henry

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

I'm pretty evangelical when it comes to persuading young people to use film and have occasionally loaned out my Nikon F3 and processed the film with them later. My 8 year old can use my Leica M6 TTL and focus the rangefinder.

 

Tonight we looked at one of my aspirational negative scans which would never see the light of day. It's Kodak Portra 400 shot on the M6 in a highly underexposed contre-jour situation. So from this fail.....

 

633303e91ccfe50458a30387b54f4c6d.jpg

 

We had lots of fun with the DNG file in the RAW developer part of Photoshop. We enhanced the heck out vibrancy and saturation, introduced a slight vignette, but most of all had fun with film. And I guess if we are going to excite the younger digital generation about film, we need to let them have freedom in their expression. So this is what we ended up with.... apologies to Henry and all who may be offended by something that could have been Instagram, but this is the point, it wasn't- it was film! And it can still be immensely creative and fun for the younger generations whom we need to get hooked, or we will loose our fight to make this wonderful medium popular again. Here's our candy floss interpretation, inspired and directed by an eight year old.

 

4e3af30b7b293efc7583843e0cdbc8f8.jpg

 

She loved it and that's all that matters.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Nice contre jour Chris . You scan yourself ?

Thanks for posting

Rg H

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

wattsy

Posted
Posted (edited)

Lady Jane was Queen for nine days until she was locked in the Tower, found guilty of treason and beheaded to make way for Mary, who of course suffered the same fate to make way for Elizabeth. 

 

 

Bloody Mary wasn't executed. She died of suspected ovarian cancer or something like that. 

Edited by wattsy
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
mrckdavies

mrckdavies

Posted
Posted (edited)

Nice contre jour Chris . You scan yourself ?

Thanks for posting

Rg H

Yes Henry

 

I scan all my own with the Plustek 8200 Ai and save to DNG+JPG. The JPG I just use as a proof. My objective when I scan is to get as much out of the negative as possible. This first photo was all the information in the negative that I could get. I remember taking it on the M6 TTL at f22@1000 to see as an experiment the detail I could get from the sun.

 

The shot was taken at Midday last week. That's as high as our sun gets this time of year. I would never have thought the output was possible if my daughter had not asked me to develop the file in the Photoshop RAW developer.

 

Hope that explains the background.

 

Regards

 

Christopher

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited by mrckdavies
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
philipus

philipus

Posted
Posted

Uhoh... :D From the GetDPI MF forum 

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!

We're all here to help you (spend your money)

 

I'm getting the bug for medium format. I've been browsing ebay  :o . I have a freezer chock full of medium format film that was given to me, and an opportunity to buy this person's SWC several years ago, for a deal of a price ($1000 if I recall). Unfortunately that ship has sailed and I'm now kicking myself. 

 

Great story Christopher and a very cool result.

 

It's interesting, this lomography thing. Cross- and alternative processing and experimentation etc have always been a big part of film photography and used to good effect by many a talented artist over the last century. But today, it seems that's not the case, at least not so much, because one of the purported strengths of film and one of the main reasons many choose it over digital is that it is supposedly better at depicting reality more truly. I personally don't necessarily always agree with this; for instance, the current discussion that so and so sensor/camera gives bad skin colour whereas a new model is better in this respect is very similar to the endless discussions over the last several decades concerning new films released specifically to improve portrait photography or any other particular type of photography. Some films are evidently very bad at doing certain things and better at other things. In my humble opinion, film is not intrinsically better at depicting reality. So it seems the lomography movement is the alternative processing counterweight to today's more realist film photography. Is there any truth to this observation?

 

I'm pretty evangelical when it comes to persuading young people to use film and have occasionally loaned out my Nikon F3 and processed the film with them later. My 8 year old can use my Leica M6 TTL and focus the rangefinder.

Tonight we looked at one of my aspirational negative scans which would never see the light of day. It's Kodak Portra 400 shot on the M6 in a highly underexposed contre-jour situation. So from this fail.....

633303e91ccfe50458a30387b54f4c6d.jpg

We had lots of fun with the DNG file in the RAW developer part of Photoshop. We enhanced the heck out vibrancy and saturation, introduced a slight vignette, but most of all had fun with film. And I guess if we are going to excite the younger digital generation about film, we need to let them have freedom in their expression. So this is what we ended up with.... apologies to Henry and all who may be offended by something that could have been Instagram, but this is the point, it wasn't- it was film! And it can still be immensely creative and fun for the younger generations whom we need to get hooked, or we will loose our fight to make this wonderful medium popular again. Here's our candy floss interpretation, inspired and directed by an eight year old.

4e3af30b7b293efc7583843e0cdbc8f8.jpg

She loved it and that's all that matters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
philipus

philipus

Posted
Posted

It might work differently on the Plustek and I use Vuescan so this might not help at all, but in my experience I tend to get better flatter C41 scans if I use the RAW setting to get a 'linear scan'. This outputs a very flat TIFF file (and, oddly, one needs to untick TIFF file on Vuescan's Output tab and tick RAW file). Linear scans are also needed for me to be able to use ColorPerfect to invert the scan and get rid of the orange mask. Like you I do all colour correction in Adobe Camera Raw, which opens TIFF files (and even JPGs). I have tried scanning C41 using an ordinary TIFF file (thus ticking TIFF file, but unticking Raw file). It does produce OK colours but, usually, not as good as what I get if I pass the file through ColorPerfect. 

 

Yes Henry

I scan all my own with the Plustek 8200 Ai and save to DNG+JPG. The JPG I just use as a proof. My objective when I scan is to get as much out of the negative as possible. This first photo was all the information in the negative that I could get. I remember taking it on the M6 TTL at f22@1000 to see as an experiment the detail I could get from the sun.

The shot was taken at Midday last week. That's as high as our sun gets this time of year. I would never have thought the output was possible if my daughter had not asked me to develop the file in the Photoshop RAW developer.

Hope that explains the background.

Regards

Christopher


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
mrckdavies

mrckdavies

Posted
Posted

Uhoh... :D From the GetDPI MF forum

attachicon.gifabandon.jpg

We're all here to help you (spend your money)

 

 

Great story Christopher and a very cool result.

 

It's interesting, this lomography thing. Cross- and alternative processing and experimentation etc have always been a big part of film photography and used to good effect by many a talented artist over the last century. But today, it seems that's not the case, at least not so much, because one of the purported strengths of film and one of the main reasons many choose it over digital is that it is supposedly better at depicting reality more truly. I personally don't necessarily always agree with this; for instance, the current discussion that so and so sensor/camera gives bad skin colour whereas a new model is better in this respect is very similar to the endless discussions over the last several decades concerning new films released specifically to improve portrait photography or any other particular type of photography. Some films are evidently very bad at doing certain things and better at other things. In my humble opinion, film is not intrinsically better at depicting reality. So it seems the lomography movement is the alternative processing counterweight to today's more realist film photography. Is there any truth to this observation?

I think you are right. I don't like to follow Lomography and I have never used Instagram filters, but the generations behind us love it. Film to me is a medium for artistic expression just like oils, acrylics, or watercolour. I certainly don't believe any shot is wrong if it looks a certain way because someone with the skills and experience created it. It's like saying Vermeer was excellent for his details, but Monet was no good for painting huge blurry paintings which only snap to focus when you stand back from them. Both are equally brilliantly executed, just different styles. Look at Picasso. Who are we to criticise another persons view of the world?

 

The beauty is that we can each share through photography the way each of us perceive the world around us. For me all mediums are a means to an end. I have been taught to use them all.

 

See you got the artist in me going there! Sorry for the sermon. It's something I believe in strongly. I love art and we so need to inspire others.

 

 

Regards

 

Christopher

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
mrckdavies

mrckdavies

Posted
Posted

It might work differently on the Plustek and I use Vuescan so this might not help at all, but in my experience I tend to get better flatter C41 scans if I use the RAW setting to get a 'linear scan'. This outputs a very flat TIFF file (and, oddly, one needs to untick TIFF file on Vuescan's Output tab and tick RAW file). Linear scans are also needed for me to be able to use ColorPerfect to invert the scan and get rid of the orange mask. Like you I do all colour correction in Adobe Camera Raw, which opens TIFF files (and even JPGs). I have tried scanning C41 using an ordinary TIFF file (thus ticking TIFF file, but unticking Raw file). It does produce OK colours but, usually, not as good as what I get if I pass the file through ColorPerfect.

Interesting we use the same process. I choose to not have huge TIFF files, but opted for the DNG function. In TIFF the files at 7200DPI are 400Mb. I scan that size only for shots I love and save jpeg after dev 3ftx2ft @ 300 dpi, just in case I want a canvas print later.

 

Yes I use Vuescan so I'll give your way a try too. By the way I use all your settings apart from I save to jpg+dng. Never heard of ColorPerfect. I'll look it up.

 

Thanks

 

Christopher

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
philipus

philipus

Posted
Posted

I'm wondering if I might have your thoughts on these four framings of the scene? I haven't harmonised the colour between them but just left Adobe Camera Raw at 'as shot'. I had to shoot them in a fairly quick succession because the sun was just about to disappear below the horizon (which it did in the last one). There are 2000dpi scans on Flickr for those who want to grain peep :) 

 

Thank you in advance for your thoughts.

P

 

32336644282_b0e4b36ea2_b.jpg

 

32488036605_399e017295_b.jpg

 

32447717866_0220880253_b.jpg

 

31676571063_a2828dec1c_b.jpg

 

 

 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...