I like film...(open thread)

[philipus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thank you Gary. And yep unfiltered. I don't own any filters (yet  ) for my Hasselblad. 

 

No filter rectification Philip, just as is?

Looks good either way.

Gary

 

I like this one Ian.

 

Some Macro Elmar-M action for Henry. I'm still not convinced by this lens. It's very sharp and seems very accurate both with and without the adaptor (which is remarkable considering the method of focussing) but there is something awkward about the process of putting on and taking off the adaptor when switching between 0.5-0.76m and 0.76m-∞ ranges. Being RF focussed, and considering the very narrow depth of field at this kind of range, the system also doesn't lend itself so well to focus and recompose and there is a consequent tendency to centre the composition (this is where focussing with an SLR groundglass really comes into its own IMO).

 

Peacock. I think I got the exposure wrong here and the greens seem quite wrong for Portra 400 (maybe the harsh lighting). This was at around 0.75m – I would have gone closer had I been confident the butterfly would have hung around.

 

[philipus]

And here in more normal colour.

 

Flickr

Ektar 100

[gsgary]

Yesterday we went to a small chapel i had heard about http://www.worksopguardian.co.uk/news/chapel-with-a-long-history-1-637958

Fuji GW690III, Foma 400 developed in Rodinal

 

Door detail

 

[Martin B]

Did some IR film shooting recently with my M6. Ilford SFX200 film with 720 nm cutoff filter, developed in Xtol

 

 

[Michael Geschlecht]

Autochrome. Technically not film. But, if you have not seen this, you simply must.

 

Henry, it features red as you may have never seen it.

 

http://mashable.com/2015/04/23/autochrome-photos-ogorman/#er2P1SoN.uqf

 

Hello Wayne,

 

Thank you for the interesting Autochromes.

 

I have been looking at them & I have a few questions & Given: That this is a Section of this Forum that deals with Film Photography: I would think that here, & with this group of people is, the proper place to ask them.

 

First, A little background: Among other things: Where I work we also do Fine Arts Restoration & Authentication: Paintings, porcelain & such.

 

NOT: Photographs.

 

But, I have seen some Old Photographs. Including Autochromes.

 

When I look at these very nicely done photos: I see appropriate Period Costumes, Settings & so on. But something doesn't "ring" as quite correct.

 

It appears to me that these are photos done at a later date AFTER THE STYLE of the Autochromes of the Period. 

 

What do others here on this Thread think?

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[dmitchell]

Following  my post above , my reference for color is red of poppies !

if one film can reproduce exactly this color , I select it

Red of poppies is like red of human "arterial" blood  >  vivid red , not

veinous , darker 

...  and secondly green

Fuji has a red a bit saturated for poppies

 

 

Kodak Portra 160-M7-Apo Summicron 90 Asph

 

Image22coqkp160rllfht++++-Modifier.jpg

 

Here is the red of Claude Monet , our impressionist painter

Orsay Museum Paris

 

Monet paint.jpg

 

Henry

 

This is a wonderful photo.  I love how you've selectively focused on the poppies, and the colour of Portra is incredible! 

[ansteyp]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

One from the roll that came out scratched ...

This was at the entrance of the Cathedral of Brindisi

 

Leica M6 | Summicron 35 ASPH | Trix400 | HC-110-B | Epson V600

Great photo. How did you establish exposure?

[Doug A]

Hello Wayne,

 

Thank you for the interesting Autochromes.

 

I have been looking at them & I have a few questions & Given: That this is a Section of this Forum that deals with Film Photography: I would think that here, & with this group of people is, the proper place to ask them.

 

First, A little background: Among other things: Where I work we also do Fine Arts Restoration & Authentication: Paintings, porcelain & such.

 

NOT: Photographs.

 

But, I have seen some Old Photographs. Including Autochromes.

 

When I look at these very nicely done photos: I see appropriate Period Costumes, Settings & so on. But something doesn't "ring" as quite correct.

 

It appears to me that these are photos done at a later date AFTER THE STYLE of the Autochromes of the Period. 

 

What do others here on this Thread think?

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

 

That was my reaction too, when I first saw them. But I downloaded several of them and desaturated them in Apple Photos and they look very much of the period.

 

--Doug

Edited April 15, 2017 by Doug A

[Wayne]

Hello Wayne,

 

Thank you for the interesting Autochromes.

 

I have been looking at them & I have a few questions & Given: That this is a Section of this Forum that deals with Film Photography: I would think that here, & with this group of people is, the proper place to ask them.

 

First, A little background: Among other things: Where I work we also do Fine Arts Restoration & Authentication: Paintings, porcelain & such.

 

NOT: Photographs.

 

But, I have seen some Old Photographs. Including Autochromes.

 

When I look at these very nicely done photos: I see appropriate Period Costumes, Settings & so on. But something doesn't "ring" as quite correct.

 

It appears to me that these are photos done at a later date AFTER THE STYLE of the Autochromes of the Period. 

 

What do others here on this Thread think?

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

I do not know.

 

One overriding aspect of the set, at least in my mind, that gives credibility to the story is that the sense of an adoring father attempting, and succeeding, in creating beautiful images of his beloved daughter simply oozes out of the images.......Even today.  I am a father. although they are older now, I remember the level of  adoration I had for my daughters when they were about this age.  I still adore them, but this was a magic age. I sensed that they were not my little girls any longer. I was desperate to retain what I could of them.  These images make me feel it again.....It is palpable.

 

Best, Wayne

Edited April 15, 2017 by Wayne

[gbealnz]

Did some IR film shooting recently with my M6. Ilford SFX200 film with 720 nm cutoff filter, developed in Xtol

 

Interesting Martin, back to the old days of film I/R. Digital has made this so simple. Film not so.

I returned to this experiment a few months back, used a roll of Rollei SuperPan 200. While not specifically an I/R film, it does produce I/R results with the correct filtration.

I'll dig out the filter I used, but I recall it being slightly different to the "usual" I/R filters I had from the digital days.

Nice to see a result like this though, great work.

Gary

[chrism]

Back in the dark today, with two wet prints to show for it.

 

Scan of silver print 8 by chrism229, on Flickr

Scan of negative here.

 

Scan of silver print 7 by chrism229, on Flickr

Scan of negative here.

 

C.

[philipus]

To my eyes these prints look truly amazing, Chris.

[philipus]

I thought this was rather cool. This ant came around from back of one of the petals as I was focusing. Seemed liked a friendly fellow because he just stood there for a while, probably wondering who this odd type was who pointed some large instrument at him from an unpleasantly close distance.

 

Flickr

Ektar 100

[gsgary]

Back in the dark today, with two wet prints to show for it.

 

Scan of silver print 8 by chrism229, on Flickr

Scan of negative here.

 

Scan of silver print 7 by chrism229, on Flickr

Scan of negative here.

 

C.

Very nice the first has a lovely glow to it

 

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

[gsgary]

Hello Wayne,

 

Thank you for the interesting Autochromes.

 

I have been looking at them & I have a few questions & Given: That this is a Section of this Forum that deals with Film Photography: I would think that here, & with this group of people is, the proper place to ask them.

 

First, A little background: Among other things: Where I work we also do Fine Arts Restoration & Authentication: Paintings, porcelain & such.

 

NOT: Photographs.

 

But, I have seen some Old Photographs. Including Autochromes.

 

When I look at these very nicely done photos: I see appropriate Period Costumes, Settings & so on. But something doesn't "ring" as quite correct.

 

It appears to me that these are photos done at a later date AFTER THE STYLE of the Autochromes of the Period.

 

What do others here on this Thread think?

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

I've had another look and I can see where your coming from for me its the hair syle

 

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

[mikemgb]

Did some IR film shooting recently with my M6. Ilford SFX200 film with 720 nm cutoff filter, developed in Xtol

 

 

 

Wonderful photographs! I love Ilford SFX.

[gbealnz]

Some colour to break my mono monotony.

Leicaflex SL

35 Summicron R
Kodak 200

Epson 4870 (used the Epson software too).

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!

[Martin B]

Interesting Martin, back to the old days of film I/R. Digital has made this so simple. Film not so.

I returned to this experiment a few months back, used a roll of Rollei SuperPan 200. While not specifically an I/R film, it does produce I/R results with the correct filtration.

I'll dig out the filter I used, but I recall it being slightly different to the "usual" I/R filters I had from the digital days.

Nice to see a result like this though, great work.

Gary

 

Thanks for your kind comment, Gary! I do now for a long time digital IR photography (probably since 10 years now), but this was the first time I ever tried IR film. Rangefinder cameras are ideal for this purpose since you can still compose as with any other film but the light metering takes into account the dark IR filter on the lens. I was worried if I needed quite a bit more overexposure since I often need to do this with my digital IR-converted DSLR. But it turns out that shooting IR with film was in fact simpler in some aspects: Like with any other B&W film, I shot with +1/2 up to +1 stops overexposure and developed the film for ISO 200. This turned out into consistent and good looking negatives. With my IR-converted DSLR, I often have to rely on LiveView to get the exposure right - with my M6 I can always look through the viewfinder and don't need to worry about this. Debit with IR film is that I need to use a tripod due to the longer exposure times needed (I shot between 1/15 to 1/4 sec with 720 nm cutoff filter attached). Film IR appears to be a bit smoother than the digital counterpart but also more grainy. 

 

What I read is that you can achieve some IR look with IR film already by using a dark red filter instead of a designated IR filter. It depends also on the cutoff limits of the IR film. 

[AntonioF]

Great photo. How did you establish exposure?

Thanks. I metered down towards the leather jacket. Then I shot again opening the diagram by one stop because I honestly wasn't sure (I don't remember the values though). The first attempt worked fine. Usually I don't shoot twice but I liked the light hitting the church door and I wanted a backup ...

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Martin B]

For your viewing pleasure, a few more IR film shots - Ilford SFX200 with 720 nm cutoff filter and Xtol development. I should add to my earlier post above that I used two 720 nm filters, one in larger 58 mm diameter size from Hoya for my CV 21/1.8 lens, and a cheap Chinese import one for my 39 mm 35/2 and 50/2 lenses. In the final photo I didn't see any difference in performance between them. Also good to know that all M lenses which I used worked in IR - no hotspots even at f/11, and I could use the same rangefinder focusing as in regular daylight (I was wondering why the M lenses didn't have a red focus mark which is used on many other lenses as focus shift correction in infrared).