Jump to content

Recommended Posts

x

Some b&w pictures now :)

 

Régine, a winemaker of Champagne Cliquot Ponsardin

the day she married her son

 

Kodak TX400-Leica MP-50 Summilux 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!

 

Rg

Henry

Edited by Doc Henry
  • Like 12
Link to post
Share on other sites

The village of Goudargue , called the "Venice" of Ardèche (France)

 

 

Kodak TX400-Leica MP-50 Summilux 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!

 

Rg

Henry

  • Like 16
Link to post
Share on other sites

St Michel bay high tide :)

 

 

Kodak TX400-MP-35 Lux Asph

Coolscan V - no correction

 

 

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

  • Like 14
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Whitby Abbey and swift (not a bat!).  inspired home of Dracula and other assorted oddball creatures, occasionally. 

 

Agfa Iolette iii

Solinar 75mm f3.5

Acros 100 in APH09

 

Backpacking & travel camera par excellence. 

 

Brr ... dramatic picture , really Dracula atmosphere , you're right Steve :D

Thank you for posting

Best

Henry

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I made just a test with some rolls of  Ilford Pan F 50 Isos

 

Leica R4S-Summicron 50-Ilford PanF 50(dev Ilfosol S)

 

 

French Alpes

in the 1990's

 

 

Regards

Henry

 

I have a couple of rolls of Pan F that I want to test ( a 35mm and a 120mm). The problem is I am not sure what to use them for ... portraits, landscapes, long exposure ...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Did I screw up when Micheal suggested I use 0 and 5 filters and I changed to 2 and 4????

My thinking was to try and get a little more detail with the 2 and not so much contrast using 4

Thanks

 

Neil

 

No screw-up at all. I start using a 0 and 5 filter and test using the 0 for the highlights, and the 5 for the blacks/shadows.

 

If I don't get just what I want, I might swap the 0 filter for a 1, 1.5  etc. That will increase the contrast somewhat. The exposure should be the same as with the 0 filter. In fact, yesterday I printed a difficult negative and I ended up using a 3 and 5 filter (I am still not completely happy, but this was the right direction).

 

My argument is for an orderly, step-by-step approach. So I start with the 0/5 combination, and if more adjustment is needed, I ask "What adjustment will go in my needed direction?" Increased contrast will come from some or all of 1) increasing the 5 filter time, 2) decreasing the 0 filter time, or 3) swapping out the 0 filter for something somewhat higher.  I don't tinker with swapping the 5 filter. That is the basis for the next test/try - and one step at a time. Don't adjust two things at the same time - you don't know what element did what. If that is not what you want, take the same approach. I try to get my desired result by adjusting the 0/5 times. I swap out the 0 filter only if I still can't get my desired result.

 

I am unalterably opposed to seat-of-the-pants and hope-for-the-best efforts. I try to learn reproducible facts - building poorly based opinion is a waste of time money, paper and chemicals. 

 

I don't purport to be a fine printer. I get a few great prints and some gawd-help-us duds. But as far as it goes I at least understand what I am doing. 

Edited by Michael Hiles
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'd love any feedback on these, which POVs are cool etc.

 

The first two were with the Zeiss 53mm Biogon (big brother to the SWC lens, only much older).

First is the Velvia 50

The Velvia! It pops more than the Ektar.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Very busy period and not shooting too much film. Today I developed some rolls of Fomapan100, nice film happy with the results.

These shots on my Konica Hexar AF

 

Hexar_Foma100_14.jpg

 

Hexar_Foma100.jpg

 

 

 

These are fantastic. Great B&W tonality with the right amount of contrast. My favorite are the last two.

Edited by gnuyork
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS

No screw-up at all. I start using a 0 and 5 filter and test using the 0 for the highlights, and the 5 for the blacks/shadows.

 

If I don't get just what I want, I might swap the 0 filter for a 1, 1.5 etc. That will increase the contrast somewhat. The exposure should be the same as with the 0 filter. In fact, yesterday I printed a difficult negative and I ended up using a 3 and 5 filter (I am still not completely happy, but this was the right direction).

 

My argument is for an orderly, step-by-step approach. So I start with the 0/5 combination, and if more adjustment is needed, I ask "What adjustment will go in my needed direction?" Increased contrast will come from some or all of 1) increasing the 5 filter time, 2) decreasing the 0 filter time, or 3) swapping out the 0 filter for something somewhat higher. I don't tinker with swapping the 5 filter. That is the basis for the next test/try - and one step at a time. Don't adjust two things at the same time - you don't know what element did what. If that is not what you want, take the same approach. I try to get my desired result by adjusting the 0/5 times. I swap out the 0 filter only if I still can't get my desired result.

 

I am unalterably opposed to seat-of-the-pants and hope-for-the-best efforts. I try to learn reproducible facts - building poorly based opinion is a waste of time money, paper and chemicals.

 

I don't purport to be a fine printer. I get a few great prints and some gawd-help-us duds. But as far as it goes I at least understand what I am doing.

im with you Michael. I'm even righting stuff down (never don that shit before).

Tonight I took another flower picture and developed that neg along with devolution of the other neg that hopefully will replace that first neg that was two stops under....... just eye balling the two new negs taken tonight look like they have loads of details. I guess the proof will be in the pudding after I run them through the darkroom.

Pictures to follow

 

Neil

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

You know I have "critical" spirit,also in my job  :)

 

 

I show you here two pictures taken at the same time (similar shadows on the roof).

.

One of the picture is in digital  (M8-50 Lux Asph)  and one is in film (M7-35 Lux Asph)

Look at the blue sky, stone color ,rose flowers , vivid green of grass

trees (in background) and plants (in foreground) etc... 

 

Chenonceau Castle

Castles Loire River Valley

2016

 

attachicon.gifImage1chenfaceestkp400m7lfht+++950.jpg

 

attachicon.gifL1014588-2chenonccastM850LA htlufger+++950-20.jpg

 

 

Kodak Portra 400 and 320 Isos in digit.

Difference also , in the sharpness of lines immediatly visible

 

At first glance , the two pictures are beautiful I admit with you  :) 

But which is closest to reality ? that's the question I said "the closest" , not the "exact" reality :) >  It is the eye that has the correctness.

 

Enjoy the difference !

 

Best

Henry

 

Henry, both are beautiful pictures. I prefer the film one, the digital one is too clean.

  • Like 3
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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