I like film...(open thread)

[Steve Ricoh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I really like it Steve. Especially the mirroring between the two cellphone users.

Thanks Edward. I was a bit uncertain about it and left it marinate for a while before posting. To be honest I thought the processing might have been too heavy, but thought this is the place to get valued feedback, and to learn too.

Edited December 2, 2017 by Steve Ricoh

[philipus]

Two fantastic photos, Ian. I love the tones on them.

 

Wayland's Smithy, the long barrow of neolithic origin just off the Ridgeway in Oxfordshire. Kodak BW400cn and 28 Summaron-M.

 

One of the Seven Barrows (there are actually about 15) just outside Lambourn in Berkshire. This was a few weeks ago when the autumn colours were probably at their best but I only had B&W film in the camera and am far too lazy to change it midroll. T-max 100 (I think) and 28 Summaron-M.

 

 

I did also take a colour photo with my iphone

https://www.instagram.com/p/BbPFGzogBCU/

 

Haha, that would have done it

 

Thanks, Philip. She had her Canon F1 New, which would have helped her to focus

 

Well to be honest I was doing my best to stay awake, so I don't know but I don't think so.

 

Beautiful slide film-like color. Did the taxi window have a polarizing film on?

 

Wonderful, Jean-Marc, esp the first one. I have a good friend who is starting to ask me about Leica and 35mm. I'll have to suggest the Summicron. Which version did you use?

 

Might be able to try Color Implosion soon ...!

 

Meanwhile some more recent Velvia 50 to share (35 Summicron M2) :-)

 

un soir by JM__, on Flickr

 

un couple un soir by JM__, on Flickr

 

Le Morne by JM__, on Flickr

 

Or possibly Angii? 

 

Wiltshire 'Anguses' (or should that be Angusii?    (R5, 21-35mm Vario Elmar, HP5Plus).

[Steve Ricoh]

Very nice, Patrick.

Powerful street portrait

[mikemgb]

Another sunset over the Seine.

Leica III, Nikkor 35mm, T-Max 400

 

 

I don’t actually like these photos much, I don’t know if it is the lens, the film or the combo of the two but I’m not keen on the way they look at all. I’ll try the same lens with a different film as see if I get a different look.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[chrism]

I've been doing some more experiments with XP2 Super. Those who paid attention in the past will know that when it is pushed to 3200 the results in 35mm are grainy, but OK in 120 film. The big problem was that any underexposure would result in a black frame with no recoverable image, which is what one might expect working at the 'toe' of the development curve. Since 1600 was completely reliable, I decided to try a halfway house at 2500 (yes, arithmetically it ought to have been 2400, but I don't have a camera meter setting that offers 2400; they offer 2500). I don't own a densitometer, so I have been scanning negatives with the X1 and looking at the unmodified histograms to decide whether my developing time was correct. So far I have this relation between EI and development time:

 

 

So I have wandered about the house with a film exposed at 2500 and have developed it for 21.5 minutes in HC-110 diluted 1+49. I can tell you that all the frames on the film are OK - no blank ones. They look rather thin (ie the image will be dark) and when they are dry I shall scan them and post an example or two. I suspect that when I scan them the histograms will tell me that I ought to have developed them for longer. It may be that the relationship between exposure and development time is not only non-linear, but some compound relationship beyond that. It would help if I had some knowledge of chemistry beyond my GCE A-level! But facts are facts, and if I keep this up I shall have times that cannot be contested, and after the fact I can draw a graph of the true relationship between EI and development time. I suspect the time for 2500 and 3200 ought to be even longer, and if so I can't imagine anyone bothering if they have no mechanised developing tank. I'm somewhat happy to listen to the motorised Rondinax for 21 to 24 minutes, but sitting by a Nikor tank and inverting it four times every minute for that length of time doesn't appeal as a routine!

Perhaps I ought to give up on the extreme pushes of XP2 and concentrate on the gorgeousness of the film when pulled. I haven't done EI 50 with it yet, nor EI 25....since it is so nice at EI 100 that might be worthwhile, or maybe it will also be too much of a good thing. Time will tell.

[Keith (M)]

I've been doing some more experiments with XP2 Super. Those who paid attention in the past will know that when it is pushed to 3200 the results in 35mm are grainy, but OK in 120 film. The big problem was that any underexposure would result in a black frame with no recoverable image, which is what one might expect working at the 'toe' of the development curve. Since 1600 was completely reliable, I decided to try a halfway house at 2500 (yes, arithmetically it ought to have been 2400, but I don't have a camera meter setting that offers 2400; they offer 2500). I don't own a densitometer, so I have been scanning negatives with the X1 and looking at the unmodified histograms to decide whether my developing time was correct. So far I have this relation between EI and development time:

 

 

So I have wandered about the house with a film exposed at 2500 and have developed it for 21.5 minutes in HC-110 diluted 1+49. I can tell you that all the frames on the film are OK - no blank ones. They look rather thin (ie the image will be dark) and when they are dry I shall scan them and post an example or two. I suspect that when I scan them the histograms will tell me that I ought to have developed them for longer. It may be that the relationship between exposure and development time is not only non-linear, but some compound relationship beyond that. It would help if I had some knowledge of chemistry beyond my GCE A-level! But facts are facts, and if I keep this up I shall have times that cannot be contested, and after the fact I can draw a graph of the true relationship between EI and development time. I suspect the time for 2500 and 3200 ought to be even longer, and if so I can't imagine anyone bothering if they have no mechanised developing tank. I'm somewhat happy to listen to the motorised Rondinax for 21 to 24 minutes, but sitting by a Nikor tank and inverting it four times every minute for that length of time doesn't appeal as a routine!

Perhaps I ought to give up on the extreme pushes of XP2 and concentrate on the gorgeousness of the film when pulled. I haven't done EI 50 with it yet, nor EI 25....since it is so nice at EI 100 that might be worthwhile, or maybe it will also be too much of a good thing. Time will tell.

Very interesting, Chris, I was meaning to ask you how you were developing your XP2 as I really liked the tonal gradations of your images.  I see you include a link to processing XP2 in b&w chemicals in your signature - presumably you have considered stand development in Rodinal?

[gbealnz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My Grandmother was at school with him. Hayes is my favourite hardware shop, filled with an assortment of vehicles and machines of history.

 

So that's the pull to return, don't resist it.

Gary

 

[Guest JMF]

 

 

 

Wonderful, Jean-Marc, esp the first one. I have a good friend who is starting to ask me about Leica and 35mm. I'll have to suggest the Summicron. Which version did you use?

 

 

 

 

Philip, I'm a great supporter of the 35 summicron v1. Tried a few 35 M and LTM lenses yet the v1 is a keeper.

 

 

Here the v1 at close range with converted Velvia on M2

 

Mathieu by JM__, on Flickr

 

35 v1 cron on M2 w/ Velvia 50 

 

Gris Gris - Souillac by JM__, on Flickr

 

 

The only  35 lenses I regret selling are the 35 UC Hexanon Konica LTM 1.8 and the 35 R Summilux .

 

 

 

My 2 centavos, JM.

Edited December 2, 2017 by JMF

[Tmx]

I've been doing some more experiments with XP2 Super. Those who paid attention in the past will know that when it is pushed to 3200 the results in 35mm are grainy, but OK in 120 film. The big problem was that any underexposure would result in a black frame with no recoverable image, which is what one might expect working at the 'toe' of the development curve. Since 1600 was completely reliable, I decided to try a halfway house at 2500 (yes, arithmetically it ought to have been 2400, but I don't have a camera meter setting that offers 2400; they offer 2500). I don't own a densitometer, so I have been scanning negatives with the X1 and looking at the unmodified histograms to decide whether my developing time was correct. So far I have this relation between EI and development time..

Very interesting Chris. I am using TAS Processor for film developing thus the time up to 1h is not a big issue so I can give it a try..

 

Best regards

Jakob

[chrism]

Very interesting, Chris, I was meaning to ask you how you were developing your XP2 as I really liked the tonal gradations of your images.  I see you include a link to processing XP2 in b&w chemicals in your signature - presumably you have considered stand development in Rodinal?

 

 

Done it, and quite happy with XP2 exposed at EI 200, semi-stand developed in Rodinal 1+100 for an hour (six inversions at the start and at 30 minutes).There is an example of my friend and colleague, Dan, on that page in the link. I have been trying to develop (!) regimes for XP2 that work as if it were a silver halide film: push it, pull it etc. Why? Almost no grain whatever the EI.

[Steve Ricoh]

A recent meet-up with Analogue photographers, really great afternoon talking photography and taking snaps. This was taken with my M6 35 f/2 at f something or other, Tri-X 400.

 

MerseyMeetUp-1 by -Steve Ricoh-

[chrism]

I'm not too happy with the results of XP2/35mm at 2500 - thin negatives, grainy etc. This kind of thing:

 

XP2 Super at 2500 by chrism229, on Flickr

 

Looks like I can only vouch for 100 - 1600 as things stand. Next will be pulling to 50 and maybe 25.

[A miller]

Thanks, Eoin.  It's a fun challenge to match up composition and subject with this extreme type of film.

This works well, Adam - A good composition choice for this "querky" film.

 

Thanks, Phil.

On your poppy film scan, I was indeed wondering whether the nature WB of the film you used is cool or warm.  Sounds like it was a bit on the cool side, which means the lab scan was set on some kind of auto WB setting.  It made a nice color palette, but I guess a question is whether you want to alter the nature color characteristics of the film that YOU choose for the scene.  It is one thing is you correct color shifts but where you get a lovely color palette from the native colors of the film that you choose, why not stick with them...OR choose a film that has the color characteristics that you like.  I am sure that Henry would have something to say about this subject.  As for me, I would stick with the cool version as it is more consistent with your end-to-end vision.

 

As for scanning my own film at the lab and then comparing, the incremental price is deminimis although I tend to not like to do this b/c it involves additional handling of the film at the lab and I tend to end up getting more dust and even scratches on it which is hard to deal with in my own scanning workflow.  

 

 

 

 

You've got that implosion exploding Adam! I just love the effect - a lot like the old GAF500 that Deborah Turbeville and Sarah Moon used so effectively in the 1970s.

 

 

 

Thank you for your thoughts Adam, Philip and Edward, which are greatly appreciated. I used just a cheap Kodak 400ISO film (GC 400 it says on the neg). Yes, mine is cooler, and I agree, it is hard to pick a preference in some respects. Having looked at the comparison again, I do like the warmth of the lab scan a bit better than mine. I may redo it sometime - the benefit, of course, of doing your own scans! The coolscan scan (mine) will, of course, be able to be used to print or whatever, whereas the low-resolution lab scan is just a thumbnail sketch. Still, I've learned something from the exercise - and thanks again for your help.

 

Very nice Fall scene!

Berlin, Tiergarten

M6, 35mm Summilux, Portra 400

 

Portra 400.jpg

[Michael Hiles]

Done it, and quite happy with XP2 exposed at EI 200, semi-stand developed in Rodinal 1+100 for an hour (six inversions at the start and at 30 minutes).There is an example of my friend and colleague, Dan, on that page in the link. I have been trying to develop (!) regimes for XP2 that work as if it were a silver halide film: push it, pull it etc. Why? Almost no grain whatever the EI.

Hi Chris.

 

Thanks for all of this. Much appreciated.

 

I have been using chromogenic film pretty much exclusively since XP1 came out, and I love it. Originally I used Ilford’s processing kit (no longer available), and now I have it commercially processed in C41. The results are (IMO) perfect. Very fine grain, very sharp, and a beautiful long tone range (exactly what I aim for). And very forgiving of modest exposure mistakes. Tests and experience point to 200ASA as being optimal – and Ilford’s documentation supports that, notwithstanding the box speed.

 

Your results in HC110 are impressive – seemingly as nice as I can get in C41. It makes me wonder – was Ilford’s developer in their old kit actually just a normal or slightly adjusted B&W developer? I wonder also (maybe you know), is your resulting image a dye cloud image, or is it a normal silver image? It matters very slightly due to the Callier effect – related to non-linear dispersal of light by different levels of silver in negatives. No silver, no Callier effect. So this doesn’t happen with the dye clouds in C41-processed XP2.

 

Your less-than-optimal results with Diafine do not surprise. IMO this developer was always a last ditch option. Even Rodinal, which normally produces exemplary sharpness with higher grain, seems to have the same effect on XP2.

 

For what it is worth, I don’t “push” or “pull” film. I might need a tripod, or other solid thing, and sometimes you simply can’t make photographs. No light, no pictures. Get over it.

 

Your results at 50ASA or 25ASA will be interesting. I have found that “thick” XP2 negatives scan very badly, but wet print well (very long enlarger exposures). 

 

Again, thanks.

[A miller]

A morning high key view of the Reservoir Lake in Central Park, NYC

Linhof Technika Press 23, 53mm Zeiss Biogon, T-Max 400 6x9, red filter

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 December 3, 2017 by A miller

[gbealnz]

Wow, stunning water shot Adam, Love it.

Gary

[EoinC]

Another sunset over the Seine.

...I don’t actually like these photos much, I don’t know if it is the lens, the film or the combo of the two but I’m not keen on the way they look at all..

That's an interesting aspect, Mike. I have the same thing with many of my photo's (often after I view them on here - which shows my lack of self-filtering). Somehow they don't connect with my vision at the time. I do find, though, that they often grow on me after time, perhaps as the original vision dissipates, and is replaced by the permanency of the image.

What is it that provides the disconnect for you in your 2 recent photo's (both of which look very good to me, and match my memories of the Seine)?

[EoinC]

So that's the pull to return, don't resist it.

Gary

 

Agreed, Gary. Resistance is futile...so I won't bother!

[EoinC]

I've been doing some more experiments with XP2 Super...

Excellent, Chris. I admire your dedication, and I suspect empirical data from experimentation will tell you more than chemical knowledge would.

A B@W film that could be relied on to perform with minimal constraints at ISO 2500 would be a boon for me, with much of my shooting in indoor velodromes with poor lighting. The newest velodromes are lit for TV, and Tri-X works fine at box speed with wide apertures, but anything built 10+ years ago is likely to be a troglodytic experience.

I'm very much looking forward to seeing what the XP2 can do. Thanks for your pioneering efforts.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[EoinC]

I'm not too happy with the results of XP2/35mm at 2500 - thin negatives, grainy etc. This kind of thing:

 

XP2 Super at 2500 by chrism229, on Flickr

 

Looks like I can only vouch for 100 - 1600 as things stand. Next will be pulling to 50 and maybe 25.

This still looks good, Chris. Not the seamless sheen of the lower ISO's, but still good handling of the tonal range.

Thanks!