Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Another test roll.

 

This time I was wondering if I could just shoot a partial roll and develop only those shots.  I had a roll of Tri-X 135-36 in the camera and was impatient to make sure that everything was ok with my focus.

 

I had shot 14 shots so I took a sacrificial roll and marked off 14 frames using a sharpie and then I started it threading onto a Paterson roll and counted the "ratchets" so that 14 shots got onto the roll.

Then I threaded the real film onto the roll and went into the dark bag. I ratcheted it the same number of times and put it into the tank.

After developing I found that it worked perfectly..the exact right amount of images was developed. I put the rest of the film back into the camera.

Good to know.

M6 with Summarit-M 35/2.5

22647027489_5fefcf4072_b.jpg

Edited by rpavich
  • Like 11
Link to post
Share on other sites

More fun with Adox Silvermax, Tom & Danni tying the knot in Calderdale.

 

Leica MP

35mm summicron asph

Adox Silvermax in Silvermax developer: 11 minutes @ 20 deg., 4 inversions per minute.

 

It's a beautiful wedding picture. Lots to see. Love the young boys attitude. Is he saying 'don't do it'

Link to post
Share on other sites

To clarify, I of course was only describing my exposure reading workflow in the context of my MF photography.  Not 35mm.   I am not "obsessive" about this with 35mm film as I do not like the feeling of my head being banged against the wall repeatedly  :ph34r:

If all LF (and many MF landscape film photographers) didn't follow procedure similar to the one that I outlined (or even more elaborate), I'd be shocked.  And it only takes a few seconds once you get the hang.

I really only brought it up in the context of getting the most out of Ektar's wonderfully balanced saturation qualities.  For example, if you are shooting a sunrise or sunset and trying to capture the brilliant pastel (as opposed to a primary-type color) colors in the sky, the EV in the sky better not be higher than zone 8 (and in some cases 7 or even 6) or else the Ektar won't sing for you.  This is probably true of portra as well, but then again you aren't shooting portra to give you brilliant saturation.

You in-camera spot meter probably works just fine, particularly if you don't mind bracketing.  But it aint as precise as a 1 degree spot meter, which is really needed in order to hone in precisely on those darkest and brightest EVs in a vast scene (for averaging purposes), which is really most important with the larger size film.

 

Adam,

I suppose it won't be surprising that, like Doc, I lean toward the lower-contrast colors of Portra. But I do have some Ektar to shoot and your information about the rigid exposure requirements for that film is most helpful. I only shoot 35mm these days and so will not be too concerned about going overboard with metering techniques but it's still good to know what to expect - and have a good basis for understanding what I see in the resulting pictures.

 

And your recent pictures from Central Park are excellent, really looking forward to more of those!

 

James

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam,

I suppose it won't be surprising that, like Doc, I lean toward the lower-contrast colors of Portra. But I do have some Ektar to shoot and your information about the rigid exposure requirements for that film is most helpful. I only shoot 35mm these days and so will not be too concerned about going overboard with metering techniques but it's still good to know what to expect - and have a good basis for understanding what I see in the resulting pictures.

 

And your recent pictures from Central Park are excellent, really looking forward to more of those!

 

James

Many thanks, James. You use portra quite effectively and I see nothing lacking.

Would you be willing to opine (for fun) as to which of the photos that I posted yesterday is portra 160 and which is ektar?

Henry has stated his opinion but I am waiting for him to provide his reasoning...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks, James. You use portra quite effectively and I see nothing lacking.

Would you be willing to opine (for fun) as to which of the photos that I posted yesterday is portra 160 and which is ektar?

Henry has stated his opinion but I am waiting for him to provide his reasoning...

 

Without comparing two photos created at the same time and therefore, more similar than these two, it makes it more difficult to choose! However, I'm going to say the first one is Portra. I base this mostly on the blue-ish spectrum colors, which look a bit more like Portra to me.

 

James

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A few recent ones.

 

A couple of landscapes. (Tmax 100 and 35mm Summicron ASPH.)

 

19612070269_cfd81ca2e6_b.jpg

 
 
19772681036_f37db962a2_b.jpg
 
 
Battle of Britain Memorial Flight just about to take off from my local airfield. The plane in the foreground, P7350, is apparently the oldest airworthy spitfire and the only one to have actually flown in the Battle of Britain. (Fuji Acros 100 and 35mm Summicron ASPH.)
 
19631513810_2e50f723bc_b.jpg

 

 

Like the landscapes. Shame the BBMF is missing.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Adam, I'm afraid my thoughts are like James's; I've also gone back and forth for the same reasons he describes. 

 

I also wondered, if both are on the same film format (the image ratio differs)? I'm asking because, to me, grain, contrast and even colour differ between 135 and 120 film. I guess both are straight from the scanner but even if as identical as possible settings have been used the exercise becomes somewhat difficult (apologies) because C41, unlike E6, will require editing to become a positive image. For instance, how did you invert and get rid of the orange mask - ColorPerfect? If so, it'd be almost impossible to compare the colour between them in the sense that if I were to shoot the same two films in similar light the editing on my system would result in different tones. And having used both films my impression of each is of course informed by how they look on my system after my editing.

 

I like a challenge though  :) In my experience Portra 160 is less muted than its ISO 400 sibling but I'm not sure it is as bright as Ektar. So on that basis I'd say the first is Ektar.

 

Ultimately one's own subjective "artistic" choice decides how an image should look. And it may, of course, be that one wants to depict reality, colour-wise, as "correctly" as possible and thus the subjective choice is really a subjectively objective choice. If one feels that using a particular film stock plays an important part in achieving that goal, then that's naturally OK. Personally, I'm not such a purist and shoot all sorts of film. I also edit all photos in post to get a photo I like and which more or less looks like what I think I saw when I took it.

 

Below is a Portra 400, which I have recently begun using a bit more in 120.

 

Br

Philip

 

22970826121_2f32a3b3e6_b.jpg

Flickr

203FE 80/2.8 (wet mount)

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

Giovinazzo Harbor, Bari, Italia

 

Kodachrome 25

 

 

 

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

Repairing Fishing Nets

Giovinazzo, Bari, Italia

Kodachrome 25

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

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   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...