wattsy Posted December 12, 2014 Share #61 Posted December 12, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Snappy Snaps in Wardour Street would know all about pushing and pulling film. However, whether they would be willing to do it and whether the branch still exists (I haven't been in that part of town for a while) are other questions. My feeling is that you should just develop the film normally otherwise you are just introducing another variable into the whole process. It would be better to see the results (look at the negs not the scans and/or prints) to make a judgement about how you are tending to expose. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 12, 2014 Posted December 12, 2014 Hi wattsy, Take a look here I think I want to try shoot film.... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
DigitalHeMan Posted December 12, 2014 Share #62 Posted December 12, 2014 Quick question: I'm going to develop the first roll today...somehow I feel I underexposed the shots a bit, is there any chance to compensate that during the developing? Sorry if the question is silly I'm just a real newbie with film I think I will go to Snappy Snaps which is some sort of franchise here in UK, hopefully they alright.... I also bought a Weston Master V for metering...that will help for my next rolls Just make sure that the person you give the film to at SnappySnaps is aware that HP5 is not a C41 process film Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonnyboy Posted December 14, 2014 Author Share #63 Posted December 14, 2014 So today I had nothing to do I decided to go and process the first roll...I went to Snappy Snaps in Wardour Street which I read they pretty good with films...also it was sunday, one of the few places opened. I wasnt sure about my shots so I just got the roll processed and negative scanned. 15£, not too bad. I couldnt wait to go home to watch the pics Overall I'm quite happy the majority of shots are decent exposed, consider I had to handle all of them without meter...but my real first impression was, wow so much grain! I guess I'm not used to it, but wow it is quite a lot! Here's my favorite shots: I used Topaz DeNoise 5 to clean up all the grain...not sure if it did a good job though.....what you guys reckon?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert blu Posted December 14, 2014 Share #64 Posted December 14, 2014 @ jonnyboy: love the photo with the lady and the man on the bridge. The reflections in the window (I guess you took the photo from a bus or train) add something unreal. robert Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbealnz Posted December 15, 2014 Share #65 Posted December 15, 2014 They look good, congratulations. Gary Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted December 15, 2014 Share #66 Posted December 15, 2014 I used Topaz DeNoise 5 to clean up all the grain...not sure if it did a good job though.....what you guys reckon?? Nice photos, congratulations. I find it difficult to get an impression of how grainy the images are/were because of the small image size. In any event, grain is part of the film photography process. Once you embrace it there's no going back. Everything else will just look wrong. There's very little point (all imho of course) to shoot film and then de-"noise" it. True, sometimes certain types of film, esp. C41 pushed a stop or two, will have red and blue "noise" in the shadow areas if certain scanners are used. In such cases it may be useful to reduce the noise for instance by simply desaturating it in Photoshop. But I would never remove grain. That makes for a lifeless image. Even slide film, which is virtually grain free (or at least significantly less grainy than equivalent ISO 35mm C41 film), has an organic character that one should keep, not remove. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xalo Posted December 16, 2014 Share #67 Posted December 16, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Yes, interesting images indeed! I quite agree with Philip on grain. They are a characteristic of the material image created in the photographic process. There was a short and sweet thread on this: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/film-forum/329469-speaking-grain-important-things.html#post2676048 Btw, scanners often struggle with picturing grain and reinforce its appearance ("grain aliasing"). If you can get wet prints made/make them yourself or find film/scanner combinations that work nicely together, predictible aspects of grain become a part of the pictorial expression. Cheers, Alexander Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted December 16, 2014 Share #68 Posted December 16, 2014 I agree with both of the previous posts, but would just add that some labs automatically over-sharpen their scans, which contributes to the 'grainy' appearance of an image. (In any case, I love film grain). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonnyboy Posted December 16, 2014 Author Share #69 Posted December 16, 2014 This is the untouched pic: You guys reckon this level of grain is absolutely normal? Also, I have a flight for NY in nine days and I placed a nice order through Ilford website (since they got the Xmas discount, why not!).... I bought 10 more rolls of HP5 400. I do want to get few rolls at 3200iso (mainly for night shots) can I ask you guys how this is going to perform when shooting on day time? I know I will have to compensate with shutter/aperture but the results will be alright at iso3200 in daytime? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan King Posted December 16, 2014 Share #70 Posted December 16, 2014 This is the untouched pic: You guys reckon this level of grain is absolutely normal? Also, I have a flight for NY in nine days and I placed a nice order through Ilford website (since they got the Xmas discount, why not!).... I bought 10 more rolls of HP5 400. I do want to get few rolls at 3200iso (mainly for night shots) can I ask you guys how this is going to perform when shooting on day time? I know I will have to compensate with shutter/aperture but the results will be alright at iso3200 in daytime? For commercially developed HP5 in 35mm, yes, that amount of grain is common. If you develop yourself you can tweak things like developer and agitation to change grain appearance. Generally, wet prints show less grain than scans. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted December 16, 2014 Share #71 Posted December 16, 2014 This is the untouched pic: You guys reckon this level of grain is absolutely normal? Looks normal to me, but as Nathan alludes to, a commercial lab won't care for your images as much as you would yourself if you scanned or printed them yourself. Still there is nothing "wrong" grain-wise as far as I can tell with this image. I am not very familiar with Ilford films (I shoot Kodak in B&W) but I seem to remember reading that their 3200 offering (Delta?) has a "true" speed of around 1200. Edit: Found it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted December 16, 2014 Share #72 Posted December 16, 2014 You guys reckon this level of grain is absolutely normal? The grain looks normal, or as normal as can be from a small JPEG, but grain changes its character on an image like this depending if the image itself is sharp, which I don't think it is. You have a blurry image with no 'edge' to the edges, so the grain appears as a mask rather than a feature. Look for instance at the work of Ralph Gibson, very grainy, but no doubt about the image being sharply in focus. The way the effective 'blurry' images in the history of photography tend to get away with it is to increase the contrast, so making the image more graphic, think of Capa's D-Day images for example. And on top of which for grain to work for you you need to either get closer to the subject if you are using grainy film, or use a finer grain film if you want to stand back and get some detail in the images. Not 'rules' that can't be broken, but you should look at other photographers to see the characteristics of their images and interpret them to understand what they are doing. Using film isn't just about an alternative way to make an image, it requires far more thought than that if you haven't used it before. And the image you posted seems also to have some water staining on it, a sign of not very good processing. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DigitalHeMan Posted December 16, 2014 Share #73 Posted December 16, 2014 This is the untouched pic: You guys reckon this level of grain is absolutely normal? Also, I have a flight for NY in nine days and I placed a nice order through Ilford website (since they got the Xmas discount, why not!).... I bought 10 more rolls of HP5 400. I do want to get few rolls at 3200iso (mainly for night shots) can I ask you guys how this is going to perform when shooting on day time? I know I will have to compensate with shutter/aperture but the results will be alright at iso3200 in daytime? Way back when I used to push HP5 Plus to 1600 ISO and then develop it in Ilfosol S following the recommended adjusted processing time. Results always printed very nicely. Might be worth looking into rather than buying a dedicated fast film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith (M) Posted December 17, 2014 Share #74 Posted December 17, 2014 You guys reckon this level of grain is absolutely normal? As others have commented, the grain shown is not untypical but it is obviously influenced by whatever developer is used. Presumably Snappy Snaps use a generic developer. When I shot my first roll of film after a number of years of exclusively digital photography, I sent it out for developing + contact print. Was not happy at the result which prompted me to dig out all my developing equipment (unused for 20+ years!) from the loft and restart doing my own development. The image below is from the first DIY roll and happens to be HP5+, which I developed in Ilford Ilfosol 3. (M7 + ZM Planar 50mm). It is just a record shot of the local market but I show it to encourage thinking about home development, which only needs a minimal amount of equipment and on the basis that if I can do it (and get reasonable results), anyone can! 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/236590-i-think-i-want-to-try-shoot-film/?do=findComment&comment=2729825'>More sharing options...
jonnyboy Posted December 17, 2014 Author Share #75 Posted December 17, 2014 The grain looks normal, or as normal as can be from a small JPEG, but grain changes its character on an image like this depending if the image itself is sharp, which I don't think it is. You have a blurry image with no 'edge' to the edges, so the grain appears as a mask rather than a feature. Look for instance at the work of Ralph Gibson, very grainy, but no doubt about the image being sharply in focus. The way the effective 'blurry' images in the history of photography tend to get away with it is to increase the contrast, so making the image more graphic, think of Capa's D-Day images for example. And on top of which for grain to work for you you need to either get closer to the subject if you are using grainy film, or use a finer grain film if you want to stand back and get some detail in the images. Not 'rules' that can't be broken, but you should look at other photographers to see the characteristics of their images and interpret them to understand what they are doing. Using film isn't just about an alternative way to make an image, it requires far more thought than that if you haven't used it before. And the image you posted seems also to have some water staining on it, a sign of not very good processing. Steve I got to agree with you. Especially with the fact I should go closer to the subject...you know what? Im using a 35mm lens which I had on my M8 which I shot quite a lot in the last month...and I guess because of the crop sensor the distance with my subject was different. Now I think I got used to a certain distance but when it translate to the M4 I can actually perceive the distance when I see the picture processed... I may be give it a go with Aperture for processing my 2nd roll and see how it goes...unfortunately for now I really cannot think about processing myself and stuff....studio flat, lack of time....I will organise something at some point for sure though! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbealnz Posted December 23, 2014 Share #76 Posted December 23, 2014 While I can understand the lack of time and space etc, I do agree and implore you, give it some thought. The equipment list for home-processing is minimal. You need a changing bag, (or a dark cupboard/wardrobe at night), a "daylight tank", thermometer, a suitable graduated scale, and chemicals. All this would fit in a small box under a bench, in the garage, or whatever. It's fun, and saves a bit of time/money perhaps. But the satisfaction from doing it yourself is immeasurable. Gary Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted December 23, 2014 Share #77 Posted December 23, 2014 While I can understand the lack of time and space etc, I do agree and implore you, give it some thought. The equipment list for home-processing is minimal. You need a changing bag, (or a dark cupboard/wardrobe at night), a "daylight tank", thermometer, a suitable graduated scale, and chemicals. All this would fit in a small box under a bench, in the garage, or whatever. It's fun, and saves a bit of time/money perhaps. But the satisfaction from doing it yourself is immeasurable. Gary Gary better you develop yourself it's cheaper and well done with less (or no) scratches .... and with the pleasure to do yourself . For your home lab look at post 26 and 29 http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/other/345543-my-new-companion-2.html Best Henry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbealnz Posted December 23, 2014 Share #78 Posted December 23, 2014 For sure Henry, is IS satisfying. And really, he doesn't necessarily need all you show in your picture (#28), if all he wants is the negative and scan later. Wet printing is equal pleasure, but it can come later when he has the room and inclination. Gary Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonnyboy Posted January 17, 2015 Author Share #79 Posted January 17, 2015 Hi guys, I was in the U.S. for 2 weeks and I managed to shoot 7 rolls - I had more with me but one day the film decided to break inside the camera so I stopped using my M7 trying to save the film (which didn't happen, I brought the camera to RG Lewis and they had to open the body in order to remove the film, all the photos in that roll gone! ) although I had my Ricoh GR-V as main camera as I was pretty excited to visit the States for my first time and I knew I was going to overshoot around:p So after proper research online I thought to give a go to Aperture to process the films...I went today. Wow I got charged 62£ (process only!) for 7 rolls of film (black/white) the price hit me! I guess I will have to do my little dark room as soon as possible! I'm buying a 35mm scanner next week, one of those Plustek Opticfilm but yeah I got really shocked when I saw the total for those negatives... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted January 17, 2015 Share #80 Posted January 17, 2015 It's a serious business if the film breaks inside the camera, something is seriously wrong. but I'm surprised a presumably competent camera shop can't open the camera in the dark and save whatever exposures are saveable. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.