semi-ambivalent Posted March 18, 2015 Share #21 Posted March 18, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) In college I was taught to scrupulously expose Tri-X at 320 ASA (ISO). What bullshit that was. If we test our meters and actual shutter speeds we find they are all over the place. Yes, everyone's meters are different, but until the student learns just where their meter, aperture and shutter actually are, 320 is a pretty good starting point for a teacher to throw out there. The fact that you found 320 to be bullshit is proof positive that you were making your own path. Something the student must do eventually. s-a Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 Hi semi-ambivalent, Take a look here Moving to film or not?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
A miller Posted March 18, 2015 Share #22 Posted March 18, 2015 Tom - I think you may be a little misguided regarding what a film workflow means in this day and age. If you think that you are going to go totally analog and admire your images from only a loupe or a darkroom print (or a cheap quality but expensive print from a lab), I fear that you are on a real crash course. Analog prints are certainly available and worthwhile for the smallest subset of your shots. But for the most part you should expect to digitize your negatives in the best quality possible (preferably doing it yourself with your own scanner) and then edit them in the same fashion as you would a RAW file from a digital camera. Most of the character and charm of the film negative will be reflected in the TIFF file that you create through the scan and you can edit it away, share online and print in a digital or analog fashion, as you please. It it really the best of both worlds. However, it requires some passionate commitment to get the most out of it. If I were in your shoes, I would go out and spend no more than $700 on an old Leica film M and give a whirl at this hybrid workflow. As for exposure, this is something you'll have to learn otherwise you will get frustrated fast, even with a film M with a meter b/c you can't "chimp." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted March 18, 2015 Share #23 Posted March 18, 2015 320 is a pretty good starting point for a teacher to throw out there. I respectfully disagree. I think Tri-X - old version (of which I have lots) and current version - works best at box speed. In my experience, teachers of any kind throw all kinds of stuff out there. br Philip Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
semi-ambivalent Posted March 18, 2015 Share #24 Posted March 18, 2015 I respectfully disagree. I think Tri-X - old version (of which I have lots) and current version - works best at box speed. In my experience, teachers of any kind throw all kinds of stuff out there. br Philip Philip, I shot up all my old (pre-2009 emulsion?) Tri-X a long time ago but looking at some 16x20s I could almost think it and current are different films entirely. But it's gone for me so I've had to move on; a lesson I've learned from twenty rolls of Kodachrome-25 in the freezer that I can't now use and six rolls of Plus-X I'm afraid to waste. Thanks, s-a Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StS Posted March 18, 2015 Share #25 Posted March 18, 2015 Then there is the extreme flexibility of certain films. Portra 400 - which is a great daylight film too - can be shot from EI100 to EI1600 and developed at box speed to get useable results. There are tests on Flickr of Ektar 100 exposed in the same way with perfectly OK results. A slight word of caution (sorry, Philip), but this depends a bit on everyones subjective views about acceptable results. My personal limits for Portra 400 would be max. one stop under-exposure and maybe up to two stops over-exposure. But then, there is a wide choice of exposure meters, if the camera does not have one. My suggestion would be to start at box speed and calibrate film and equipment, when a suitable film has been found. Although films can have impressive exposure latitudes, they deliver their best results, when exposed properly. However, it is good to have this latitude, an usable picture, which was taken, is better than a perfect picture, which wasn't. Stefan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted March 18, 2015 Share #26 Posted March 18, 2015 A slight word of caution (sorry, Philip), but this depends a bit on everyones subjective views about acceptable results. No problem Stefan. I should have added that it depends on one's preferences. In my tests I've been quite surprised how good photos look when shot as I described. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted March 18, 2015 Share #27 Posted March 18, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) I shot up all my old (pre-2009 emulsion?) Tri-X a long time ago but looking at some 16x20s I could almost think it and current are different films entirely. I cannot replicate the look of my Tri-X from the Seventies, for better or worse. It is different although I use the same chemistry today, D-76 1:1, normal development. The main difference is grain and some subtle edge qualities, and maybe a greater red sensitivity in the old stuff. Somewhere I have a much larger resolution of this which would show the old Tri-X. Scanned from a print. I suck at scanning, but I was a good printer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
semi-ambivalent Posted March 19, 2015 Share #28 Posted March 19, 2015 subtle edge qualities This. I wouldn't be surprised if it's almost entirely this. s-a Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rlbjr58 Posted March 20, 2015 Share #29 Posted March 20, 2015 I moved from an A priority camera to a IIIf and then an M3. I found that with the Summicron 50/2 it was very simple to shoot and set by feel. Film is - as someone above noted - a mature technology, but improvements and enhancement are ongoing. Porter 400 is nothing short of amazing in exposure attitude and image quality. Cinestill 800T is also worth using for some of the same reasons. While E6 may be on life support, color negative and BW film will be around long term. Once you are used to it - and it doesn't take too many rolls - you likely will find as I did that I have more consistent results with film than digital. In BW I use Ilford HP5 and FP4 with the leitz reloadable cassettes. For developer I use Barry Thorton's 2 bath. You will get endless feedback on developers but I chose this one as I can put 15+ rolls through it, process rolls of different ISO's and it is forgiving in terms of temperature. Shelf life is in my experience at least 12 months. You may prefer a camera w/aperture priority and I am tempted to pick up an M7 as well but my guess is you will be pleased with the quality and consistency of your results with film. You will be more intentional since you have only 36+ exposures but IMO this makes you a better photographer. Having an M is all about waiting for the moment for the right shot and film lends it self to this. If you would like a link to the two bath I'm glad to forward but certainly D-76 is great as are many other long standing developers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ansteyp Posted March 20, 2015 Share #30 Posted March 20, 2015 Pico, thanks for your comments. Would you please expand on your tmax observation. Thanks, Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
beckzito Posted May 4, 2015 Author Share #31 Posted May 4, 2015 Today an M7 is delivered by UPS.I have a portra 400 to ruin later on Once again, many thanks for your support. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted May 4, 2015 Share #32 Posted May 4, 2015 Hi Beck, congratulations for your M7 ! Don't forget to post your picture here , thanks : http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/233570-i-love-my-m7/ To answer (a bit late) about your remarks above : - shooting with no exposure, may rely only on lightmeters or follow the so called f/16 rule You can work manually with your M7 - quality and purpose of the film is critical to the scene captured(problem may be having a iso 50 on it and willing to shoot indoors with low light) Try a roll of Kodak Portra 400 - no post processing and a revelation kit is needed(in my case i should go to a photo store to process the film) I don't correct my analog pictures in most cases ! photo software not needed comparing with digital pictures of my M8,M9 Good photos What lens have you ? Best Henry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
beckzito Posted May 4, 2015 Author Share #33 Posted May 4, 2015 Hi Doc, I have a new summarit 35mm f/2.4. Will post a picture of mine on the thread, for sure! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted May 4, 2015 Share #34 Posted May 4, 2015 Thanks Beck. A good 35mm and light lens (220g) , sharp at f :4 with 6 lens in 4 groups. Congratulations for your lens too ! Best Henry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gberger Posted May 4, 2015 Share #35 Posted May 4, 2015 I have to agree with pico. I started with a IIIc, then an M4, M6 and finally an M7. As he stated, the Auto Exposure capability is excellent, and the internal meter does a very good job. My wife, who was clearly the better photographer, has her own M7 and selection of lenses. She depended on both the AE capability as well as the accurate shutter speeds if she wanted to "go deliberate" and use an external incident meter for exposure. I had to put my M7 on the shelf due to aging eyesight; however, my Grandson is getting it next month for his birthday. The M7 is doggone hard to beat!! Go for it. Just a thought from s guy who has been using film cameras for almost 80 years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJH Posted May 4, 2015 Share #36 Posted May 4, 2015 Why do people keep repeating the death of E6? My local lab processes more E6 than C-41. That AgfaPhoto stuff that is repackaged/off cut Fuji stuff for cheap when out of stock here from a few suppliers for awhile. I get my info from someone I know in the trade whose livelihood depends on it and he tells me that E6 is very far from on its knees as far his workload recently. BTW he also told me the other day that he hasn't sold as much film as he has been doing lately in a long time, the stuff is flying off the shelf. Another store I went to only had in stock 2 types of 120 film, Provia 100f at a pretty decent price and HP5 so I bought some Provia. That particular store is very much a digital world business so if no one was buying E6 then why is it one of the only two brands/types of 120 they had? (It had a long date as well to the end of next year). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebarnman Posted May 7, 2015 Share #37 Posted May 7, 2015 I'd like to help with this topic. First, currently I shoot using a R-9. Much of the time I will expose B&W film for reverse processing to be shown as slides from my Leica projector. On the rare occasion when I can get someone over here to share some of these images on the big projection screen, it's an event. Of course, I can also choose to shoot color transparencies for projection too. The advantage of this is once the film comes back on slide mounts, that's it. Pick the images you like and project them. No touching up, no cropping, no darkroom, no printing and no time on a computer. Just raw images shown as it was shot in the camera. It's refreshing. However, the reality is, I always get basic scans of the film before the images are mounted as slides. It costs more, though if you want to share some of your images easily and you feel the need to put lots of work into an image, that can be done too. It's up to you. Decent images can be had from basic film scans to share via email and the web. Also, if for any reason you need a really high quality print, a high quality scan can be had from color or B&W negatives and transparencies. I wouldn't trust a lab to do a silver print from a negative or positive unless your doing it yourself, or spending a lot of money with a person who has lots of experience printing and then only to your specifications. Simply get a high quality scan from the image you really want to see printed, work with it digitally then have the digital file printed. It's funny, I remember the days of analog when a question would come up as to how big an enlargement can be from a certain film type and/or lens. Regardless of the answer, the reality has mostly been people getting 3x5 or 4x6 prints from their lab and that would be it. They look at it once and then it sits on a shelf for years. Rarely have people taken the trouble to find that special image to be blown up to 8x10 or bigger. Kudos for those who did. The point I'm getting at here to be purest, the best enlargement would mostly come in the form of working with the original negative or positive in the dark room. Fine, if you have time for that. In reality, the results you seek can be just as pleasing if not more so if you work that print in some kind of photo editing software and then have it printed (either at a lab or your own printer) from a high quality ink jet with high quality ink jet paper. Of course, doing it that way can also bring up lots of disappointments if your monitor is not properly calibrated. Also, if your doing your own prints and don't know about ICC paper profiles, you can run into problems that way too. You're welcome to look at some of my film scans here http://www.leisuretimephotography.com "Fun at the drive-in" was shot on color transparency film. "Pinball Tournament" was shot on B&W film reversed processed and pushed a couple stops to 3200 iso. "Hand Made Jewelry Sale" is a combination of color transparency film (no push) and B&W reversed processed and pushed to 3200 iso. "Kill Bill's Gogo Inspiration" and "New Car Fever" were both shot with Ilford 100 speed negative film with no push. I can't say if all the work of these color files had been worth it or not. It's taken hours, hours and hours to get them just right and people literally look at each image at about a second or two each. It's nice though when someone lands on a image they like and look at it a few seconds more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted May 7, 2015 Share #38 Posted May 7, 2015 Hi TBM , Interesting post and nice pictures and color in your link ! Thanks About "The point I'm getting at here to be purest, the best enlargement would mostly come in the form of working with the original negative or positive in the dark room. Fine, if you have time for that. In reality, the results you seek can be just as pleasing if not more so if you work that print in some kind of photo editing software and then have it printed (either at a lab or your own printer) from a high quality ink jet with high quality ink jet paper." ... with my experience and having an enlarger Focomat in my home lab. and having before an Epson Inkjet printer , silver paper is better and sharper than inkjetpaper. I agree that this "form of working" takes time but what pleasure to work in a darkroom and see your result , than in front of his computer http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/233547-my-new-companion/?p=2683352 Best Henry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert blu Posted May 7, 2015 Share #39 Posted May 7, 2015 @thebarnman: i reeally enjoyed your "pinball tournamen" series, great photography which reminds me of the old times when pinball was the main game! robert Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
beckzito Posted May 7, 2015 Author Share #40 Posted May 7, 2015 Crappy picture from iPhone but here it is: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.