Forums > Photography Talk > I love film!

Photographer

Tony-S

Posts: 1442

Fort Collins, Colorado, US

No chance my 5Dii could capture this much dynamic range in a single shot. So, post your best film shots and be sure to include film and camera info. This was with a Bronica GS-1 and Kodak Ektar 100.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7105/7175351209_094be32c90_b.jpg
Snake River Overlook, Grand Teton National Park

Jun 14 12 11:51 pm Link

Photographer

intense_puppy

Posts: 864

Brighton, England, United Kingdom

http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/120530/03/4fc5fc7b334b7_m.jpg

My favorite film shot. Impossible project Polaroid film - excessively high contrast, terrible colours and no dynamic range.
Shot on the plastic lens 600P model (quality camera, lol)

But I love it smile

Jun 15 12 02:38 am Link

Photographer

Kaouthia

Posts: 3152

Lancaster, England, United Kingdom

One from Tuesday; a day spent wandering around Manchester with a few models and a couple of other photographers.  My first time working with male models.

Nikon N90s, Nikon 50mm f/1.8D, Ilford FP4+ - developed in Ilford Ilfotec LC-29, 1:29 for 9 mins @ 20C.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/166012_427001974006910_766290337_n.jpg

Jun 15 12 02:52 am Link

Photographer

PhillipM

Posts: 6555

Martin, Tennessee, US

1 of many street folks lately.

RB67 w/50mm Sekor, Porta 160 converted to b/w via LR3

http://www.keepsakephotography.us/FILM/Filmman2.jpg

Jun 15 12 04:00 am Link

Photographer

Chris Macan

Posts: 12795

HAVERTOWN, Pennsylvania, US

http://www.chrismacan.com/gallery/street/st2.jpg

Camera = Voigtlander Bessa-r
Lens = Canon RF 50mm 1.2 (with a heavily scuffed up front lens element)
Film = Kodak TriX

Jun 15 12 05:06 am Link

Photographer

S W I N S K E Y

Posts: 24315

Saint Petersburg, Florida, US

Best is subjective, but my favorite is this photo of my mom i shot on her 87th birthday.

Mamiya RB67 Pro Sd w/80mm Sekor lens. Fuji Neopan 400

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/525019_3018764879527_589849259_n.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/m8TQi.png

Jun 15 12 05:24 am Link

Photographer

VitorJacinto

Posts: 74

Liège, Liège, Belgium

One of my tests... not quite happy with the scan...
Fuji GX680III 180mm f:5,6
T-MAX on LC-29


http://imageshack.us/a/img560/6207/000006copy.jpg




www.vitorjacinto.be

Jun 15 12 05:48 am Link

Photographer

Timothy Logan

Posts: 527

Cleveland, Ohio, US

Maybe not best, but two of many that I enjoy...

Shot with a Polaroid SX70 Alpha One on Impossible Project's PX100 test film:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7014/6642777653_fe949036df_b.jpg

And some expired Polaroid Chocolate shot on a Polaroid 250:

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5226/5675886730_2d674201d4_b.jpg

Jun 15 12 05:59 am Link

Photographer

Patrickth

Posts: 10321

Bellingham, Washington, US

Don't remember what film, but it was C41 processing on my old Olympus RC Rangefinder.


http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/110305/15/4d72cba427821_m.jpg

Jun 15 12 06:58 am Link

Photographer

Dorola

Posts: 310

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

SX70 with impossible film

http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/120525/06/4fbf8f4d77532.jpg

Jun 15 12 07:16 am Link

Photographer

Dan Dozer

Posts: 596

La Quinta, California, US

Everything in my port is film.  Deardorff 8 x 10 camera and either Ilford Delta 100 or HP5 all developed in PMK Pyro developer.

Jun 15 12 08:05 am Link

Photographer

fotopfw

Posts: 792

Kerkrade, Limburg, Netherlands

Linhof 4x5" with Schneider-Kreuznach Angulon 8/90mm shot with f 8 on Kodak E100VS transparency film

http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/120615/08/4fdb54e82a46d.jpg

Jun 15 12 08:33 am Link

Photographer

J I M

Posts: 524

New York, New York, US

I don't know if it's one of my 'best' but it certainly is one of my faves...

40 year old Pentax 35mm with a 50/1.7 lens, natural light and shot on Tri-X at 400:

http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/120614/17/4fda7d96ad296_m.jpg

Also, this one (18+):

http://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pi … 8#28421626

Jun 15 12 08:40 am Link

Photographer

AgX

Posts: 1273

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US

My entire portfolio is film.  This, Bronica ETRSi, 150/3.5 PE, Kodak 320TXP (alas, no more. sad ), Rodinal 1+50:

http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/110503/03/4dbfd9e837a36.jpg

Jun 15 12 08:41 am Link

Photographer

Jhono Bashian

Posts: 2432

Cleveland, Ohio, US

Nice photograph,,  Hows those fires in Fort Collins? Hopefully your not getting smoked out..  I have a buddy that teaches at CSU...

Jun 15 12 08:51 am Link

Photographer

JSandersPhotography

Posts: 1382

Fort Collins, Colorado, US

Tony-S wrote:
No chance my 5Dii could capture this much dynamic range in a single shot. So, post your best film shots and be sure to include film and camera info. This was with a Bronica GS-1 and Kodak Ektar 100.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7105/7175351209_094be32c90_b.jpg
Snake River Overlook, Grand Teton National Park

God I miss home.  Amazing shot.  /end threadjack/

Jun 15 12 09:41 am Link

Photographer

Michael Lohr

Posts: 510

Los Angeles, California, US

It appears to me you have put up a digital picture and tried to pass it off as film.

First extar 100 is a neg, not a chrome film.

You forgot there is a rebate edge on along the side of the pictures.

Chrome has more of a dynamic range then Neg.

So even if this pic was originally shot on film, it had to be scanned to pull in the dynamic range in the foreground shadows.

Back in the day I could maximize the dynamic range in Chrome film.
It still doesnt hold a candle what one can do in post production on a properly exposed high quality digital image.

Jun 15 12 09:47 am Link

Photographer

MC Photo

Posts: 4144

New York, New York, US

Michael Lohr  wrote:
It appears to me you have put up a digital picture and tried to pass it off as film.

First extar 100 is a neg, not a chrome film.

You forgot there is a rebate edge on along the side of the pictures.

Chrome has more of a dynamic range then chrome.

So even if this pic was originally shot on film, it had to be scanned to pull in the dynamic range in the foreground shadows.

Back in the day I coyuld maximize the dynamic range in Chrome film.
It still doesnt hold a candle what one can do in post production on a properly exposed high quality digital image.

And it looks tone mapped.

Jun 15 12 09:57 am Link

Photographer

Kaouthia

Posts: 3152

Lancaster, England, United Kingdom

Michael Lohr  wrote:
First extar 100 is a neg, not a chrome film.

You can scan a negative and invert it on a computer to produce a positive colour image. smile

Michael Lohr  wrote:
You forgot there is a rebate edge on along the side of the pictures.

Unless you're using 35mm in a larger than 35mm camera.  If you put a 35mm back on a 6x7 camera, it's going to cover the entire film (including the sprockets).

Michael Lohr  wrote:
Chrome has more of a dynamic range then chrome.

Wut? smile

It even shows in the EXIF data that his "Camera" is "Epson PerfectionV700" (same scanner I use).

Not my images, but all these were shot on Ektar.

http://www.lostaruban.com/film-review/kodak-ektar-100/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fredographie/6131263214/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fredographie/6133263632/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fredographie/6127404303/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fredographie/6135242175/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattramalho/5907390905/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/goodharbor/3053323057/

But they were probably all faking it too, right? wink

Jun 15 12 10:07 am Link

Photographer

Catchlight Portraits

Posts: 294

Salt Lake City, Utah, US

Wow... I love the shots posted so far.  Thank you!

Everything in my portfolio was shot on film.  This one:

http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/110519/14/4dd584fe2eef1.jpg

was taken with a Hasselblad 501C, with a Zeiss Sonnar T* 150 mm f/4, on Fujichrome Astia 100.

Jun 15 12 10:08 am Link

Photographer

Michael Lohr

Posts: 510

Los Angeles, California, US

Michael Lohr  wrote:
First extar 100 is a neg, not a chrome film.

You can scan a negative and invert it on a computer to produce a positive colour image.

Of course one can manipulate any scanned image. At the start of the thread the author implies this "film" shot is better than digital. As soon as one scans a image and converts it to digital, then we are dealing with a digital image..not film.



Michael Lohr  wrote:
You forgot there is a rebate edge on along the side of the pictures.

Unless you're using 35mm in a larger than 35mm camera.  If you put a 35mm back on a 6x7 camera, it's going to cover the entire film (including the sprockets).
Seriously?  Just how many people have actually done that. And for what purpose?

Jun 15 12 10:19 am Link

Photographer

Kaouthia

Posts: 3152

Lancaster, England, United Kingdom

Michael Lohr  wrote:
Of course one can manipulate any scanned image. At the start of the thread the author implies this "film" shot is better than digital. As soon as one scans a image and converts it to digital, then we are dealing with a digital image..not film.

Ok, so please tell me how else we're supposed to pop up a photo he's taken on film on a forum, on the internet? smile

Also, you can do a fuckload of manipulation to any film image in the darkroom too, by using variously coloured filters, dodge & burn, masking, whatever.  The process doesn't end when you hit the shutter.

Michael Lohr  wrote:
Seriously?  Just how many people have actually done that. And for what purpose?

Yeah, seriously.  There's 35mm backs out there for most medium format cameras if you look hard enough.  I know quite a few who use them in order to be able to shoot panoramics (basically, you end up with a 3:1 image, instead of the standard 3:2).

Jun 15 12 10:28 am Link

Photographer

Connor Photography

Posts: 6597

Elkton, Maryland, US

Film is OK.  Had shot Kodachrome 25 and 64 for over 25 years.  Occasionally, I miss the smell of the chemicals for B/W film and prints.  But I would not trade my D800e though.

Now film suddenly becomes the new cool for the new generations.   smile

Jun 15 12 10:59 am Link

Photographer

Tony-S

Posts: 1442

Fort Collins, Colorado, US

Michael Lohr  wrote:
It appears to me you have put up a digital picture and tried to pass it off as film.

You'd be mistaken.

First extar 100 is a neg, not a chrome film.

Where did I say otherwise?

You forgot there is a rebate edge on along the side of the pictures.

Rebate edge? What's that?

Chrome has more of a dynamic range then Neg.

No, it doesn't. Ektar is about 12 stops, Portras are about 14 stops. B&W can be even greater with proper exposure and development. The best slide film (Fujichrome Velvia 50, dmax=4.0) has about 8 stops.

So even if this pic was originally shot on film, it had to be scanned to pull in the dynamic range in the foreground shadows.

The film has that much dynamic range because of its S-curve characteristics.

Back in the day I could maximize the dynamic range in Chrome film.
It still doesnt hold a candle what one can do in post production on a properly exposed high quality digital image.

You should have tried color negative film since that would have solved your problem. My 5Dii has about 10 stops of dynamic range.

MC Photo wrote:
And it looks tone mapped.

But it's not. Isn't film wonderful?

Jun 15 12 12:20 pm Link

Photographer

Tony-S

Posts: 1442

Fort Collins, Colorado, US

Kaouthia wrote:
Unless you're using 35mm in a larger than 35mm camera.  If you put a 35mm back on a 6x7 camera, it's going to cover the entire film (including the sprockets).

Yup, and this is exactly how I do it:

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6185/6063679585_0de48949ed_b.jpg
Take-up spool for 35mm film in 6x7 220 back.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/digi-film/ … 480665766/

Jun 15 12 12:25 pm Link

Photographer

Michael Lohr

Posts: 510

Los Angeles, California, US

Sorry I simply do not beleive that is not a manipulated shot


But I do concede that point of the use of 35 mm film on larger format.
Thanks for showing me something new

Jun 15 12 12:32 pm Link

Photographer

Kaouthia

Posts: 3152

Lancaster, England, United Kingdom

Tony-S wrote:
Yup, and this is exactly how I do it

I saw a 35mm back for the RB67 the other day.  I was so tempted to snag it (even though I don't actually have the RB67 yet). wink

Jun 15 12 12:33 pm Link

Photographer

Tony-S

Posts: 1442

Fort Collins, Colorado, US

It's pretty easy to run 35mm film through a 220 back. Don't do a 120 back, because you're stuck with only 10 exposures with a 6x7 camera.

Jun 15 12 12:34 pm Link

Photographer

Tony-S

Posts: 1442

Fort Collins, Colorado, US

Michael Lohr  wrote:
Sorry I simply do not beleive that is not a manipulated shot

If by manipulation you mean dodging, burning and contrast adjustments, then you're right, I did all of those in Aperture. But that's the problem with color negative film - it has more information than any computer display can show, so you have to bring those within the range of the display. But at least the negative has that information. That shot with my 5Dii would have had blown highlights and shadows - it simply cannot capture as much information as film. with that said, the Nikon D800 is very close to Ektar in DR, as are many of the medium format digitals. And it will get better in the future.

Jun 15 12 12:38 pm Link

Photographer

sidney_k

Posts: 874

Paris, Île-de-France, France

Linhof 4x5, through a barrel lens built in 1905, shot on TXP, developped in X-tol.

http://bit.ly/KzZ6Gi

Jun 15 12 12:43 pm Link

Photographer

Kaouthia

Posts: 3152

Lancaster, England, United Kingdom

Tony-S wrote:
It's pretty easy to run 35mm film through a 220 back. Don't do a 120 back, because you're stuck with only 10 exposures with a 6x7 camera.

I don't mind only getting 10 exposures per roll.

As far as 35mm goes, I've got 25 rolls of FP4 (recently got a 100ft bulk roll, so loaded 'em all up), a dozen rolls of Rollei Retro 100, another dozen rolls of Kentmere 100, a few rolls of HP5+ and another couple of dozen rolls of random black & white and colour film here, so I have plenty to spare. smile

Carioca wrote:
Linhof 4x5, through a barrel lens built in 1905, shot on TXP, developped in X-tol.

That's rather gorgeous smile

Jun 15 12 12:53 pm Link

Photographer

D M E C K E R T

Posts: 4786

Las Vegas, Nevada, US

Film is a hoot. It's really got its own look that's hard to nail down in digital. Especially certain non-neutral films. My favorite is Kodak ektachrome 100SW. The way it saturates skin is amazing...its warm and saturated without the weirdness of velvia. Replicating it digitally is unkind to a RAW file, and it's just not quite there. but I'm working on it, since that film is dead...so it's hard to find and expensive when you do. This was on a fuji gw690...6x9 chromes are purdy.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v315/violadeity/05eSM.jpg

Jun 15 12 12:59 pm Link

Photographer

WMcK

Posts: 5286

Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom

Michael Lohr  wrote:
Michael Lohr  wrote:


Michael Lohr  wrote:
You forgot there is a rebate edge on along the side of the pictures.

Unless you're using 35mm in a larger than 35mm camera.  If you put a 35mm back on a 6x7 camera, it's going to cover the entire film (including the sprockets).
Seriously?  Just how many people have actually done that. And for what purpose?

In my early days in photography I only had a 120 camera. I had a source of free 35mm film. I uses to tape the 35mm film onto the 120 backing paper, an got a result like the above. I'm sure many others have done the same.

Jun 15 12 01:05 pm Link

Photographer

fotopfw

Posts: 792

Kerkrade, Limburg, Netherlands

WMcK wrote:

In my early days in photography I only had a 120 camera. I had a source of free 35mm film. I uses to tape the 35mm film onto the 120 backing paper, an got a result like the above. I'm sure many others have done the same.

On purpose of this all: not every film type that came out in 35mm was available in rollfilm (the 120/220 format).
For panoramic shots: why should you spill film? You just need the small, long stretch.
This will sound even stranger for you: use 35mm film in a 4x5" film holder. Purpose: superpanorama's! Two in one shot. Now this is done less frequent I guess...

Jun 15 12 01:19 pm Link

Photographer

MMDesign

Posts: 18647

Louisville, Kentucky, US

Chris Macan wrote:
http://www.chrismacan.com/gallery/street/st2.jpg

Camera = Voigtlander Bessa-r
Lens = Canon RF 50mm 1.2 (with a heavily scuffed up front lens element)
Film = Kodak TriX

Really like this.

Jun 15 12 01:26 pm Link

Photographer

intense_puppy

Posts: 864

Brighton, England, United Kingdom

fotopfw wrote:
This will sound even stranger for you: use 35mm film in a 4x5" film holder. Purpose: superpanorama's! Two in one shot. Now this is done less frequent I guess...

Damn. Now you've given me an idea.... smile

Jun 15 12 02:09 pm Link

Photographer

L Zarecki

Posts: 175

Portland, Oregon, US

http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/110408/21/4d9fdf3c7b356.jpg

Hasselblad 500c/m
Ilford Delta 400

Jun 15 12 05:14 pm Link

Photographer

MMDesign

Posts: 18647

Louisville, Kentucky, US

LeAnne Zarecki wrote:
http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/110408/21/4d9fdf3c7b356.jpg

Hasselblad 500c/m
Ilford Delta 400

Very nice.

Jun 15 12 05:22 pm Link

Photographer

MMDesign

Posts: 18647

Louisville, Kentucky, US

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/15691603-md.jpg

Hasselblad 500cm with 80mm and TMax 100.

Jun 15 12 05:23 pm Link

Photographer

Tony-S

Posts: 1442

Fort Collins, Colorado, US

Another from my Grand Teton trip a couple of weeks ago. This one also shot with the Bronica GS-1 6x7cm using Ilford SFX200 near-infrared film with a Cokin 007 IR filter. Processed with Perceptol 1+1 for 20 min at 68F.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7213/7174836943_996b08cf3c_b.jpg
Mount Moran, Oxbow Bend, Grand Teton National Park

Jun 15 12 05:42 pm Link