|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
I love film!
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.  Snake River Overlook, Grand Teton National Park Jun 14 12 11:51 pm Link  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  Jun 15 12 02:38 am Link 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.  Jun 15 12 02:52 am Link 1 of many street folks lately. RB67 w/50mm Sekor, Porta 160 converted to b/w via LR3  Jun 15 12 04:00 am Link  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 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   Jun 15 12 05:24 am Link One of my tests... not quite happy with the scan... Fuji GX680III 180mm f:5,6 T-MAX on LC-29  www.vitorjacinto.be Jun 15 12 05:48 am Link Maybe not best, but two of many that I enjoy... Shot with a Polaroid SX70 Alpha One on Impossible Project's PX100 test film:  And some expired Polaroid Chocolate shot on a Polaroid 250:  Jun 15 12 05:59 am Link Don't remember what film, but it was C41 processing on my old Olympus RC Rangefinder.  Jun 15 12 06:58 am Link SX70 with impossible film  Jun 15 12 07:16 am Link 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 Linhof 4x5" with Schneider-Kreuznach Angulon 8/90mm shot with f 8 on Kodak E100VS transparency film  Jun 15 12 08:33 am Link 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:  Also, this one (18+): https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/p … 8#28421626 Jun 15 12 08:40 am Link My entire portfolio is film. This, Bronica ETRSi, 150/3.5 PE, Kodak 320TXP (alas, no more.  ), Rodinal 1+50:  Jun 15 12 08:41 am Link 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 Tony-S wrote: God I miss home. Amazing shot. /end threadjack/ Jun 15 12 09:41 am Link 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 Michael Lohr wrote: And it looks tone mapped. Jun 15 12 09:57 am Link Michael Lohr wrote: You can scan a negative and invert it on a computer to produce a positive colour image. Michael Lohr 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). Michael Lohr wrote: Wut? Jun 15 12 10:07 am Link Wow... I love the shots posted so far. Thank you! Everything in my portfolio was shot on film. This one:  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 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 Michael Lohr wrote: 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? Michael Lohr wrote: 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 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. Jun 15 12 10:59 am Link Michael Lohr wrote: 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. 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: But it's not. Isn't film wonderful? Jun 15 12 12:20 pm Link Kaouthia wrote: Yup, and this is exactly how I do it: Jun 15 12 12:25 pm Link 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 Tony-S wrote: 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). Jun 15 12 12:33 pm Link 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 Michael Lohr wrote: 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 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 Tony-S wrote: I don't mind only getting 10 exposures per roll. Carioca wrote: That's rather gorgeous Jun 15 12 12:53 pm Link 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.  Jun 15 12 12:59 pm Link Michael Lohr 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. Jun 15 12 01:05 pm Link WMcK wrote: On purpose of this all: not every film type that came out in 35mm was available in rollfilm (the 120/220 format). Jun 15 12 01:19 pm Link Chris Macan wrote: Really like this. Jun 15 12 01:26 pm Link fotopfw wrote: Damn. Now you've given me an idea.... Jun 15 12 02:09 pm Link  Hasselblad 500c/m Ilford Delta 400 Jun 15 12 05:14 pm Link LeAnne Zarecki wrote: Very nice. Jun 15 12 05:22 pm Link  Hasselblad 500cm with 80mm and TMax 100. Jun 15 12 05:23 pm Link 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.  Mount Moran, Oxbow Bend, Grand Teton National Park Jun 15 12 05:42 pm Link |
