-The Dave- wrote: Same reason I sometimes shoot 120 or 35mm in my 4x5. To do something different.
Different from what?
Lots of people use 35mm in MF toy cameras (check those hipster "lomo" sites); I figured it was because perhaps they did not have money for or access to 120 film. This makes sense for kids playing around with a Holga or a Diana which you can buy for $12.
But it appears the OP uses 35mm in his Bronica fairly regularly, too. I just don't understand why. Wouldn't it be a lot easier, and have a better final product, to just use 120?
She was...in fact I shot her again just last year when she was 66 I believe. And the shot I linked of her was shot around the same time Judy Dater did the one of her and Imogen Cunningham together. Same area too.
Do Americans in the digital/instagram age now have a fetish for film, which film photographs themselves are not sufficient to satisfy unless it's patently obvious that they were shot with "OMG REAL FILM"? Serious question.
V Laroche wrote: I have a ton of Kodak Ektar 100 in 120. Why are you putting 35mm in your MF camera? I don't understand the point...?
If no one ever put 35mm in their medium format camera, the world would never have known images like the one posted in the OP. Would the world be better off they didn't exist? Is it up to you to say?
Lots of people use 35mm in MF toy cameras (check those hipster "lomo" sites); I figured it was because perhaps they did not have money for or access to 120 film. This makes sense for kids playing around with a Holga or a Diana which you can buy for $12.
But it appears the OP uses 35mm in his Bronica fairly regularly, too. I just don't understand why. Wouldn't it be a lot easier, and have a better final product, to just use 120?
I shoot digital to make money, I shoot film to have fun.
And as a 49 year old kid, I still love using my Holga 120s too.
And just so ya know, I don't really care if the picture is perfect or not when shooting film. Film is imperfect by nature, that's one of the things that make it great.
AgX wrote: Are you using bulk C-41 chemicals, or one of the prepackaged kits? If the latter, which one, and how have you found it?
Roy Hubbard wrote: I'm using the Tetenal C-41 1 liter kit. It's more or less as simple as black and white, and I've found the results pleasing. The chemicals can knock you for a bit of a loop if you don't have decent ventilation and keep at it for an extended period.
I bought a few boxes of Velvia 50 in 4x5 the day Fuji announced they were discontinuing it, going to try Tetenal's E6 kit at some point soon.
I've tried the Tetenal C-41 kit just once and got a lot of grain. I shoot so little color that it's often just easier to take it to a pro lab several blocks away to have them process and scan. I do have a slew of Portra and Fuji 400H in the freezer, so maybe I'll do some autumn foliage and buy another kit.
AgX wrote: Are you using bulk C-41 chemicals, or one of the prepackaged kits? If the latter, which one, and how have you found it?
I've tried the Tetenal C-41 kit just once and got a lot of grain. I shoot so little color that it's often just easier to take it to a pro lab several blocks away to have them process and scan. I do have a slew of Portra and Fuji 400H in the freezer, so maybe I'll do some autumn foliage and buy another kit.
I'd definitely recommend playing around with it some more. The first few rolls I did were less than stellar, also, though I'm still not exactly sure why. After a color spree the past few weeks, I'm really happy with the results I've been getting.
This is a scan from Portra 160, 15 second exposure:
V Laroche wrote: But it appears the OP uses 35mm in his Bronica fairly regularly, too. I just don't understand why. Wouldn't it be a lot easier, and have a better final product, to just use 120?
They are almost always landscape shots. No sense in wasting film that's going to get cropped down anyway. And the sprocket holes aren't always there - they are sometimes cropped out as well.
V Laroche wrote: Do Americans in the digital/instagram age now have a fetish for film, which film photographs themselves are not sufficient to satisfy unless it's patently obvious that they were shot with "OMG REAL FILM"? Serious question.
I don't know about the instagrammers (I never left film entirely), but for me its the superior dynamic range, exposure latitude and size of the film that sets it apart from digital.
I'd definitely recommend playing around with it some more. The first few rolls I did were less than stellar, also, though I'm still not exactly sure why. After a color spree the past few weeks, I'm really happy with the results I've been getting.
This is a scan from Portra 160, 15 second exposure:
And a crop:
Those are a lot finer grained than what I was getting with my first couple of iterations. Maybe you're right though, I should give it another shot.
PhillipM wrote: RB67 w/50mm, Arista 100 iso.
Arista Developer
Printing in my new darkroom on Ilford MGIV FB paper +2.5 Filter
Yes, I'm in heaven.
Now that daylight savings is done, I can start printing again. I have to lug my Beseler 23C XL Dual Dichro upstairs to the bathroom to make prints. It's a real pain in the backside.
Tony-S wrote: Now that daylight savings is done, I can start printing again. I have to lug my Beseler 23C XL Dual Dichro upstairs to the bathroom to make prints. It's a real pain in the backside.
What you need to do is sell your place and buy something with an extra bathroom that you can subvert permanently.
Priorities man, priorities.
Tony-S wrote: Now that daylight savings is done, I can start printing again. I have to lug my Beseler 23C XL Dual Dichro upstairs to the bathroom to make prints. It's a real pain in the backside.
Yeah, Tony, that would be a bitch to deal with off and on. I converted a storage room at the west end of the studio into a DR. I don't have running water in it yet, but that will come.
It's hard for me to continue to edit my day to day stuff, because I want to get in there and print. What a kewl feeling to dodge and burn, and see that image come up on the paper in the soup..
I've only printed (1) 8x10 so far, the rest are 5x7's, because I wanted to get a good work flow and process grooved first before moving to larger prints.
PhillipM wrote: Yeah, Tony, that would be a bitch to deal with off and on. I converted a storage room at the west end of the studio into a DR. I don't have running water in it yet, but that will come.
It's hard for me to continue to edit my day to day stuff, because I want to get in there and print. What a kewl feeling to dodge and burn, and see that image come up on the paper in the soup..
I've only printed (1) 8x10 so far, the rest are 5x7's, because I wanted to get a good work flow and process grooved first before moving to larger prints.
As you get into more refined, complicated printing techniques, you will find that, to a point at least, larger prints will be easier to make. This is especially true when it comes to selective dodging and burning of smaller details. I printed some 8x10 for the first time in forever for a friend of mine and was continually frustrated by the lack of room, where as an 11x14 seems just right. Also, as the head is further away, your exposure times are longer. If doing split grade printing (especially if combined with a dodge or burn move) it's easier to divide up the longer time into sub exposures during which time you will be completing a secondary task.
For example, if your base exposure is 40s but you want to lighten the faces on two people by one stop, then you would have to dodge each of their faces for 20s. So you set your timer for 20 instead of 40 and do each move independently. The 20s exposure allows you to to move your dodge tool around enough, long enough, that you don't leave any tell tale traces of the move (unless of course someone is familiar with darkroom printing). On the other hand, if your base exposure is 10s, you now have to split that up into two 5s intervals. This can also be done well if you have a bit of practice under your belt.
But what if you don't want to lighten the faces by a whole stop. What if you want them a half stop brighter? Or a quarter stop? Well, now you're dealing in increments of 2.5s or less. I don't care who you are, that becomes difficult. A 1.25 second dodge is VERY difficult to do well.
PhillipM wrote: RB67 w/50mm, Arista 100 iso.
Arista Developer
Printing in my new darkroom on Ilford MGIV FB paper +2.5 Filter
Yes, I'm in heaven.
I'm loving the hell out of my RBs. I like a 180mm for portraits n that 50 is just so sweet.. focusing from 4" to infinity.. yum! Beautiful razor sharp images.. count the hairs on a fly's ass!
I see you are all setled in Phill.. soon they'll have to crow bar you out of the darkroom?
Para: Thanks for the info. Insightful as usual... Baby steps for me right now, but I'm chomping at the bit to print larger. Waiting for that special image to do so though.
Fstop: Love my RB too. I have to get another 120 back. Mine is Fubar'd, but I love that 50mm. I have a 180mm, but damn it's heavy when thrown on that RB.
Kaouthia
Posts: 3,080
Lancaster, England, United Kingdom
Just received this in the mail yesterday. First of it I've seen for sale in at least the last 6 months, as they quit making it. And it's still got a couple of months left on the clock!
When I first got into photography in a serious way, a film SLR was all I could afford, so that's what I went with. The step up in quality from my little mid-2000s digital point and shoot to high-res scans of good film from a well-run Fuji Frontier machine was amazing and the money I saved by going analog rather than buying a DSLR meant that I could get a few nice lenses. Sadly, film prices just kept going up and it got to the point where I just couldn't afford to shoot film any more, but it was certainly fun while it lasted.
Shot with Fomapan b/w on a Graplex Graphic View, developed in Arista 1:9, printed on Kodak Polycontrast III RC paper. Shot in the studio for a possible candidate for a print exchange later in 2013.
I have entire folder of images I shot on film titled "Classic Shots"
<< Click on the Portfolio, then click on the "Expand" on the far right to see the menu bar.
There are about 20 images there, so I don't want to use up this thread posting 'em here.
Last roll of film I shot in 2000. Sat in a humid garage for a decade undeveloped 'till I found them by accident. "Universal 200" was the film they sold us at school (High School). It was actually the last time I visited Mexico, going back in 2 weeks just 13 years after this photo was taken.
Mission Mountains, Montana. Bronica GS-1, PG 200mm f/4.5 at f/11 and 1/2", Ilford SFX film, #89B (Cokin 007) near-IR filter, Perceptol 1+1 for 20 min at 68 F. It's too bad real IR film is tough to come by these days, with Efke gone.
Both of the above examples are very cool. I've never shot IR or Velvia. The former, I'm not likely to, the latter perhaps someday (I have some Sensia in one body now; my first chromes).
| 
| 
| edu