Search results for query: *

Did you scan these yourself? They look really good.

The meter will struggle with high contrast scenes like that one above. The bright areas of the image push up the average light metered and shadows will be underexosed. There is no exposure compensation unfortunately, but you can push the ISO down a stop or two to give you a bit more light in...

Looks like it's working well. It was a difficult scene to meter for. If you wanted to, you could add a graduated filter in post to bring up the exposure in the grass. What were the issues you had to solve?

I was actually being a bit facetious. But partially serious. The best way to make a black and white photo look "silvery" is to increase the contrast, so that the photo spreads fully across the histogram. I do wonder sometimes, if there are colour components to silver (or the film in general)...

Yeah, what's the salt for? And what is the extra silver for? Does it make photos look more silvery? If so, do you have to scan it in colour to see the difference?

The most important part of getting a good scan is where you set the white point and black point. You want to clip slightly on either end of the histogram otherwise your photos will look washed out, but not so much that you clip important details like the photos you posted above. Next most...

I'd bet you will be able to recover quite a bit out of those highlights. Just need a good scan and the proper tiff files.

Some more shots with this camera. I like it best when used with a slow speed film like FP4

It was taken with a 50mm prime and the camera in portrait orientation. The photos have been stitched together horizontally. I had to crop it down a bit, and the lesson for next time is to get to put more effort into getting the tripod exactly level. I like how it still has that Tri-x grain...

Or that's the idea anyway. I shot 6 overlapping (portrait orientation) frames on 35mm Tri-X and merged in photoshop. This is taking hybrid film/digital process to the extreme. I think it looks pretty good for a first attempt. 35mm film stitched panorama by Jai Sbr, on Flickr

Great mood to these :)

Thanks, I also use the Rokkor lenses with a mirrorless camera (A6000 at the moment) and actually that was how I got into film. Backwards! I had already built up a collection of glass and I figured I'd give the film cameras a try. I hope you get the XD11 fixed, you can get some really great...

As long as you can see the patch clearly through the viewfinder, thats great. Mine was pretty hard to make out at first. I replaced my light seals myself, using a some foam i bought off ebay. It was a bit fiddly, but I managed to do it pretty well (after a couple of attempts). The trick is to...

Cool, let us know how you go. Before I could really start using mine, I had to give it a good clean around the rangefinder patch and replace the light seals. Worth checking before you load in the first roll of film

Thanks! I also have the original 7S, which is OK but not any smaller than my Minolta SLRs. Doesn't feel as nice to hold either. The 7Sii is just so small, and looks so cool. Hard to tell from those photos actually, maybe I should shoot it next to something for context.

Nice. Really like the sense of scale, especially in that last photo

Ah, cool. Unfortunately I don't have room in my tiny appartment for an enlarger or proper darkroom setup. My process is very much the new fangled way (or as much as it can be for film): Vuescan -> Lightroom -> Epson 2100 inkjet / Flickr

Do you do any post processing work on your scans? The photo with the dog came out great, but I think the first one might look better if if you bumped up the contrast and exposure in the midtones.

There aren't many cameras better than this, without being a lot bigger. I'm not crazy about the viewfinder, it's small and tinted blue. But I am crazy about the size, it's the film equivalent of an Nex 5. And the results from that lens, yes, it's really that good:

I love that shot with the Mustang and the girl with the flag. Could have been taken in the Regan administration, would look about the same

How does the focussing work? Is there a split screen focussing screen? I'm guessing it's challenge to nail focus with 105mm wide open

Looks amazing. How's the weight? o_O

I think it just feels strange because 35mm seems like a weird basis to compare medium format frames. I bet medium format photographers back in the day wouldn't have dreamed of doing that, 35mm was for amateurs! Also, crop factor becomes a bit limited and confusing when you are comparing frames...

Thanks! I didn't realise I had the album set to private, because it worked for me. Wasn't easy to figure out how to change that either.

I like the aspect ratio, feels right. Sad to say, but I get put off by the idea of 6x6 negatives because the photos are too reminiscent of instagram.

I really like that 2nd shot, awesome. How are you finding the Mamiya M645? I haven't shot medium format yet, but was looking at this system as a way to try it out.

These were from a roll of Delta 100 I shot with my Minolta XD, 35-70mm Macro lens and an orange filter

Yeah, I had considered that. Actually if you read the third post on this thread I pretty much say exactly that. But it's all getting a bit too philosophical! Let me start off with an example: Here is what my photo looks like straight out of the scanner: Unedited Scan 1 by jai posted Jun...

Unfortunately you can't really get away from adjusting the colour from the scans. You can trust your scanner software to do it for you? Scanning software (SilverFast, Vuescan) can even include built in profiles for various film stocks that you can apply to colour correct the scan. But as pdh...

I totally agree, I have noticed that if i get prints from a lab or even print myself on inkjet a lot of the grain I associate with a particular film is gone. I don't think there is really an ethical question, but i do think if I'm photoshopping a scan till it's unrecognisable perhaps I am...

Keen to know what people think about post processing film scans? Often film scans can look flat, and it can be quite tricky to get them looking great. I think the most important thing is to get the white point and black point right. Previously, I would try and do that purely in lightroom, but...

I do like this film: Jessie by Jai Sbr, on Flickr

Yeah, I think most scanners struggle with dust detection on Black and white film. I leave my film hanging, drying in the shower until the minute I'm ready to scan. Apparently showers are relatively dust free because humidity in the air causes the dust to drop out.

Ah, cool! The AT-1 looks like it was related to the AE-1 which is recommended in that article. The Canon FD mount is a good choice, because unlike Nikon, the Canon FD lenses can't be used on modern Canon cameras, which means they tend to be cheaper. I shoot on Minolta for the same reason. eBay...

I can't say I do know much about Churchills, I have always used Fitzgeralds. I was told they are the best, and I believe it after using them. You do pay for it, its over $30 just to process and scan, and over $50 if you also want prints. So I now do all my B&W myself, but they are just down the...

If you want to go to a film lab that does black and white, like Fitzgerald's you should pick either Kodak Tri-X or Ilford HP5. If you want to stay in Fremantle, or proper B&W is too expensive (costs a fair bit more) then go for Ilford XP-2. For colour you want Kodak Portra 400. All those...

No, I don't think that is how scanners work. I think scanners work pixel by pixel, and detect RGB for each one. It's not a matrix of pixels like a digital sensor. Bayer Interpolation

I think this is because the V600 is a flatbed, which I have read is not the best for small negatives. My little plustek (which is very cheap) scanner is designed specifically for 35mm and does a great job, but then it can't be used for medium format. So there are always tradeoffs unfortunately...

It's a bit of a faff :P My scanner can produce files 70+ megapixels from my 35mm film. And that isn't necessarily smart, and yeah the tiffs are big, but it does refute the argument that scanning with digital cameras is better quality. Remember that digital cameras have a bayer filter, so the...

I think it's a cool hack if you want to scan a bunch of old slides, but not a good solution if you want to properly shoot film as part of your regular process.

I picked up the Minolta 320X flash (for peanuts) to use with my XD. This flash has a light sensor mounted at the front, so it adjusts the flash duration based on the light reflected back. I guess this is how it was done before TTL, and actually it works great. Exposure was pretty much perfect...

I've developed a bit of a technique I like to use. I use a film picker to get the leader out, and in the light I pull enough film out to get it started on the reel. It helps if you cut the first bit of the leader off, because its usually kinked and that can cause issues with the feeding...

I've got a Paterson tank with the white plastic reels, just like the one above except mine fits two 35mm reels. The double reel tanks can also be used with 120 medium format film. That's all I've used, and even though I think it's the best way to go, its still takes practice to get good at...

Winding the film on to the those reels in a bag is not easy. Definitely worth sacrificing a cheap roll of film for practicing with.

Apparently the only difference between the 7400 and 8100 is the latter comes with silverfast scanning software. I actually don't like silverfast and use vuescan anyway.

I could be wrong too! There are so many variables, especially when you shoot B&W film and then process yourself. It's hard to know anything definitively. In the end it would be pretty easy to trick me into thinking a photo was shot on Tri-X when it was really FP4, or vice versa.

I've shot both Tri-X and FP4, and actually I don't really agree. If you want something more nuanced and lower contrast, I think the exposure and development plays a much bigger roll than film choice. You can pull Tri-X down a stop and it will still be faster than FP4. Weirdly, i found the...

If you want to scan 35mm, and nothing bigger, I really recommend the Plustek OpticFilm 8100. Great value, amazing quality. The only catch really is the fact you have to manually slide the film holder through for each frame. Here is an example of an image I scanned at 3600 dpi...

There obviously needs to be a thread for this. This is the film by which all others are judged, and I haven't found any that are better. If you want to get into film, and don't know what to shoot, shoot Tri-X. It is incredibly versatile. You can get quite a grungy, grainy, high contrast...

Yep, I think we can safely assume nobody will be using an Olympus EM-1 30 years from now.