Film FiF 17 - Matt

[MoonMind]

While I think that noone will try to snatch the name away and it'll be some time until the images arrive, this is the thread where I'll put up my stuff for our Film in February challenge in 2017.

My camera of choice is the Zeiss Ikon (ZM) with Voigtländer 35mm f/1.4 Nokton Classic M.C.:

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

I didn't get round to acquiring the film I initially decided to use in the challenge (Ilford XP2 Super), so will pick something entirely different, yet pretty well known to me: the Fujifilm Neopan Acros 100. Let's see how it goes.

M.

 

[jssaraiva]

Acros is a great film, nice choice! No comments on the lousy (controlling a GAS attack) camera and lens

 

[Kay]

I didn't get round to acquiring the film I initially decided to use in the challenge (Ilford XP2 Super), so will pick something entirely different, yet pretty well known to me: the Fujifilm Neopan Acros 100. Let's see how it goes.

My favorite 100ASA B&W emulsion after they had ditched Neopan SS. Anyway, I still have 50 rolls of some of the last available SS somewhere, not enough for a lifetime but more than enough to occasionally remind me how good it is (was).

Have fun, guys!

 

[MoonMind]

Image 1:

This was mostly experimenting - focus plane and DoF as well as FoV ... Turned out a bit dark (exposure not corrected in any way).

M.

 

[tonyturley]

The drops hanging from the twigs are still distinct. Shows promise.

 

[MoonMind]

The drops hanging from the twigs are still distinct. Shows promise.

That's what I was focusing at ...

M.

 

[MoonMind]

Here's something pretty frustrating, but also somewhat interesting. What I didn't mention before is that I used a *expired* film; I have used such films for some time and never ran into any troubles. But I think this is the first time it has actually happened ...

The story: After scanning the FiF film, I tried some post processing and ran into all kinds of problems because frankly, some frames were totally unusable - no solid blacks, all blotches in the shadows, and mediocre sharpness, sometimes very strange gradation ... I had never before seen anything comparable, so I thought the scanner or even the camera/lens combo might be to blame. But today, I scanned a different film (from a camera I shot in February, too ...) - and the images turned out sharper and pretty much as they should be. So, you'll have to basically put up with very sketchy quality; I'll post some frames from different films to compensate ... sorry for that, this is really quite unexpected. There's got to be a first time for everything, but this unfortunate conincidence is a bit of a let-down.

Anyhow, I'll keep posting, here's image 2:

I was trying to catch the extreme haze - so sharpness at infinity (or rather, the lack thereof) is not really surprising ...

M.

 

[MoonMind]

Here's something that's a bit easier on the eyes ...

M.

 

[jssaraiva]

Nice to see you started to post your images and sorry if the film was not at its best. Still, this is the sort of thing that we need to live with on analog, it is part of the "game" and maybe that is why when we get a really good photo, it is much more memorable than digital. Just my 2 cents...

 

[MoonMind]

Nice to see you started to post your images and sorry if the film was not at its best. Still, this is the sort of thing that we need to live with on analog, it is part of the "game" and maybe that is why when we get a really good photo, it is much more memorable than digital. Just my 2 cents...

I agree - and shooting itself was still fun. btw. the first alternative image came from the Voigtländer Vitessa - my romance with Tessar (type) lenses continues ... oh, and I was using Sunny 16 (i.e., probably f/11 due to lighting) here - I'm getting better at that, too.

M.

 

[tonyturley]

I don't recall ever using B&W film. Those images look fine to me. As for the scanning, I usually have to make several attempts at a frame before I get something that I find satisfactory.

 

[MoonMind]

Image 3:

... Today, I found out that my bike has been stolen - out of our locked(!) bike cellar ... go figure. Somehow, the image seems fitting - of course, I didn't plan for it to be.

M.

 

[tonyturley]

Sorry to hear of your bike theft, Matt. I know I'd feel both angry and empty if someone broke in and stole my bike. It's not so much about the stuff, but about the sense of violation.

 

[MoonMind]

Sorry to hear of your bike theft, Matt. I know I'd feel both angry and empty if someone broke in and stole my bike. It's not so much about the stuff, but about the sense of violation.

The main point is that there hasn't actually been a break-in. It's what one would call an inside job ... But you're bang on about how it feels ...

M.

 

[jssaraiva]

Sorry about the bike... but that is a beautiful composed photo.

 

[MoonMind]

Sorry about the bike... but that is a beautiful composed photo.

Thanks Haven't been able to post yesterday, but I'll pick up the trail later today.

M.

 

[MoonMind]

Sorry for the interruption, catching up with the last two days; more to come tonight or tomorrow ...

Image 4:

Image 5:

It's going to get a bit more substantial soon

M.

 

[MoonMind]

Image 6:

The new helps keeping up the old ...

Alternative image 2:

One from the Pentacon Six with Ilford XP2 ...

M.

 

[jssaraiva]

Nr4 is very intriguing, it is the sort of image that makes me comeback to have a new look at. I believe is is the light on the lower bridge that causes me this: only a bridge under a bridge? Why is the sunshine there?...

 

[MoonMind]

@José Thanks! Yes, it distinctly looks like that, but it's just the very bright (off-white) colour of the material compared to the surroundings and (somewhat unintended) overexposure. The brittleness of the film's expired emulsion causes light and dark areas to run wild when pushed (either over- or underexposed in the image). But it's also an effect of the lens's "glow" wide open. The Voigtländer 35mm f/1.4 Classic does that - and also, it vignettes quite extremely at that setting, which I corrected for (to some extend). I usually don't mind vignetting, but the corners were even darker than they are now (btw. the lower right corner shows part of a dark surface - that's mainly *not* vignetting ). But all in all, quite a surprising result.

M.