Matt: How do you like the Ilford chromogenic B&W? I tried it a couple of times but it seemed too grainy. It's a good chance that I had the exposure off though, so that's why I'm asking

4X5 Ilford Delta 100, Schneider Symmar-S 150 f5.6



Edited by mrladewig on Jun 24, 2008 at 08:46 AM GMT

Dollhouse

4X5 Provia, 75mm Schneider Super Angulon, 3 stop hard GND

Maze

4X5 Kodak E100VS, Fuji 125 -NW



Edited by mrladewig on Jun 24, 2008 at 08:45 AM GMT

Toehold - Hidden Canyon

4X5 Provia, 210 Fuji -NW, CPL

Shot my first square format shots with a "new" 50 + year old 6x6 Folding Rangefinder last week...

nice! which 6x6 folder is it? I just picked up a Zeiss Ikon 6x9 folder, I enjoy it! It's a great hiking camera!

Daniel - it is an Agfa Isolette with an uncoupled RF. I was very pleased when I saw the first images - and it has the mid-tier lens.

I can only imagine how good the Zeiss will be!

What a beautiful group of posted photos.

Matt: How do you like the Ilford chromogenic B&W? I tried it a couple of times but it seemed too grainy. It's a good chance that I had the exposure off though, so that's why I'm asking

It is grainy (which is odd because a lot of people used to claim the chromogenic films were too fine grained to look right..) but noticably less so if you nail the exposure. A lot of my scans (like those posted) look grainier than they are because the scanning service I use tends to block up the grain a bit.. It's still worth it for me though because I can get it developed and scanned onto CD very easily and cheaply, and anything great I can replrint from the negative or get scanned properly..

Matt Cope wrote:
Matt: How do you like the Ilford chromogenic B&W? I tried it a couple of times but it seemed too grainy. It's a good chance that I had the exposure off though, so that's why I'm asking

It is grainy (which is odd because a lot of people used to claim the chromogenic films were too fine grained to look right..) but noticably less so if you nail the exposure. A lot of my scans (like those posted) look grainier than they are because the scanning service I use tends to block up the grain a bit.. It's still worth it for me though because I can get it developed and scanned onto CD very easily and cheaply, and anything great I can replrint from the negative or get scanned properly..

I only tried it out once when I first started shooting film, but ended up just sticking with Kodak. I guess I'll give another go, but I've got about 20 rolls of the Kodak BW400CN in my freezer, so it might take awhile

Get an F5 with 8fps.. Won't take you long to rip through that lot...

I've got an EOS 3 with power booster that shoots at 7fps so it should only take me a little while longer than if I grabbed an F5

some really cool shots here! glad to see this thread still going.

i have a question for the forum here. why in the world cant the look of black and white film be duplicated in photoshop? with all the amazing things that people do with PS, why cant they pull off the look of TriX

cause tri-x is wonderful That's why I shoot B&W on film. I use tri-x from 35mm all the way to 8x10 sheet film, it's a great film!

Two recent shots with the Olympus OM-2n.

OM 40mm f/2, Ilford XP2 400:



OM mount Vivitar Series 1 135mm f/2.3, Superia 400:

Testing a Nikon 35Ti with Superia a few days ago.

what do most of you guys use to scan your film? im looking for a somewhat cheap option.

Brody LeBlanc wrote:
what do most of you guys use to scan your film? im looking for a somewhat cheap option.

I use an Epson 4990 which I bought as a refurb from Epson. So far its worked well, but the operator has a thing or two to learn about scanning.

Epson 4990 here as well. It works great for large and medium format film. For 35mm though, it's not as good as a dedicated film scanner.