OneAnt wrote:
Page 5 ...hmmm not bad Saty.
It should be obvious to you that film is prized for the way its fills eyes and hearts.
There are a number of places you can get the negs developed in Melbourne, Michaels of course but I think they are expensive. Our friends here wouldn't know it but they try to sell TX400(36) to us for $12 (I buy it OS for 2.89 ex freight) and I'll know how much HP5 is next time I go in but I wont buy it here.
Marquis De Sade wrote:
It is always by way of pain one arrives at pleasure.
He also said ...
She had already allowed her delectable lover to pluck that flower which, so different from the rose to which it is nevertheless sometimes compared, has not the same faculty of being reborn each spring.
If you're really interested in Leica RF's, you might consider the Zeiss Ikon which also uses the Leica lenses and is a film camera. Supposedly it has a much better viewfinder than the Leica and is around $ 1600 brand new. I think used they are around $ 1000 or so. If you want something cheaper to start with Voightlander Bessa models are probably half the price of the Zeiss Ikon's.
If you want a film SLR, the Nikon F 100 is not very expensive used and is a great camera.
Right, now have I started some thread or what ? ... !!
+1 for OneAnt - great link: silvermine. ... the prints in michaels were from Leica 35mm though.
+1 for Bifurcator and Peter, I dare say altern's critique was indeed misplaced (and btw, pores of skin on the fairer sex...nothing wrong depicting them and this was not a portraiture masterclass)
at this point, raising a young family etc, i would be indulging in 35mm film, possibly MF in the future...
some really interesting food for thought ... burp. and yes, michaels is overpriced.
and yes, I had NO IDEA you had to store film in a FRIDGE !!!! oneANt, who would you recommend for developing ?
once again, grateful for all the input.
satybhat wrote:
I had NO IDEA you had to store film in a FRIDGE !!!! oneANt, who would you recommend for developing ?
I found someone here in Melbourne, really good and really good prices a month back, will find them for you. They print too. I'll be doing my own but am a way from offering help. Have my 1st roll in an F100 (Mint, $165) with my Zeiss, Have already got a treasure on the roll but I wont open the camera till I've filled the film and it could take a while. Have not even shot a test roll so it might even be rubbish (grin) Would encourage you to do b&w film neg developing though ...could help coach you through that if you want.
Film in fridge; Films will last some time beyond their expiry date at normal room temperature and I believe that film even cures a bit during its life (a positive thing). For films that might have expired it preserves and the pattern is typically ...films to be used in the short term are kept in the fridge and film thats infrequent use and like not used up anytime soon ..into the freezer.
Ziplock bags in small batches so that only a few are defrosted at a time, putting a film in a pocket or just letting them stand for a while.
I use Tri-X (TX400) for street photography and want the pics to look like film which is why some prefer HP5 from Ilford because its crisp whereas I'm after a bit of grit, you should look at pages moreso than individual pictures on flickr to get a feel for the different films but the different developers have a huge effect ...just make sure you are looking at 35mm and not 120(medium format).
A lot of people are developing for a look they get when scanning but I'm after the paper prints for wall hanging and the development of an image is controlled here as well so I'm relying on that as a decision and using this as a way to control my inexperience now. The grittier film and conservative printing are just a balancing act till I know what I'm doing.
All the flickr Leica pics will stand out like lips on a trumpet player. I love Leica but I like showing my own teeth in a picture and the leica lenses have a strong signature. For me the Zeiss cut through the air whereas the Leica turn the air into chocolate sauce. If you want Leica everybody here will tell you they like chocolate sauce too.
Get them to help you pic a lens.
Agree with Bif too, its worth a look, again some great help here on FM, they love spending your money (grin) and have so much experience. I'm just a guy mucking about and having fun.
I challenge anyone to shoot similar boring scene with film and get the same dynamic range and detail... And post it here. This is not a challenge, this is an offer to prove me wrong.
altern3 wrote:
Nikon V1 - hand held - 5min in photoshop.
I challenge anyone to shoot similar boring scene with film and get the same dynamic range and detail... And post it here. This is not a challenge, this is an offer to prove me wrong.
http://i47./23u563r.jpg
p.s. no comments on the titled horizon.
Not sure why I'm responding to this...but anyways. The scene is virtually useless to prove your point. The areas of shadow and highlight are so small relative to the overall web size that you can't possibly judge if there is detail in the shadows. You've basically posted a neutral grey scene. Not even sure what your point is here?? You must be a seasoned professional photog so I'd assume you have a better example than this.
I would also guess that many have hidden your posts so I wouldn't expect many replies
altern3 wrote:
Nikon V1 - hand held - 5min in photoshop.
I challenge anyone to shoot similar boring scene with film and get the same dynamic range and detail... And post it here. This is not a challenge, this is an offer to prove me wrong.
Doesn't look a bit like film and totally lacks midtone contrast. I'll shoot...
This is Kodak Tri-X souped in Rodinal, which gives a harsh grain an not the best tonality. Still I haven't had any luck trying to mimic it with digital.
altern3 wrote:
I challenge anyone to shoot similar boring scene with film and get the same dynamic range and detail... And post it here. This is not a challenge, this is an offer to prove me wrong.
Pointless if the comparison photos are not the same scene in the same lighting. Too many uncontrolled variables.
First of all, the lens is not using its better imaging range for either film or digital (used at, or near, wide open). Second, the extreme and unbalanced lighting is not effective for showing tonal and granular gradations. Third, the shots have underexposed areas (man) and flare from large bright sky.
Such a comparison needs to be done under better conditions and use of the imaging tools.
I disagree. That is a real comparison. A situation many people are often shooting in. Not a useless test scenario. The comparison shows how both systems respond in a backlit portrait. I do not think the man is underexposed for a backlit scene and that is near how I would want him rendered if it were my photo.
Zaitz wrote:
I disagree. That is a real comparison. A situation many people are often shooting in. Not a useless test scenario. The comparison shows how both systems respond in a backlit portrait. I do not think the man is underexposed for a backlit scene and that is near how I would want him rendered if it were my photo.
This.
And keep in mind this was with 35mm. With medium format (and higher) you get much higher resolution and more dimensionality (and cheaper lenses).
Zaitz -- I wouldn't say the noise present in the subject's face is normal for ISO 100. That's why I say it looks like it was under-exposed (and lifted), showing telltale banding pattern. It's not a proper image, unlike the one Peter presented of the woman's close up -- that has some impressive detail.
I'm not just critical of the film -- both mediums are suffering in these examples.
It is a fairly challenging scenario if you wish to keep the sky somewhat detailed and colorful while retaining a realistic amount of exposure on the face. Up to the photographer on where to balance it I suppose. The crop is the -2 underexposed photo. He says no doctoring but I think we know the 5d doesn't push shadows well so if he went through aperture with the underexposed photo and lifted the shadows a bit that would account for the increase in noise. I wasn't looking at that though and just looked at the sky and colors. Portra and Ektar have an incredible way of handling harsh highlights.
"5D mk2 raw files processed in Aperture for max detail
Ektar scaned on a Fuji Frontier for best color
No doctering up on either"
