Jepser wrote:
Nikon FM2N with Voigtländer Nokton 58mm, FP4+. Crosspost from the Voigtländer/Nikon thread.
Hej hej. Nice tones. I've always wanted to get a copy of that lens. It would be less expensive to just buy one instead of getting a film body for my VM 50/1.2
madNbad wrote:
Since it a film for surveillance cameras, shouldn't the images be taken from a elevated position and she would be standing by a dumpster?
Ha! I'll just try to catch her in the act of committing a small, victimless crime.
My hats off to all of you that shoot film and do an amazing job of it.
It's been 35+ years since I last shot a roll of film and thought I would give it a go with a 1962 Petri 7s camera I found at a flea market for $6. I shot a 36 count roll of HP5 plus 400 and was only to be a test roll to see if the camera functioned properly and I think the camera had some light seal bleed through at the bottom of each image that I cropped out in lightroom.
From film purchase to processing this test cost $49 including the cost of the camera and will be my last roll for now. Unless you love to shoot a lot of film and process/scan your own this is just not worth it for me. Don't get me wrong the process of shooting this roll was very enjoyable.
The images look like they could have been taken 100 years ago.
M_Wales wrote:
My hats off to all of you that shoot film and do an amazing job of it.
It's been 35+ years since I last shot a roll of film and thought I would give it a go with a 1962 Petri 7s camera I found at a flea market for $6. I shot a 36 count roll of HP5 plus 400 and was only to be a test roll to see if the camera functioned properly and I think the camera had some light seal bleed through at the bottom of each image that I cropped out in lightroom.
From film purchase to processing this test cost $49 including the cost of the camera and will be my last roll for now. Unless you love to shoot a lot of film and process/scan your own this is just not worth it for me. Don't get me wrong the process of shooting this roll was very enjoyable.
The images look like they could have been taken 100 years ago.
Thanks for posting and yes, film can be an expensive adventure. Some of us never left for the digital world, many use both film and digital. Occasionally, a genuine wet print will show up but most of the images have been scanned directly from the negatives. The scanning setup vary in price from used Plusteks to flatbeds and a wide variety of camera scanning configurations.
Film prices are starting to stabilize but processing cost are the biggest variable. Processing a roll of C-41 color negative film at a local shop cost me eight usd. I scan it at home, so if the results are bad, I know who’s to blame. I have a couple of different ways to develop back a white. Rodinal is by far the most cost efficient. A bottle will last several years. I have been using film my entire life and the few times I tried digital, it looked nice but I was missing the challenge.
Again, thanks for trying and posting. Don’t be a stranger and leave an comment every now and then.
Mark, I think the results are really good given that this is your first attempt in years AND you used a new to you Petri!
There are ways of bringing the cost of film down. I use Kentmere 400 b&w film which is under $6/roll. Then I develop it myself using Cinestill DF96 Monobath which is one chemical that does everything. It is good for over 16 rolls which works out to under $1.50/roll to develop.
So those two things in itself really cuts down on the cost. Then if you have a digital camera you can scan the film yourself.
The best/easiest/cheapest way to get super results is to use one of the last generation AF 35mm slrs. I favour the Nikon N80 but just because I already had Nikon gear. All the major players have an equivalent. This stuff is super cheap and the results are indistinguishable from high end gear.
Desmolicious wrote:
You’re getting some great stuff out of that Fuji. Time for me to load one up.
Thanks again for bringing it to our attention here! I love this camera, it's kind of like a film equivalent to a Leica Q, albeit with a slower lens. And I love being able to take photos while on my bike, or in the rain.
bjhurley wrote:
Thanks again for bringing it to our attention here! I love this camera, it's kind of like a film equivalent to a Leica Q, albeit with a slower lens. And I love being able to take photos while on my bike, or in the rain.
It really is a great camera, and you can buy five like new ones for the price of one Pentax 17. Of course the P17 has the advantage of half the resolution, zone focus, confusing controls, lack of weather protection.
Also if you get the panorama version of the Work Record, not only can u shoot panos but it has the option of zone focus as well as AF!
And I love being able to take photos while on my bike, or in the rain.
