Post your recent film shots!
p.1381 #2Post your recent film shots!
Desmolicious wrote:
Canon Sure Shot Ace, Superia 400
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54222029309_d5671ba57f_b.jpg
Oh! Look! An expired plate!
Dec 23, 2024 at 12:36 AM
p.1381 #4Post your recent film shots!
arista ultrapan 100, canon 7ne, either a 24-105L or 17-40L (most likely), d76, pakon. Short Springs State Natural Area, Tullahoma, TN
 |
||
 |
||
|
Dec 23, 2024 at 06:56 AM
p.1381 #5Post your recent film shots!
Desmolicious wrote:
Dood, Fuji 400 and the 28 1.5 seem to be a killer combo. Better than the Portra (yeah I know the Fuji is Kodak but either way it is not Portra!).
hmmm, I have that lens, used it only once back in September and wasn't blown away by the images: https://brick.smugmug.com/Photography/2024-9-1-Cherokee-rodeo
maybe I need to give it another chance, this time with my MP.
Fred Miranda wrote
Leica MP, Voigt 28/1.5, Fuji 400hmmm, I have that lens, used it only once back in September and wasn't blown away by the images: https://brick.smugmug.com/Photography/2024-9-1-Cherokee-rodeo
maybe I need to give it another chance, this time with my MP.
Dec 23, 2024 at 08:41 AM
p.1381 #7Post your recent film shots!
Desmolicious wrote:
Leica M6 & Voigtlander 35mm 1.4 ii SC & Harman Sauron 200 How/who is scanning the film? It looks like they do not have the profiles correctly set up because my Phoenix in 35mm does not look like that! Harman actually did send out a technical bulletin telling labs that their standard existing profiles would not be ideal.
I read some stuff about that Phoenix film after my first film came back from the lab, and I was not happy. I set the iso at 100 for the next rolls and changed lab for one that sold the film and had a Noritsu scanner, I didn’t ask them for the profiles as I assumed they knew about it but I think I’ll ask them anyway now. Even with a better color profile, I still think it would not be that great but better surely. Still I’ll move on from the emultion for now in its 35mm version, I ruined some shots I cared about, it’s the film game but still, and I have some 250D to try.
I think what Harman is doing is very cool anyway, we’re all testing the thing for now, I’ve done my part, I’ll come back to it later.
Sonnar-7 wrote
Do you even Phoenix?I read some stuff about that Phoenix film after my first film came back from the lab, and I was not happy. I set the iso at 100 for the next rolls and changed lab for one that sold the film and had a Noritsu scanner, I didn’t ask them for the profiles as I assumed they knew about it but I think I’ll ask them anyway now. Even with a better color profile, I still think it would not be that great but better surely. Still I’ll move on from the emultion for now in its 35mm version, I ruined some shots I cared about, it’s the film game but still, and I have some 250D to try.
I think what Harman is doing is very cool anyway, we’re all testing the thing for now, I’ve done my part, I’ll come back to it later.
Dec 23, 2024 at 10:01 AM
|
p.1381 #11Post your recent film shots!
Kodak Portra 400 / Pentax SMC 30mm 2.8
Dec 23, 2024 at 11:58 AM
p.1381 #12Post your recent film shots!
@Sonnar-7 Whoever is doing your scanning is messing it up, and not using a Phoenix specific profile.
I self scan and here are some of my results using 35mm Phoenix:
I self scan and here are some of my results using 35mm Phoenix:
Dec 23, 2024 at 01:22 PM
p.1381 #13Post your recent film shots!
Desmolicious wrote:
@Sonnar-7@ Whoever is doing your scanning is messing it up, and not using a Phoenix specific profile.
I self scan and here are some of my results using 35mm Phoenix:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53490358343_291781b909_c.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53489312182_ca9eb05b56_c.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54066800801_07fd1f99c0_o.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54067285228_d5e7d51ccd_b.jpg
It looks like it’s something else entirely indeed. Could they mess up developing the negative too? Because besides the funky unpretty colors of my scans, the photos are so messy, yours appear having a finer grain and more details.
@Sonnar-7@ Whoever is doing your scanning is messing it up, and not using a Phoenix specific profile.
I self scan and here are some of my results using 35mm Phoenix:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53490358343_291781b909_c.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53489312182_ca9eb05b56_c.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54066800801_07fd1f99c0_o.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54067285228_d5e7d51ccd_b.jpg
It looks like it’s something else entirely indeed. Could they mess up developing the negative too? Because besides the funky unpretty colors of my scans, the photos are so messy, yours appear having a finer grain and more details.
Dec 23, 2024 at 01:26 PM
p.1381 #14Post your recent film shots!
Sonnar-7 wrote:
I self scan and here are some of my results using 35mm Phoenix:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53490358343_291781b909_c.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53489312182_ca9eb05b56_c.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54066800801_07fd1f99c0_o.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54067285228_d5e7d51ccd_b.jpgIt looks like it’s something else entirely indeed. Could they mess up developing the negative too? Because besides the funky unpretty colors of my scans, the photos are so messy, yours appear having a finer grain and more details.
I exposed it at 100. That is a huge part of it and makes it less grainy. But the funky colours you were getting is from your lab not scanning it properly. They have to create/use a profile specifically for this film.
Desmolicious wrote
@Sonnar-7@@@ Whoever is doing your scanning is messing it up, and not using a Phoenix specific profile.I self scan and here are some of my results using 35mm Phoenix:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53490358343_291781b909_c.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53489312182_ca9eb05b56_c.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54066800801_07fd1f99c0_o.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54067285228_d5e7d51ccd_b.jpg
I exposed it at 100. That is a huge part of it and makes it less grainy. But the funky colours you were getting is from your lab not scanning it properly. They have to create/use a profile specifically for this film.
Dec 23, 2024 at 01:30 PM
p.1381 #15Post your recent film shots!
Desmolicious wrote:
I self scan and here are some of my results using 35mm Phoenix:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53490358343_291781b909_c.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53489312182_ca9eb05b56_c.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54066800801_07fd1f99c0_o.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54067285228_d5e7d51ccd_b.jpgIt looks like it’s something else entirely indeed. Could they mess up developing the negative too? Because besides the funky unpretty colors of my scans, the photos are so messy, yours appear having a finer grain and more details.I exposed it at 100. That is a huge part of it and makes it less grainy. But the funky colours you were getting is from your lab not scanning it properly. They have to create/use a profile specifically for this film.
Yes I also exposed them at 100 after my first roll but the results do not look any better. I was looking for some scanning setup lately, I think it’s more than needed.
Sonnar-7 wrote
Desmolicious wrote
@Sonnar-7@@@@ Whoever is doing your scanning is messing it up, and not using a Phoenix specific profile.I self scan and here are some of my results using 35mm Phoenix:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53490358343_291781b909_c.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53489312182_ca9eb05b56_c.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54066800801_07fd1f99c0_o.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54067285228_d5e7d51ccd_b.jpg
Yes I also exposed them at 100 after my first roll but the results do not look any better. I was looking for some scanning setup lately, I think it’s more than needed.
Dec 23, 2024 at 01:34 PM
p.1381 #16Post your recent film shots!
madNbad wrote:
This is not my truck! I just stumbled across it and I have so many questions!
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54221975053_d0f4b42d37_z.jpgMaybe the Superman hitch cover is a clue?
Those Holga's work pretty well when they're not dropped on a regular basis.
Yeah I don't get it, why are people dropping these cameras and then complaining that they don't work properly after dropping?
Don't freakin drop your camera!
Also mine does not have any light leaks, so I guess I must be doing that wrong too.
Desmolicious wrote
Holga GCFN 120, Arista 200This is not my truck! I just stumbled across it and I have so many questions!
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54221975053_d0f4b42d37_z.jpg
Those Holga's work pretty well when they're not dropped on a regular basis.
Yeah I don't get it, why are people dropping these cameras and then complaining that they don't work properly after dropping?
Don't freakin drop your camera!
Also mine does not have any light leaks, so I guess I must be doing that wrong too.
Dec 23, 2024 at 01:38 PM
p.1381 #20Post your recent film shots!
Desmolicious wrote:
I took this picture of the flower thinking I had kolor film in my camera. I did not.
So close your eyes, and imagine if you will a gorgeous, deep red blossom with bright yellow stamens in the middle of this image.
Nikon F3P, CV 40 f2, Kentmere 400
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54223215948_dff005b252_b.jpg
If you were using one of your cheap @zz cameras, it would have buzzed at you or made some weird noise that indicates no film. Or the thumb wheel would had just kept on turnin'.
I took this picture of the flower thinking I had kolor film in my camera. I did not.
So close your eyes, and imagine if you will a gorgeous, deep red blossom with bright yellow stamens in the middle of this image.
Nikon F3P, CV 40 f2, Kentmere 400
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54223215948_dff005b252_b.jpg
If you were using one of your cheap @zz cameras, it would have buzzed at you or made some weird noise that indicates no film. Or the thumb wheel would had just kept on turnin'.
Dec 23, 2024 at 02:23 PM