Post your recent film shots!
p.1431 #1Post your recent film shots!
BPsmith511 wrote:
For me, mist filters are digital-only use, and this post gives me similar feelings. I feel as if it is too much on film, and on digital it adds just enough to be closer to film, which I like.
I agree that diffusion isn't all that useful on film, especially films known for halation (e.g., Fomapan 400 in 120), but it could help soften the look of very sharp, contrasty lenses.
Fog filters are another story, though -- I have a couple of Harrison fog filters that I use on film and the look can be pretty cool:
This was with Pan F on a Canon P, 35mm/1.8 Canon LTM lens with Harrison fog filter.
Marché Bonsecours by Brad Hurley, on Flickr
And this was with XP2 400 on Canon P, same lens with fog filter.
Sunrise by Brad Hurley, on Flickr
For me, mist filters are digital-only use, and this post gives me similar feelings. I feel as if it is too much on film, and on digital it adds just enough to be closer to film, which I like.
I agree that diffusion isn't all that useful on film, especially films known for halation (e.g., Fomapan 400 in 120), but it could help soften the look of very sharp, contrasty lenses.
Fog filters are another story, though -- I have a couple of Harrison fog filters that I use on film and the look can be pretty cool:
This was with Pan F on a Canon P, 35mm/1.8 Canon LTM lens with Harrison fog filter.
Marché Bonsecours by Brad Hurley, on FlickrAnd this was with XP2 400 on Canon P, same lens with fog filter.
Sunrise by Brad Hurley, on FlickrFeb 09, 2025 at 04:55 AM
p.1431 #2Post your recent film shots!
BPsmith511 wrote:
M7 + 250D
1st 24 Summilux + 1/2 BPM
2nd 24 Summilux + no filter
3rd 28 Summilux + 1/4 BPM
4th 28 Summilux + no filterFor me, mist filters are digital-only use, and this post gives me similar feelings. I feel as if it is too much on film, and on digital it adds just enough to be closer to film, which I like.
Agreed, I won't use it on film. If I want the look I'll use my 35 pre asph!
lifeandmylens wrote
To pro mist or not? I played around testing out a new lens and also seeing what BPM filters look like on film. Most of the images with the filters had quite subtle effects, but this one in particular had the most effect due to the windows and backlighting. Also quickly compared the two lenses.M7 + 250D
1st 24 Summilux + 1/2 BPM
2nd 24 Summilux + no filter
3rd 28 Summilux + 1/4 BPM
4th 28 Summilux + no filter
Agreed, I won't use it on film. If I want the look I'll use my 35 pre asph!
Feb 09, 2025 at 07:22 AM
p.1431 #4Post your recent film shots!
Nikon F6
Ektar 100
Street Performer near Sagrada Familia
Barcelona Spain
Aug 2024.
Ektar 100
Street Performer near Sagrada Familia
Barcelona Spain
Aug 2024.
Feb 09, 2025 at 02:32 PM
p.1431 #5Post your recent film shots!
Roll 107: 2000 FCW + a lens (probably the 80/2.8, but maybe the 50/4 chrome T*), and Astia. I am rescanning an old roll. Roll 173 (scanned yesterday) was my first roll of Velvia, and it was a struggle. The initial scans looked terrible. But I kept fighting because during a casual phone call with the lab they had commented that the exposures were good. I eventually found the gradation tool in Silverfast and the scans finally looked as expected. This reminded me that I had two rolls of Astia a few years ago that looked equally terrible. I gave up that fight because I was metering by hand, and so I thought I had screwed that up. But perhaps I was wrong and the slides were fine once properly graded? Apparently so, but only one is worth showing off.
Feb 09, 2025 at 05:30 PM
p.1431 #6Post your recent film shots!
More Water, Less Power Boulder, Happy Boulders, Volcanic Tablelands, Bishop.
RETO Ultra Wide & Slim, Kodak Ultra Max 400 (expired 2019).
2024.04.17 Roll #354-000036890010.jpg by dourbalistar, on Flickr
RETO Ultra Wide & Slim, Kodak Ultra Max 400 (expired 2019).
2024.04.17 Roll #354-000036890010.jpg by dourbalistar, on Flickr
Feb 09, 2025 at 07:00 PM
p.1431 #8Post your recent film shots!
OregonSun wrote:
Pan F+
Kiev 6C
Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 50mm f/4
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54310063553_d0ba8b5459_c.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54308936707_e674430e91_c.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54308936672_28d8f96fcc_c.jpg
So good!
Pan F+
Kiev 6C
Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 50mm f/4
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54310063553_d0ba8b5459_c.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54308936707_e674430e91_c.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54308936672_28d8f96fcc_c.jpg
So good!
Feb 09, 2025 at 08:48 PM
p.1431 #9Post your recent film shots!
theHUN wrote:
Roll 173: Taking it easy with the GF670W and my first roll of Velvia 50. Lots of struggles with the color, but I am happy enough.
https://geza.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p541489972-6.jpg
https://geza.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p556455033-6.jpg
https://geza.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p705821130-6.jpg
https://geza.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p717089542-6.jpg
https://geza.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p635518138-6.jpg
https://geza.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p993852894-6.jpg
https://geza.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p818534746-6.jpg
All good, but really like the last one!
Roll 173: Taking it easy with the GF670W and my first roll of Velvia 50. Lots of struggles with the color, but I am happy enough.
https://geza.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p541489972-6.jpg
https://geza.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p556455033-6.jpg
https://geza.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p705821130-6.jpg
https://geza.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p717089542-6.jpg
https://geza.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p635518138-6.jpg
https://geza.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p993852894-6.jpg
https://geza.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p818534746-6.jpg
All good, but really like the last one!
Feb 09, 2025 at 08:49 PM
|
p.1431 #11Post your recent film shots!
I got a lot of mileage out of these bouquets, but the flowers are done now. And I managed to get a shot of my cat in nice light; five seconds later he had jumped off the bed.
These are Fomapan 100, semi-stand in Rodinal.
Canon P, Canon 35mm/1.8 LTM, Fomapan 100
Bouquet still life by Brad Hurley, on Flickr
Canon P, Canon 50/1.4 LTM, Fomapan 100
Grisou by Brad Hurley, on Flickr
These are Fomapan 100, semi-stand in Rodinal.
Canon P, Canon 35mm/1.8 LTM, Fomapan 100
Bouquet still life by Brad Hurley, on FlickrCanon P, Canon 50/1.4 LTM, Fomapan 100
Grisou by Brad Hurley, on FlickrFeb 10, 2025 at 06:07 AM
p.1431 #12Post your recent film shots!
F5 with no finder + 58G + 250D. I think this lens is sharper on film than digital.
Feb 10, 2025 at 06:53 AM
p.1431 #13Post your recent film shots!
lifeandmylens wrote:
F5 with no finder + 58G + 250D. I think this lens is sharper on film than digital.
How do you feel it compares to the Noct-Nikkor - especially on film?
Feb 10, 2025 at 09:30 AM
p.1431 #14Post your recent film shots!
Desmolicious wrote:
Leica M10r w Rollei 40 2.8 vs Pentax Auto 110 w 50mm
Can you guess which is which?
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54317942696_ac5007b637_b.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54270109021_7ff62595db_b.jpg
That Pentax looks great! You really should clean the sensor on the Leica.
Feb 10, 2025 at 09:49 AM
p.1431 #15Post your recent film shots!
Playing with new to me Rolleicord III. I managed to only take one double exposure ;-)
Rolleicord III Xenar f/3.5 + Kodak Gold 200 + Cinestill CS-41 + Epson 2420 scanner with Vuescan + darktable
Rolleicord III Xenar f/3.5 + Kodak Gold 200 + Cinestill CS-41 + Epson 2420 scanner with Vuescan + darktable
Feb 10, 2025 at 10:12 AM
p.1431 #16Post your recent film shots!
_jim_ wrote:
How do you feel it compares to the Noct-Nikkor - especially on film?
I've only done a couple of comparisons inside when I got the G. From that they were quite similar, but at the same aperture, the noct's background is smoother. Today I took about 6 shots outside comparing them both @ 1.4. Will process probably later this week and post them.
lifeandmylens wrote
F5 with no finder + 58G + 250D. I think this lens is sharper on film than digital.I've only done a couple of comparisons inside when I got the G. From that they were quite similar, but at the same aperture, the noct's background is smoother. Today I took about 6 shots outside comparing them both @ 1.4. Will process probably later this week and post them.
Feb 10, 2025 at 11:23 AM
p.1431 #17Post your recent film shots!
lifeandmylens wrote:
How do you feel it compares to the Noct-Nikkor - especially on film?I've only done a couple of comparisons inside when I got the G. From that they were quite similar, but at the same aperture, the noct's background is smoother. Today I took about 6 shots outside comparing them both @ 1.4. Will process probably later this week and post them.
Cool! And interesting. I kinda of assumed the G would be smoother (as that appears to be the main design goal behind the lens...which was then completely lost in its marketing).
_jim_ wrote
lifeandmylens wrote
F5 with no finder + 58G + 250D. I think this lens is sharper on film than digital.Cool! And interesting. I kinda of assumed the G would be smoother (as that appears to be the main design goal behind the lens...which was then completely lost in its marketing).
Feb 10, 2025 at 12:11 PM
p.1431 #18Post your recent film shots!
Tested yesterday my oldest film camera I have - the Agfa Billy-Record Anastigmat-Jgestar with 100 mm f/7.7 lens manufactured between 1933-1942. It works with 120 film, so I added Ilford FP4+ 125 B&W film which I developed with Xtol. The camera produces an approx. 5.5x8.5 cm negative on the 120 film plane. Since this Ilford film doesn't contain the frame counter marking which the camera is designed for to look through the back plate, I had to estimate the winding needed after each exposure. I used 4 full clockwise rotations of the camera's winder which turned out to be good leaving space between frames (probably 3 to 3.5 windings might have been ideal since the space between frames I got was a bit wide, so I lost one frame).
Feb 10, 2025 at 12:25 PM
p.1431 #19Post your recent film shots!
retrofocus wrote:
It works with 120 film, so I added Ilford FP4+ 125 B&W film which I developed with Xtol. The camera produces an approx. 5.5x8.5 cm negative on the 120 film plane. Since this Ilford film doesn't contain the frame counter marking which the camera is designed for to look through the back plate, I had to estimate the winding needed after each exposure.
All the Ilford 120 films have frame numbers on the backing paper, but they're not very easy to see through the red window (or maybe they're not lining up with the window on your camera). They're fairly light gray. Fomapan films have the best backing paper -- those frame numbers are bold, black, large, and easy to read. The worst backing paper I've found is from Cinestill; the numbers are very faint, totally impossible to read through the red window, and not even easy to read in broad daylight after you've developed the film.
It works with 120 film, so I added Ilford FP4+ 125 B&W film which I developed with Xtol. The camera produces an approx. 5.5x8.5 cm negative on the 120 film plane. Since this Ilford film doesn't contain the frame counter marking which the camera is designed for to look through the back plate, I had to estimate the winding needed after each exposure.
All the Ilford 120 films have frame numbers on the backing paper, but they're not very easy to see through the red window (or maybe they're not lining up with the window on your camera). They're fairly light gray. Fomapan films have the best backing paper -- those frame numbers are bold, black, large, and easy to read. The worst backing paper I've found is from Cinestill; the numbers are very faint, totally impossible to read through the red window, and not even easy to read in broad daylight after you've developed the film.
Feb 10, 2025 at 12:32 PM
p.1431 #20Post your recent film shots!
I don't think the Hudson usually freezes! I've only lived here for 8 years, but even old timers seem to not remember it.
Feb 10, 2025 at 12:41 PM