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.
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.
Agreed, I won't use it on film. If I want the look I'll use my 35 pre asph!
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.
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.
_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:
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).
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).
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.
