BEAUTIFUL shots Adrian. Love the tree lined street shot.
Mike - I started with Ilford film, so it's what I know best. I did get a brick of the Tri-X 400 with the Mamiya body I bought - and I also have tons of expired Tmax 100 that I got with a darkroom equipment lot. My "purchased" film has always been HP5, though. I have tried different developers, and am currently using ID11. I suppose I can use Ilford developer with Kodak film, although I have always heard that T-grain should use it's own developer for optimum performance. I am not really one to stick to the guidelines, though...
As for the Bronica - it is also what I "started" with as far as medium format. It was affordable, easy to use, and not a stressful purchase for me. I bought a Hasselblad (it was a deal) and was given another one (from a friend) and thought with the reputation and lure of that name, I HAD to give it a try. I got two lenses - the 50CF and the 120CF, as well as the NC2 prism and went to work. As much as I wanted to love Hasselblad as everybody else does, when it came down to it - I felt more comfortable with the Bronica. My ETRS has the speedgrip with metered prism, so I suppose - FOR ME - it is as easy as 35mm (which is what I have always shot). With the Hassy, learning to use a separate light meter; compose on a WLF (which frankly is just WEIRD for me), and the square format (which I love to look at but cannot compose in myself) just did it in for me. It's just not me.
AHH ... this is like a confessional ... and should seal the deal for me putting my 500CM and 120CF up for sale. I haven't shot it in forever, and frankly don't plan to (especially after getting a Mamiya 7!!!!!!!!!!!!!).
Can somebody recommend a cheap but reliable film body from Canon?
My experience with film so far is pretty much NULL.
I've only shot 4 rolls of color film with the EOS 3000, which I find very annoying and impossible to work with..
I'm a bit disappointed by this body ,also the viewfinder is a nightmare.
It's impossible to focus & recompose with AF lenses, I can't imagine having to manually focus with that viewfinder/screen.
I'm not that familiar with Canon film bodies....
I can't opt for the expensive 1v series, because I know I won't be into film that long (due to costs of film rolls, scanning, printing etc)
I'd opt for a Elan 7E (eos 30/33) but I'm not sure I wanna spend money on that either.
What other body can I get to take some quality shots using my curent lens (24L II, 135L, 50 1.4).
I'm not an expert on exposure,so perhaps I need a body with good exposure metering..
I know some of the film die-hards will say that being all manual is what film is all about, but I don't wanna start wasting rolls and rolls till I learn to proper expose with a cheapo body.
Looking at some photos posted above by alpenglowing,with his Nikon F100....now they look some quality photos...
the ones I took with the EOS 3000 are pretty crappy...
What would be the equivalent of F100 in Canon's line up? EOS 3? EOS 30/33 ?
Or if there are any threads where Canon film gear is discussed,perhaps somebody can point me to it.
Thanks!
I had a Eos 30 for a while and it seemed solid, slightly smaller than 5D. Metering was fine, but with manual lenses I had to compensate 3 stops with manual ISO setting. It's a design failure but is consistent. I must have some links bookmarked, if you are interested send me a pm. If you are going to mix EF lenses with alternative ones, perhaps it is not a good idea. I don't know if the problem was fixed with EOS 33.
Starting to iron out the Kallitype process and fix the issues I was having before. I wasted about 3 days printing poor digital negatives because I am an idiot. Once you are done editing an image in CS5 you are supposed to apply a contrast curve to the file so it prints out how you'd expect. Without the contrast curve the negative isn't near dense enough because of the way the printer and process works. I, for whatever reason, forgot to apply the curve for 3 days.
Yesterday I printed about a dozen proofs though. Here is one that I thought turned out well. Taken at Great Sand Dunes NP. Haven't posted this composition yet. The colors here are as close as I can get them to the actual print. These prints also look 100x better in my hand. The scanner sucks with textured paper.
Zaitz wrote:
Starting to iron out the Kallitype process and fix the issues I was having before. I wasted about 3 days printing poor digital negatives because I am an idiot. Once you are done editing an image in CS5 you are supposed to apply a contrast curve to the file so it prints out how you'd expect. Without the contrast curve the negative isn't near dense enough because of the way the printer and process works. I, for whatever reason, forgot to apply the curve for 3 days.
Yesterday I printed about a dozen proofs though. Here is one that I thought turned out well. Taken at Great Sand Dunes NP. Haven't posted this composition yet. The colors here are as close as I can get them to the actual print. These prints also look 100x better in my hand. The scanner sucks with textured paper.
obik wrote:
Very nice--it reminds me a lot of the Mars HIRISE images. Thanks!
I am wondering if anyone objects to me posting these here? Some of them are not originally shot on film but the negative is on transparency film and the print is silver or palladium/gold. I don't know of another thread in this section since 'alt' here is more about lenses/systems than alt process prints.
Kallitype print on Arches Platine. My trail below Star Dune at Great Sand Dunes NP.
I am wondering if anyone objects to me posting these here? Some of them are not originally shot on film but the negative is on transparency film and the print is silver or palladium/gold. I don't know of another thread in this section since 'alt' here is more about lenses/systems than alt process prints.
No, we don't mind!!! Keep them coming. Brilliant work.
I am curious why some people post medium format shots here, and some post them in the medium format image thread? I would expect to see the Mamiya 7 and 500C/M shots in the MF thread, but maybe there is another reason?
carsten I am not sure. But I rarely check the MF thread. I don't mind if people post them in both.
KatieInTexas wrote: I am wondering if anyone objects to me posting these here? Some of them are not originally shot on film but the negative is on transparency film and the print is silver or palladium/gold. I don't know of another thread in this section since 'alt' here is more about lenses/systems than alt process prints.
No, we don't mind!!! Keep them coming. Brilliant work. Well thank you!
Thanks! 
