Here's a couple from my last rolls of Delta 3200 which I fired off last weekend on my F4. Both were shot wide open with the 50mm f/1.8 AF (pre-D if that makes any difference). I really need to get a better focusing screen though for using my 28 f/2 and 55 f/2.8 AIS lenses
AbramG wrote:
Here's a couple from my last rolls of Delta 3200 which I fired off last weekend on my F4. Both were shot wide open with the 50mm f/1.8 AF (pre-D if that makes any difference). I really need to get a better focusing screen though for using my 28 f/2 and 55 f/2.8 AIS lenses
rattymouse wrote:
Those are great shots. Makes me want to try Delta 3200 in 35mm. I've only ever shot this film in 120 size.
Thanks! I don't actually really love the film in 35mm, I think it's far better in 120 format personally. I do however like Kodak TMAX 3200 (the reissued one), that strikes me as more usable high speed emulsion.
AbramG wrote:
Thanks! I don't actually really love the film in 35mm, I think it's far better in 120 format personally. I do however like Kodak TMAX 3200 (the reissued one), that strikes me as more usable high speed emulsion.
Very nice shots Abram.
I really have the feeling, when I look at my old darkroom prints from 30++ years ago, that scanning film doesn't do it justice. If it was still feasible, I would very much prefer to make wet prints from negatives and scan them with a quality flatbed scanner (for online posting). Your shots would look much better when wet printed, and you won't feel much need for shooting medium format
AbramG wrote:
Thanks! I don't actually really love the film in 35mm, I think it's far better in 120 format personally. I do however like Kodak TMAX 3200 (the reissued one), that strikes me as more usable high speed emulsion.
I agree with Edward. Your shots will look beautiful wet printed vs scanned. The grain, already quite emotive, will simply melt away a bit more.
You guys aren’t wrong! I definitely miss working in a darkroom. It’s been far FAR too long. For now at least I am satisfied with scanning mostly (I use a Coolscan 4000ED) but I hope that someday I’ll get to build a darkroom.
Actually I already have the OK from my wife for when we buy a home, if we have the space I get to make a darkroom for myself!
I really have the feeling, when I look at my old darkroom prints from 30++ years ago, that scanning film doesn't do it justice. If it was still feasible, I would very much prefer to make wet prints from negatives and scan them with a quality flatbed scanner (for online posting). Your shots would look much better when wet printed, and you won't feel much need for shooting medium format
I was giving this some thought while listening to music yesterday. I've just started a Tidal subscription, and the sound quality is fantastic. But... for some of the classic analogue recordings that I also have on vinyl, it's quite clear that the digital conversions can't follow the original. Something is "lost in translation", and the artistic expression suffers.
I was wondering to what degree this would be relevant for film, but my feeling is that it is. I haven't been in a darkroom for decades, but I'm increasingly tempted to go back to that process for some personal work, doing wet prints.
Jorgen Udvang wrote:
I was giving this some thought while listening to music yesterday. I've just started a Tidal subscription, and the sound quality is fantastic. But... for some of the classic analogue recordings that I also have on vinyl, it's quite clear that the digital conversions can't follow the original. Something is "lost in translation", and the artistic expression suffers.
I was wondering to what degree this would be relevant for film, but my feeling is that it is. I haven't been in a darkroom for decades, but I'm increasingly tempted to go back to that process for some personal work, doing wet prints....Show more →
I feel that it’s mostly in the highlights and shadows that scanning falls short. Wet prints have a certain rendering where you can have pure whites and pure blacks that are esthetically pleasing and I rarely see that in scanned film.
edwardkaraa wrote:
I feel that it’s mostly in the highlights and shadows that scanning falls short. Wet prints have a certain rendering where you can have pure whites and pure blacks that are esthetically pleasing and I rarely see that in scanned film.
A bit Off topic, but figured this board was as likely to know as any... any thoughts on the Bronica S2A? Sold my ETRS a while back and regret it. Pretty sure I’m going to get an S2A kit with 50, 75 and 150 Nikkors, but thought I’d get some input. Thanks regardless.
Mathieu18 wrote:
A bit Off topic, but figured this board was as likely to know as any... any thoughts on the Bronica S2A? Sold my ETRS a while back and regret it. Pretty sure I’m going to get an S2A kit with 50, 75 and 150 Nikkors, but thought I’d get some input. Thanks regardless.
Over in the Nikon Manual Focus Glass thread, one of the guys there, Saph, uses one I believe. Very nice output.
Mamiya RZ67 Pro (6x7 cm) with Mamiya 65/4 K/L lens with Fuji Velvia 100F slide film, home developed with E-6. Scanned with Epson V850. Colors directly out of the box, no PP other than deleting some dust spots and slight highlight/contrast adjustments.
Got two 5 packs of old, expired 2003 Kodak supra 400. Figured it was roasted bad and shot a roll rated at 125. The results were actually pretty good. A bit of a color shift that was for the most part, easily adjusted in LR with the WB sliders. Anyways, here are some from the first roll.
