I'm a huge fan of film! I understand and appreciate the benefits of using digital, but I think there is still something to be said for the "look" of film.
1: Canon EOS 3, 85L, Kodak Tri-X 400
2: Canon EOS 3, 85L, Kodak Tri-X 400
3: Mamiya RZ67 Pro II, 210mm Mamiya APO-Sekor Z, Kodak Portra 400NC
canerino wrote:
Thought this might be fun. Just got some rolls back the other day.
All of these were shot with a Leica M6 + 35mm Zeiss ZM. All Tri-X 400.
such great gear, and nice shots too- but why aren't you developing it yourself?
B&W is easy, all you need is a dark-ish room or changing bag, a tank, and $25 worth of chemicals will last you a while. This way you get the full experience, more control, and it pays for itself after a few rolls. I can't THINK of paying to have my B&W machine developed, or paying somebody else to soup it.
I'm not trying to be an elitist prick or anything, just recommending you try it out, if you haven't done it already. I have about a dozen rolls i need to dev myself.
ISO1600 wrote:
such great gear, and nice shots too- but why aren't you developing it yourself?
B&W is easy, all you need is a dark-ish room or changing bag, a tank, and $25 worth of chemicals will last you a while. This way you get the full experience, more control, and it pays for itself after a few rolls. I can't THINK of paying to have my B&W machine developed, or paying somebody else to soup it.
I'm not trying to be an elitist prick or anything, just recommending you try it out, if you haven't done it already. I have about a dozen rolls i need to dev myself....Show more →
didnt take it as you being an elitist at all! its actually a good suggestion. i guess I am just starting to get my feet wet with film, so I dont want to take on too much too soon...sounds silly, but I am still concentrating on loading film properly, focusing accurately, and exposing properly.
truth is that I only started taking photos about 4 years ago and started with a digital rebel, not film. i only recently started shooting film when a relative gave me an old yashica. I got two BW rolls developed and saw the difference that everyone was talking about. hell, my wife even can see the difference in the BWs (and she pays NO attention to photography).
I'll have to do some reading on how to develop my own stuff. thanks for the kick in my butt!
canerino wrote:
I only recently started shooting film when a relative gave me an old yashica. I got two BW rolls developed and saw the difference that everyone was talking about. hell, my wife even can see the difference in the BWs (and she pays NO attention to photography).
I'll have to do some reading on how to develop my own stuff. thanks for the kick in my butt!
BTW, really nice photos everyone!
I started shooting film with a Yashica FX-3 Super 2000. I got it on eBay for a whole $20 with a 35-50 zoom lens If anyone is thinking about trying out film, the cheapest way to buy into Zeiss lenses is to grab a Yashica. The next thing I need to do is convince my girlfriend that I need a Leica (boy would an M6 be nice ).
Matt: How do you like the Ilford chromogenic B&W? I tried it a couple of times but it seemed too grainy. It's a good chance that I had the exposure off though, so that's why I'm asking
Matt: How do you like the Ilford chromogenic B&W? I tried it a couple of times but it seemed too grainy. It's a good chance that I had the exposure off though, so that's why I'm asking
It is grainy (which is odd because a lot of people used to claim the chromogenic films were too fine grained to look right..) but noticably less so if you nail the exposure. A lot of my scans (like those posted) look grainier than they are because the scanning service I use tends to block up the grain a bit.. It's still worth it for me though because I can get it developed and scanned onto CD very easily and cheaply, and anything great I can replrint from the negative or get scanned properly..
Matt Cope wrote:
It is grainy (which is odd because a lot of people used to claim the chromogenic films were too fine grained to look right..) but noticably less so if you nail the exposure. A lot of my scans (like those posted) look grainier than they are because the scanning service I use tends to block up the grain a bit.. It's still worth it for me though because I can get it developed and scanned onto CD very easily and cheaply, and anything great I can replrint from the negative or get scanned properly..
I only tried it out once when I first started shooting film, but ended up just sticking with Kodak. I guess I'll give another go, but I've got about 20 rolls of the Kodak BW400CN in my freezer, so it might take awhile
some really cool shots here! glad to see this thread still going.
i have a question for the forum here. why in the world cant the look of black and white film be duplicated in photoshop? with all the amazing things that people do with PS, why cant they pull off the look of TriX
? with all the amazing things that people do with PS, why cant they pull off the look of TriX