Show us yer film shots then!

''Folks'' thanks for the very encouraging words. I really appreciate them. My hope is that I can provide those who view my pictures a sense of being there with me in the scene. The majority of my pictures are up close and personal. Photos farther than 20 feet (6 meters) I consider on the far side for me. 8~)...Having said this, I believe content/context is most important. Some images need narrative while others will stand on their own. With some scenes or stories you will need more than one image to tell a story. Good street photography is hard to do regardless of where you are. I am very picky of when I release the shutter, and at that, I delete 95% of the images I make.
Again folks. Thank you. :)



retrogamer1990 said:
Apologies if it was badly worded crit, I just don't like the shot. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying that you are a bad photographer or anything Javier, I just think you have much stronger images on your flickr and in the other threads, I just couldn't see why you posted that one, each to their own I guess :)
Click to expand...
To be honest, I took no offense. I am pretty secure in my own style of street photography. For the very same reasons that ''you'' do not like the picture, many folks who left comments on flickr like the image...Anyway, all is good.
 
I like both Javier's and Nick's images (now where did I leave my fence), but for different reasons, just like I like film and digital. Javier takes me to places I will probably never visit and Nick has the confidence to get up close to people which I find almost impossible to do.

Anyway here's my bit of street/candid.

Dog-at-the-door2 by andysnapper1, on Flickr

No problem with confidence here although he did seem to resent my being there. Ross Ensign 16-20 on Fomapan 100 and faffed with in Topaz black & white.

Cheers

Andy
 
Andysnap said:
I like both Javier's and Nick's images (now where did I leave my fence), but for different reasons, just like I like film and digital. Javier takes me to places I will probably never visit and Nick has the confidence to get up close to people which I find almost impossible to do.

Anyway here's my bit of street/candid.

Dog-at-the-door2 by andysnapper1, on Flickr

No problem with confidence here although he did seem to resent my being there. Ross Ensign 16-20 on Fomapan 100 and faffed with in Topaz black & white.

Cheers

Andy
Click to expand...

Love the photo, the sepia toning really suits!
 
I think maybe what was irritating about the comment ...

this is NOT a crit thread, and the comment was out of place / not welcome.

If he had viewed the whole thread start to finish, and still made the comment, then there would be trouble :nono: :LOL:

seems like no real harm was done ... let's carry on :)
 
***let's carry on***

Indeed..... a crop from a shot taken last week with a Tak 135mm f3.5

tak135mm2.jpg
 
Not looking for any crit. for mine ;) as it's the very first film shot I've ever taken (except for when I was a nipper using the family cam). First lesson for next time is not to bump the tripod, and to get my lines straight.


Gascoigne Road - 4x5 by Rod.F, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
That's very good for your first film shot...now what were all the other shots like on the roll :)
 
Rod.F said:
Not looking for any crit. for mine ;) as it's the very first film shot I've ever taken (except for when I was a nipper using the family cam). First lesson for next time is not to bump the tripod, and to get my lines straight.


Gascoigne Road - 4x5 by Rod.F, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Colour is stunning - what was the film?
 
excalibur2 said:
That's very good for your first film shot...now what were all the other shots like on the roll :)
Click to expand...

Thanks but I was using 4x5 film (Ektar 100) so there's no roll, just a film holder with this picture and a very blurry alternative.
 
looked like ektar. the composition is great as well. although I very rarely like city shots - I like this one for sure !

Actually even like the small blur. makes it more dynamic.
 
Last edited:
Rod.F said:
Thanks but I was using 4x5 film (Ektar 100) so there's no roll, just a film holder with this picture and a very blurry alternative.
Click to expand...

:bonk: just shows you what I know about photography :bonk::LOL:
 
I got my Grandad's camera, a Super Finetta from 1951 or so with a 45mm f2.8 lens from my mam last time I was home and gave it a good cla. As it has no meter, a tiny viewfinder and the shutter speeds tester "ok", I thought I'd just risk a roll of Poundland Kodak for the first few shots. I'm impressed - it's a Tessar lens from what I can see, so it's pretty sharp and has an interesting redition.

Two sample shots:
20111104155038_scan-111005-0012.jpg


20111104155023_scan-111005-0003.jpg


To be honest, I'm also happy that my focal distance estimation was approximately correct!
 
Cuchulainn said:
I got my Grandad's camera, a Super Finetta from 1951 or so with a 45mm f2.8 lens from my mam last time I was home and gave it a good cla. As it has no meter, a tiny viewfinder and the shutter speeds tester "ok", I thought I'd just risk a roll of Poundland Kodak for the first few shots. I'm impressed - it's a Tessar lens from what I can see, so it's pretty sharp and has an interesting redition.

Two sample shots:
20111104155038_scan-111005-0012.jpg


20111104155023_scan-111005-0003.jpg


To be honest, I'm also happy that my focal distance estimation was approximately correct!
Click to expand...

Looking good (y)
 
freecom2 said:
Ektar is meant to be quite vivid anyway though?
Click to expand...

Ektar is pretty resilient to reciprocity failure as well, no exposure compensation required up to 4 minutes but with a cyan colour shift (which to me suits urban/industrial long exposures).
 
Taken a couple of weeks ago on superia 200 and Hexanon 40mm f1.8...Asda cocked up the scan and I had to scan the neg myself, boring but I had less spots to touch up. :)

Hex40mm1000px.jpg
 
Alastair said:
Ektar is pretty resilient to reciprocity failure as well, no exposure compensation required up to 4 minutes but with a cyan colour shift (which to me suits urban/industrial long exposures).
Click to expand...

Are you sure? My shot was metered for 60 seconds at f/22 but I had to compensate it to 259 seconds (edit: should be 159 seconds) at f/22. I read reciprocity failure kicks in for exposures longer than 1 second.
 
Last edited:
From the datasheet:

Adjustments for Long and Short Exposures
No filter correction or exposure compensation is required
for exposures from 1⁄10,000 second to 1 second. For
critical applications with longer exposure times, make tests
under your conditions.
Click to expand...

Some say none needed, some say a stop and a half extra after a minute or so. Underexposed Ektar goes blue.
 
Essentially Kodak have said that they can't reliably predict the reciprocity failure accurately enough to give a definitive time alteration needed, IMO.

Jim - are you still getting to grips with the M6? Only just that, for Acros developed in Rodinal, the pictures seem to lack a biting sharpness, especially the last one which I would especially expect to see in a portrait.
 
freecom2 said:
Essentially Kodak have said that they can't reliably predict the reciprocity failure accurately enough to give a definitive time alteration needed, IMO.

Jim - are you still getting to grips with the M6? Only just that, for Acros developed in Rodinal, the pictures seem to lack a biting sharpness, especially the last one which I would especially expect to see in a portrait.
Click to expand...

It all seems fine to me and the images look sharp here. Did you increase the size by clicking on them?
 
Only up to 1024px, the highest I could go on flickr. Rodinal tends to bring out a "biting" sharpness that I'm just not seeing...
 
freecom2 said:
Only up to 1024px, the highest I could go on flickr. Rodinal tends to bring out a "biting" sharpness that I'm just not seeing...
Click to expand...

I have looked at these full size and all the detail is there. Looking at the portrait, skin detail and blemishes are obvious as are stubble. My scanner isn't the best for absolute sharpness but these look pretty good to me full size. I don't upload to Flickr full size as it seems a waste, so perhaps something has been lost there as well.
 
Apologies, I didn't mean this to be a clinical examination of the photo, maybe I'm just used to seeing the results of this combination on medium format and that's the explanation for the difference.
 
Just a gentle reminder folks - this thread is essentially a photo-sharing thread - there's a film and conventional section in the "Feedback and Critique" area, where you can knock yourself out giving critique on images posted... this particular thead is (or at least should be, since the Film Crit. section opened) more of a F&C version of the "Photo's for Pleasure" section down in "Everything Else". So - if you WANT critique on your shots, please post a thread with them here, but if you just want to share your shots with us, and aren't particularly interested in critique of the image, put them in this thread.

I know that by-and-large, pictures are normally considered "fair game" for critique, if posted outside of the "Photo's for Pleasure" section - but remember - this thread is actually in a discussion area, and shouldn't really be allowed to be here in the first place...
 
Rod.F said:
Are you sure? My shot was metered for 60 seconds at f/22 but I had to compensate it to 259 seconds at f/22. I read reciprocity failure kicks in for exposures longer than 1 second.
Click to expand...

I thought I'd uploaded the 4 minute exposure to Flickr, but I put up the 30 second exposure from the same night instead. This was when I first bought the RB67 and I was shooting the RB loaded with Ektar alongside digital, shot-for-shot with identical exposures at night. Up to four minutes (the longest I shot on the night) there was no appreciable difference between the digital shot and the Ektar shot, except for the slight cyan colour shift. Perhaps this is an underexposure shift? but as I'm shooting at night and wanting rich dark blue skies..

From memory (I'll need to dig out the archive HD to confirm) the only reason I decided to generally max out at 30-60 seconds when shooting Ektar at night was to limit the cyan shift, rather than an exposure reciprocity failure. That and I tend to do most of my night shoots between November and March, and it's too dam cold to be hanging around looking at your watch!

The dynamic range of Ektar at night still blows me away when I look back at my shots with it. I usually shoot right off the Fred Parker guide with Ektar at night, no adjustment.
 
That's a stunning photo Alastair. I must admit I am not familiar with the Fred Parker guide, I followed the suggested adjusted times of this website.
 
Thanks Rod. Hmm, so if I was shooting 4mins and the suggested correction is 6.3 mins, I'm still only somewhere around 1/2 a stop under according to his tests. Doubtful it would be even noticeable on a scan given the latitude of Ektar.
 
If you were shooting 4 minutes (240 sec) then the suggested correction seems to be 14 minutes (871.5 sec), no? The difference seems to be just under 1 1/2 stops, but your above picture came out well exposed so I'm not really too sure!!
 
No, 14.1 is for the 8 minute exposure, unless I'm getting my lines crossed reading them.

The posted example on the link was 30 seconds, I'll look for the 4 minute shot on Monday.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top