*Post Your Film Shots*

[mehran.mo]

I'm sure that I'm not the only person who still shoots film these days. I know there are other forums that are specific to this but it doesn't mean we can't have our own little thread for film.

So post as many shots as you want and try to tell us the camera and the film used.

Here's a couple of mine for a start.

Both are shot with my Mamiya C330 and Portra 400NC

[Bob_A]

My stuff is all crud, but I'll play:

1. Took this one about 34 years ago with an Oly OM-1 with 50mm f/1.4. Kodak slide film of some sort (home developed, so probably Ektachrome).




2. This one's from June 1995, again with an OM-1 and 50mm f/1.4. Fuji G-200? film.




3. And a more recent one from 2004. Canon Elan II with 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 II USM using Fuji Reala.

[bjordan]

Originally Posted by Bob_A

Disney, Disney, Disney... how can I put this...?

[MG30D]

Below are a few of my Medium Format (120 film) scans.
Gear: Mamiya 645E & Mamiya-Sekor 80mm f/2.8
Scanner: Epson V500

Film: Fujifilm Neopan 400






Film: Fujifilm Provia 400X


Film: Fujifilm Astia 100F

[MG30D]

Below are a few of my 35mm film scans.
Gear: Mamiya 1000MX Auto CS & Mamiya-Sekor 50mm f/1.7 ($40 camera...no, I'm not joking the camera + lens was $40 )
Scanner: Epson V500

Film: Kodak Elite Chrome 100




Film: Ilford Delta 3200




Plus, here's one Polaroid
Gear: Polaroid Autofocus 660SE (The film cost more than the camera )

[Depth]

Once I can get access to a darkroom I'll get some more pics up. Cost to get film developed now is really high.


Leica M6 + Summicron-M 50mm f/2 using Kodak Tri-X.

[bjordan]

Originally Posted by Depth

Once I can get access to a darkroom I'll get some more pics up. Cost to get film developed now is really high now.

Dark bathroom? For my first roll I cut a couple of arm holes in a cardboard box and draped a heavy cloth over it. In a dark bathroom it was fine. I think I'm going to get a change bag though.

These are both TMax 400 taken with a Ricoh XR Solar and the awesome Pentax 50mm,f/1.4. The dog is in D-76, the car is in generic Adorama developer that I'll never use again.

TMax 400 --> D76 --> Canoscan 8800f --> Gimp

[AmandaMarie]

Does this count? My dad took it of me when I was like 7 learning to drive a dragster with his canon slr my mom bought him in like 1985.

I don't think he realized he had a little girl. NOT A BOY.

[Karl Johnston]

There's something about film...looks so much "realer" than digital

[rral22]

Originally Posted by Karl Johnston

There's something about film...looks so much "realer" than digital

I looked at the whole thread, and I really think there are some good images here, but how can we talk about the "look" of film when viewing it on the web? Every one of these images has been scanned, and is now appearing on a monitor. Their "film qualities" no longer exist. They ARE digital.

I really do believe that large prints from film have qualities I like, but you can't see them on a monitor.

[bjordan]

Originally Posted by rral22

I looked at the whole thread, and I really think there are some good images here, but how can we talk about the "look" of film when viewing it on the web? Every one of these images has been scanned, and is now appearing on a monitor. Their "film qualities" no longer exist. They ARE digital.

I really do believe that large prints from film have qualities I like, but you can't see them on a monitor.

Scanning film (or prints) digitally captures the "look" of the film in the grain and tone. I don't know if a consumer film scanner can capture the full dynamic range of B&W film, and doubt a monitor can display it, but I don't think it's any less than photographic paper.

[HappySnapper90]

Originally Posted by rral22

I looked at the whole thread, and I really think there are some good images here, but how can we talk about the "look" of film when viewing it on the web? Every one of these images has been scanned, and is now appearing on a monitor. Their "film qualities" no longer exist. They ARE digital.

That is not correct. They are scanned into a digital format, but they are still hold the film qualities. Negative film scanned properly will hold onto the much higher highlight retention that negative film has over even the best dSLR. I've proven it to myself shooting negative film on bright cloudless days outside when the sun is high in the sky and film can hold detail in the highlights where a dSLR would have all sorts of trouble and would end up with dark shadows and blown highlights.

Attached is a photo from my 5D (wide view and darker) that I developed in LR2 and even had to use fill light of about 35. The other is 200 speed consumer film, negative was scanned. These are taken a year apart but at the same location, same time of day and both had sunny skies. Notice how great the highlights are in the film scan and how light the shadows are compared to the 5D photo.

So scanning film doesn't make them digital. Their film qualities are maintained! Now if films scanners can "record" such a wide range of colors and brightnesses, why can't dSLRs do it at the point of capture?!

[bjordan]

Originally Posted by HappySnapper90

That is not correct. They are scanned into a digital format, but they are still hold the film qualities. Negative film scanned properly will hold onto the much higher highlight retention that negative film has over even the best dSLR. I've proven it to myself shooting negative film on bright cloudless days outside when the sun is high in the sky and film can hold detail in the highlights where a dSLR would have all sorts of trouble and would end up with dark shadows and blown highlights.

I rescanned the picture I posted before of the wiener dog at 4800dpi, 16-bit to look at the shadows/highlights. Lightening the deepest shadow (the foreground man's sunglasses), I could make out trees and a few reflected people. I could even see that there were buttons on a person's shirt! Surely the highlights in the scene were blown? Nope, the brightest highlight was another man's white T-shirt, and all but the very brightest parts still had some silver defining its wrinkles. T-Max 400 in D-76.

[FlyingPhotog]

Originally Posted by HappySnapper90

...

Now if films scanners can "record" such a wide range of colors and brightnesses, why can't dSLRs do it at the point of capture?!

Um, I'm gonna guess that people don't want to wait 20 to 60+ seconds for a caputre to finish?

[Tixeon]

Originally Posted by HappySnapper90

Attached is a photo from my 5D (wide view and darker) that I developed in LR2 and even had to use fill light of about 35. The other is 200 speed consumer film, negative was scanned. These are taken a year apart but at the same location, same time of day and both had sunny skies. Notice how great the highlights are in the film scan and how light the shadows are compared to the 5D photo.

So scanning film doesn't make them digital. Their film qualities are maintained! Now if films scanners can "record" such a wide range of colors and brightnesses, why can't dSLRs do it at the point of capture?!

It is possible that the light conditions (between the two different days) were exact. What about humidity levels? High humidity = softer contrast, open shadows, & better highlights on both film & digital................tw