Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Who is still using film and why?  (Read 14384 times)
Gary Yeowell
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 188


« Reply #100 on: August 10, 2013, 05:48:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Well David, my judgement is from using the S2 alongside film, and my conclusion is as written.

As for the 'personal' bit.

http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/Search/Search.aspx?assettype=image&artist=Gary+Yeowell

Anyway, you won't get any clue from thumbnails in terms of 'quality' whatever that means.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2013, 06:08:42 AM by Gary Yeowell » Logged
Gary Yeowell
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 188


« Reply #101 on: August 10, 2013, 06:05:23 AM »
ReplyReply

To Kirk, i hear you, and getting tougher.
Best,
Gary.
Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1834


« Reply #102 on: August 10, 2013, 12:05:41 PM »
ReplyReply

This is what I'm digging about C1 7 and M9 files. At around 800 the limits of the sensor show noise, but C1 let's me dial it in so it looks grainy and, well, analogue. Dial the luminance noise up or down, the noise looks like soft grain.  Combined with the 70's lenses that have nice texture and a cool cast , a rounded rendering, sharp but not too much contrast.  I've never been happier with digital files.

T



Then again I like the mft cameras because they don't have a huge ambient color range, they do noise up after 800 iso and they look t me like film . . . but I shot epr transparency film that even at 64 asa was still grainy, so what d I know?

I do know that I have seen beautiful digital images, beautiful film images and at the end of the day, it probably doesn't matter.

IMO

BC
Logged
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1519


WWW
« Reply #103 on: August 10, 2013, 12:16:13 PM »
ReplyReply

For people who don't have a lab close or if it's expensive, just do it yourself
I've been doing c41 and e6 for a few weeks now and both MF and 35mm come out great.
When scanning I can correct small colorchances but I have to admit that up until now (15-16 rolls) I've had no problems yet.

Next week I will try some BW. Somehow I started with color developing because I heard it was next to impossible, well after destroying roll 1 all have been good so I think it can be done, do remember I'm scanning not printing so I don't know how critical it is when printing in the darkroom, but with scanning it looks more than good.
Logged
DanielStone
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 540


« Reply #104 on: August 10, 2013, 01:13:51 PM »
ReplyReply

For people who don't have a lab close or if it's expensive, just do it yourself
I've been doing c41 and e6 for a few weeks now and both MF and 35mm come out great.
When scanning I can correct small colorchances but I have to admit that up until now (15-16 rolls) I've had no problems yet.

Next week I will try some BW. Somehow I started with color developing because I heard it was next to impossible, well after destroying roll 1 all have been good so I think it can be done, do remember I'm scanning not printing so I don't know how critical it is when printing in the darkroom, but with scanning it looks more than good.


Color processes(c-41 and E-6) are "standardized" across the board. So Provia 100F's "normal" time according to Fuji is the same "normal" time for Velvia 50, etc...

Same for C-41. The "normal" time is 3:15, however if you DIY, you can adjust it for how YOU want it, exactly. A friend of mine was rating Portra 400 @ asa 100(so a 2 stop overexposure), but PULLING(reducing developing time, especially dangerous w/ c-41 since it's a very short dev time, 3:15min) development so his "normal" time for the look he wanted(low contrast, low saturation) was 2:50. Those 25sec were a HUGE difference time-wise, but after some experimentation, it achieved the look HE wanted, not how Kodak decided it should be. Of course, breaking out of these 'boundaries' that many film photographers impose on themselves can allow them to achieve something that sets their work apart.

I've encountered photographers who used to shoot certain films a special way, color filtration(like an 81C(very warm filter) and a 10R. I tried it and "yuck" said I .... Toooooo garish for ME. But for them, it worked. Oh, they also rated the film @ 1/2 box speed, then pushed it 1.5stops. IDK why, I haven't seen any shots from that particular setup(the film in question, Fuji's MS100-1000) is/was disc'd already.

I personally like the look of Portra 800, rated at 400, then pushed 1/2 stop. Add a slight warming filter(like an 81A) and I have negatives that scan extremely well, the color is nice and inviting(great for shooting people on 6x7/6x8) and it achieves the 'look' *I* want IN THE NEGATIVE(not doing excessive post work after the fact).

long-winded reply I know, but it seems many a photographer are afraid to "step outside the box", even now with digital. But that's their decision, not mine Smiley

Frank, I just wish Fuji would sell their 5L E-6 6bath kits here in the USA like they do in EU. I'd be going through more E6 film if I could DIY w/o having to buy lab-sized cubitainers of chemistry designed for labs....

cheers,
Dan
Logged
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1519


WWW
« Reply #105 on: August 10, 2013, 05:27:55 PM »
ReplyReply

At the moment I'm following the rules.
I use the tetanol 5ltr packs.
Logged
jsch
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 423


« Reply #106 on: August 11, 2013, 05:15:04 AM »
ReplyReply

At the moment I'm following the rules.
I use the tetanol 5ltr packs.

Hi Frank,

you develop your films in the Tetanus vaccine "Tetanol"? I know of Caffenol and Xtol but never heard of a alternative process which uses the vaccine "Tetanol".

Best,
Johannes
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


WWW
« Reply #107 on: August 11, 2013, 05:20:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Tetenal, I presume.

Best regards
Erik


Hi Frank,

you develop your films in the Tetanus vaccine "Tetanol"? I know of Caffenol and Xtol but never heard of a alternative process which uses the vaccine "Tetanol".

Best,
Johannes
Logged

iluvmycam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 302


WWW
« Reply #108 on: August 11, 2013, 02:38:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Widelux and SWC is why. But I prefer digital.
Logged
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1519


WWW
« Reply #109 on: August 12, 2013, 01:41:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Oops, I could say "yeah dude the look I get from analogue is SICK" but this was auto correct from my phone Cheesy
Tetenal indeed.
Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad