- This topic has 24 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 12y ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
Here’s a picture of morning light falling on a unique building. Canon AE-1, 50mm 1.8 lens, color negative film.
-
-
Another frame from the same roll. I liked the contrast of the other exposure, but here the foreground is visible, just boring I guess. I also did get a little closer for this one it seems, but probably not close enough. The reason I’m at this distance is because a lot of ground level clutter is obscured by a rise. Excuses aside crap is crap, but this is a learning process. Thanks for your advice 🙂
-
And one last try before I let this one go
-
Color negative film. Which one? There are so few left…
I can’t say that I like the image but I suppose that’s not relevant. Technically speaking the foreground is a little dark. Can you look at the EXIF and tell us what shutter speed was :o) KIDDING
I jokingly asked about the shutter speed because if the shutter speed is long enough you can expose for the shadows and wave (not hold) your hand in front of the lens roughly in the area that is bright to balance the exposure. I do that sometimes at night and it helps the foreground exposure enough that I don’t have a add any light. For a daylight shot you would need about 10 stops of ND filter to get any useful exposure time for “that trick”.
Did you spot meter the light and dark areas to set exposure? It might be that you have enough available range in the film that you could have opened up or slowed the shutter speed down to bring the foreground exposure up.
Like so:
-
Michael-lloyd, thanks for the input!
I believe the film was Kodak Gold 200, about 10 years old, but it may have been fresh fujifilm superia x-tra 400. The AE-1 has a center weighted meter, and on the first I did aim to use the zone system for a 5 stop range, placing the grass (not in direct light) in zone 3 (subtract 2 stops) and the sky in zone 7 (add 2 stops) to meet in the middle. So my choice to place the foreground in zone 3 is suspect, as 4 or 5 may have been more appropriate. Color negative film could have handled the increased exposure of the subject as well.
The hand trick is interesting, though I was shooting hand held at the time. I’ve been thinking about investing in a basic set of filters for one thread size (probably the FD 50mm 1.4) and I should probably include a ND filter with as many high range shots as I try.
-
Interesting to still see a film user around! Can’t remember when last I’ve seen film on the shelf – I think the biggest challenge at the moment would not be the disadvantage of using film, but to FIND film at all!
I think your starting problem with this set of photo’s is that you’re sitting with a huge foreground which is dark and irrelevant (in terms of adding value). Sometimes a grassy foreground adds some value and then it makes more sense to leave it in (e.g. https://www.flickr.com/photos/tobie_schalkwyk/14126087337/ where I was having the same goal in mind as yourself). I like the light in the 3rd pic and I think it might have been worthwhile to experiment with a 3-stop / 4-stop GND filter to bring the building & foreground closer in terms of exposure. I think had it been me I probably would have gone much closer to fill the frame with mainly the building itself. But I guess you’ve had your reasons for taking the pic from this spot.
PS: for my flickr photo quoted above I was using f/16 (to prevent blur of the grasses), 2 sec, ISO 100 (to stay sharp), 36mm, centre weighted average metering (to prevent too much contrast between dark & light). If I remember correctly I’ve had a 1-stop GND filter fitted. I don’t know how many of these you can adjust yourself on your camera, but perhaps when you go out there again use them as a starting point and take it further from there?
-
Side note about film- It’s available on Ebay but you have to be very careful of expiration date. Ilford and Fuji both make film. Kodak recently stopped. That caused a huge rush on Tri-X and other popular films. Sheet films are hard to find and expensive, especially above 4×5. Roll film still offers the greatest variety.
There is a large community of film shooters on the web. APUG (Analog Photographers User Group) is probably the most dedicated to film. They do not allow scans of negatives but of course a scan of a print is fine otherwise there would be no way to share. DPUG is a mix of digital, film, and scanned negatives. The Large Format forum is all large format. Even video has it’s group of film shooters.
I’ve gotten good prices and good expiration dates from B&H Photo.
The one thing that I didn’t figure out about film prior to switching to digital is that all films have a specific dynamic range (like sensors). I wish I would have had the resources that are available now back in the 70’s. One of the worst things that I did back then was switch from a manual camera (Yashica FR2) to a new “automatic” camera (AE1P). I relied on auto so much that it severely curtailed my education on photography. Learn to see the tonal ranges in the image and expose accordingly. Sometimes the range will be greater than the film can capture. At that point you need to decide what you want to capture or if you want to capture and expose accordingly.
-
-
Not for me… Roll film is easy to find. I can even get 4×5 sheets but they over charge for it. B&H offers free shipping and they turn their stock over regularly so film like Delta 100, Acros 100, and the Fuji color offerings have really good expiration dates.
-
I live in a super rural area, though I’ve recently ordered film from both Amazon and the Film Photography Project (though B&H might have better prices). I can also buy it in Kansas City where I’m from originally, when I visit.
I don’t have a scanner myself, and I always get negatives scanned. I either use thedarkroom.com or a lab in KC.
I’m sure the expired Kodak gold had less of a dynamic range, hence the over darkening of less exposed areas. I may try to shoot my next roll with a stop more light to see how it does. I didn’t pay for the free film, so I can’t complain about it 🙂
-
-
These scans came from thedarkroom.com, a pretty reputable lab. I also use crick camera in KC, and they’ve done a pretty good job. That said, the darkroom runs probably 70 rolls a day so fresh chemicals yes, auto scanner, yes. If I were to shell out for the enhanced scans I might get more attention as well, but processing is by far the most expensive part of this hobby (since I’m using vintage equipment) so if I’m just goofing off or not too attached to a roll I don’t splurge.
I also wanted to chime back that I hear you on the manual exposures. I love the AE-1 program, though a lot of times I use shutter priority and turn the knob until I get the aperture I want (making sure I’m not too slow) while focusing with my left. Program is useful too sometimes. One thing I prefer about manual is that it really slows you down, conserves film and makes you think about the shot.
My most recent ones to play with is an Olympus/Tower 35-s using my phone as a light meter or Sunny 16, and a sexy Ricoh 500G in black (full manual and shutter priority in a tiny rangefinder – many cameras in the class either give you auto exposure and or ditch the finder for scale focus).
-
-
My Sinar F2 4×5 is all manual all of the time. I shoot the DSLR’s in manual most of the time but I will slip it into shutter priority if the light is wonky or I need shoot fast and maintain a specific f stop.
I have a little Voightlander Prominent rangefinder loaded with Ilford Pan F Plus 50 sitting on my desk right now. That little sucker will make you work at remembering all of the catchy little rules of unmetered photography (like Sunny 16). My old EOS 1N has Delta 100 in it.
@driverv for small spaces there are roller stands (powered and unpowered), “slosh boxes”, and other assorted gizmos for developing black and white film at the kitchen sink. Used Jobo tanks and reels can be found on eBay.I’ve still got my motorized roller base and a tank for 4×5 (or a small Jobo drum) but since I have a working Jobo CPP2 now I don’t use the base.
All one needs after you have that is a Harrison changing tent, some kind of changing bag or a dark room, and some beakers and you’re good to go with black and white.
-
@michael-lloyd I used to have a Sinar F2, such a great camera.
Where did you hear that Kodak stopped making film?
Last I heard they had come out of bankruptcy and were producing negative films such as Portra 160, 400 & 800, Ektar 100 and TMAX and Tri-X, no Plus-X or color reversal sadly.
This link seems current
But I may not be up to the minute on developments (punny huh).
-
I love the Sinar F2. It’s sad how cheap they can be had for now but I benefited from it so I’m not complaining.
Well I’ll be. I heard Kodak was going into bankruptcy last year and there would be no more kodak film. It looks like your link is valid and the film stock at B&H is a lot better than it was last year. Expensive though…
So far I really like Portra 160. The lab that I used for my first negatives made a mess of them but I’ve seen other peoples results and I like it.
-
I really enjoy shooting black and white, though with spring in full it’s hard to stay off of the colors. I do imagine that a small B&W set up with a scanner would pay for itself within a dozen rolls, so I will have to keep that in mind.
I’ll have the opportunity to borrow a F100 this weekend, and I think I’ll run a roll of Velvia 50 through it. It will be my first time shooting slides. While I may be doing myself a disservice by using such a sophisticated meter, I’m hoping it will help me gain some confidence to use more slide film. I also hope to learn from how the camera meters various shots as compared to how a center weighted meter might act. Once I get the light seals and mirror damper replaced, I plan to log some time behind a FTb QL (full manual, spot meter) and really learn the zone system.
-
Let me know if you want the roller base @zerileous. It’s just taking up space and not worth Ebaying. The base changes direction automatically so you get very even development. The tank that I have for it is an old print tank that can be used for 4×5. However… I ruined a few negatives in it before I figured out how to keep the negs from overlapping in the tank so it’s not the best solution, just a solution. By far the roller base is the best piece of the two.
If you shot 4×5 I have a Patterson tank for sheet film (lots of YouTube videos on that) that you could have. It’s new (unused) but I’m not going to use it. Once I got my Jobo I stopped using the tanks. Used Jobo tanks are all over eBay. Some more used than others.
A dark room or a changing bag is all you need. I was surprised at how easy it was to load and unload holders and tanks in the bags.
The Epson V700 seems to be the current film scanner of choice btw. It has higher resolution and cost 25% of the 10000XL I bought years ago. On the other hand,
if you develop your own negs and view them with a light table you can send just what you want out for scanning not the whole roll.
-
Thanks for all of the suggestions @michael-lloyd. So essentially I’d just need a tank, developer, fixer, a dark bag, and a light box. I think I’ll be sticking to 35mm for now, but I’ll definitely let you know if I decide to jump into developing, as it seems like a lot of fun and the roller would certainly make things easier!
-
I’m still hoping to start developing my own black and white film in the near future, but things have been pretty hectic between work and being out of town. I thought I would post a follow up to the picture in this thread originally, taken from much closer using an Olympus XA3 35mm fixed focal length camera, Kodak 400, full auto exposure, zone focusing.
hospitalredux.jpg by Zerileous on Light Stalkingedit: the vignette is an actual characteristic of this camera, not added in post.
-
Its OK but you say its of an interesting building. I can’t really see the building and you need to get in closer, show what is interesting about the building….less is more. The interestingness has been lost in my opinion.
There is too much sky, its nice to have negative space but in this case there is too much, its a photo of an ‘interesting’ building yet once again the interestingness is lost. I feel the standard rule of 1/3 has been followed to religiously.
I see you adjusted the exposure and contrast later so thats good…
-
@joe7b, are you commenting on the original post, or the subsequent take on the same building posted today? Should I have started a new thread for this one?
-
-
Thanks Joe, this probably would have been a good time to use some exposure compensation. I still struggle with high range images at sunrise and sunset where part of the subject is in light and part in shadow.
I still think the building has potential, with the rounded second floor, square first floor, recessed windows with skylights and such. It’s a good thing I’ll have plenty of opportunities to shoot here because it’s where I work 🙂
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
