The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

More and more film fun with something other than a Leica M

Godfrey

Well-known member
These are from the same 2 rolls of HP5 as I posted from a couple of months ago. I just didn't have time to scan the rest until now. Hit rate film vs. digital? Huge difference!
SO why do you think so? because film costs money and we use it more careful/do think more about it?
I am in the phase of starting using film again (additional to digital).
Best, Tom
The only thing that could possibly contribute to a 'greate hit rate' is that you take more time to see and prepare each exposure with film ... either because you have only so much film to work with or you perceive it to be more expensive and don't want to waste it. At least for me ...

Shooting with the Polaroid is much more difficult to get what I want due to the limited latitude and various inconsistencies of the film. As a result, I work harder at it and get a few more picks per shots made.

I work film in short spurts. Even 35mm and 6x6 after a time becomes tiresome due to all the limitations, so when it becomes too much of a chore I set it down and keep going again at another time.

G
 

4season

Well-known member
A couple of mine from 2016, both shot on Kodak Ektar 100. Shot with Lomo LC-Wide and LC-A 120 respectively.



 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
SO why do you think so? because film costs money and we use it more careful/do think more about it?
I am in the phase of starting using film again (additional to digital).
Best, Tom
Money is only one side of it. Another important side is the fact that I, and I'm sure many other photographers, tend to get nervous carrying a digital camera with less than 100, sometimes even more, exposures left for the day. With 3 rolls of film, I feel ready to conquer the world. The mindset changes, and it's happening without me even thinking about it. I get more concentrated, more focused, but at the same time more relaxed whenever there's nothing to spend a frame on around.
 

chrism

Well-known member
Proving we can grow oranges in the frozen north.


Oranges! by chrism229, on Flickr
Rolleiflex 2.8GX, XP2, HC-110, Hasselblad X1 scan.

Might take a while to make a batch of marmalade though....


Chris
 

chrism

Well-known member
I was concerned that the meter in my Rolleiflex wasn't right, so I used up a film with duplicate exposures, one using the internal meter and one using an external spotmeter. It turns out I was right,and the internal meter underexposes by 1-2 stops, but the funny thing is that the underexposed negatives allow me to pull out more detail in scans. This might be a quirk of the XP2 I was using. Anyway, one of the 'underexposed' negatives:





test film by chrism229, on Flickr



C.
 

Oren Grad

Active member
...but the funny thing is that the underexposed negatives allow me to pull out more detail in scans. This might be a quirk of the XP2 I was using.
At least in my experience scanning monochrome film, the scanner is happiest with a negative that's thinner than I'm comfortable with in the darkroom. It's sort of like contact printing in silver vs alt processes - in general you need to optimize development for one or the other, although with pyro development, because of the effects of the stain, you can sometimes get negatives that are decent switch-hitters.

Those scans from Rolleiflex Ektar negatives are lovely! Afraid I've never been able to find a groove scanning color neg - I always end up spending way too much time mucking around in the enormous space of possible adjustments, never quite finding a color balance I'm happy with.
 

chrism

Well-known member
At least in my experience scanning monochrome film, the scanner is happiest with a negative that's thinner than I'm comfortable with in the darkroom. It's sort of like contact printing in silver vs alt processes - in general you need to optimize development for one or the other, although with pyro development, because of the effects of the stain, you can sometimes get negatives that are decent switch-hitters.

Those scans from Rolleiflex Ektar negatives are lovely! Afraid I've never been able to find a groove scanning color neg - I always end up spending way too much time mucking around in the enormous space of possible adjustments, never quite finding a color balance I'm happy with.
If by 'thinner' you mean 'flatter' (ie less contrast) I'm in agreement. Chromogenic films are often rather contrasty, so it may be that they don't behave quite as expected with scanning. I'd put it to the test, but I have so much XP2 in the freezer that I ration myself to only occasional dips into the stock of traditional B&W film.
Ektar is a bit of a pain to scan. The easiest way to get accurate colour is to scan as raw, having used Vuescan to calibrate the orange tint of the film stock, and then invert the negative in PS with the ColorPerfect plug-in. Unfortunately, that means using the Nikon 9000 and I've been spoilt by the speed of the X1, so I simply scan it in the X1 using a home-made preset, then play with temperature and tint in LR until it looks as if it might have originated on earth. One thing I learned from my brief flirtation with developing E6 is that slides are so easy to scan, but given the longer and more complex development, time saved scanning is cancelled out!

Chris

C.
 

Oren Grad

Active member
If by 'thinner' you mean 'flatter' (ie less contrast) I'm in agreement.
What I meant was "less dense", including a lower DMax. The relationship of that with *print* contrast is complicated, and depends not just on development time but also on the shape of the characteristic curve produced by your film/developer combination, the brightness range of the scene you're photographing, where along the characteristic curve your exposure is placed, and whether you're printing with a fixed contrast grade or selecting paper contrast (or processing approach for a scan) to "stretch" the negative's density scale to fit the maximum achievable density range of the paper (or paper + inkset, for inkjet output).

Thanks for the extra details on your approach with color neg. I've tinkered with ColorPerfect and VueScan raw a bit, but alas haven't mastered it. Probably worth some additional effort to see whether I can get that under control.
 

chrism

Well-known member
When I discovered that XP2 could be processed in B&W chemicals (I still get people who assure me this isn't possible) with very fine grain I bought an awful lot of it for the freezer. I have recently begun to experiment with abusing it in the ways that standard silver halide films can be pushed and pulled, just to see if it stands up to it. So for a starting point I exposed a roll at EI 200, and cut the processing time in half, and wandered about the house taking photos of the relatively dark interior with a bright window in the frame. I just wanted to see if I could get a reasonable image in both areas. This is the kind of thing I got:


Experiments in Pull Processing 1 by chrism229, on Flickr

On scanning this negative the histogram was showing it 1-2 stops underexposed, so I should try again at EI 100, or maybe just a bit longer in the developer. The other thing I'd like to do is find out of pushing it is possible without excessive grain. I know that XP2 goes very grainy in Diafine and in Qualls' monobath and I suspect I'll find I can get one stop but probably not two extra out of it before it gets too crunchy, but you don't know unless you try!
 
Top