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!

Fun with Medium Format FILM Images!

dave.gt

Well-known member
Wow! Being out of touch this week means I get to see a lot of wonderful and magnificent colorful images all at once!

These are all great!:thumbs:
 

beano_z

Active member
Excellent timing Dave, this thread started picking up just as I was also getting back more into film :clap:

Here's a couple from Singapore, all shot on a Hasselblad 503cw with 80mm lens, not my usual forte but I did enjoy the process a lot, some of the engagements with passers by was quite amusing

by BB, on Flickr

by BB, on Flickr

by BB, on Flickr

by BB, on Flickr

by BB, on Flickr
 

Thorkil

Well-known member
I must admit I'm just heavily inspired by these pictures, and foremost from Bill who just taped it up on a window and took a picture - and Graham too just with lightbox and a simple picture.
And my SWC pictures from 1994 on some few years on, spending weeks after weeks walking all the narrow streets up and down in my beloved and wonderfull Venice.
Cameralab claims that the Z 50/1.8S on a Z7 is at eyelevel with Zeis Otus, none other he tested comes near he claims, well for FX size - so why not pull out my around 40 years old clumpsy lightbox, put on the 50/1.8S on the Z7 and give it a hasty and primitive try.
Well didn't attempt at all to pull it out of the plastic-protection-housing, just matside down, just the small Manfrotto tripod over the box and then...
(no postprocessing, no outputsharpening for screen, no other sharpening, just damping the highlight to 39 i C1 - just layed the curly filmstrip - Velvia 50 - on the table, no glassplate, just two empty CD-boxes on each side - IBIS off - selftimer on)





Hasselblad SWC with Velvia 50 taken with Nikon Z7 with 50/1.8S. The Z7 at iso250 1/30 f8 at tripod - 78% crop - through C1pro12.1.4win



thorkil
 
Last edited:

Shashin

Well-known member
Another favorite camera: Horseman SW612. I miss the variety of formats and camera styles with film. Shot on Konica Infrared film.

 

Shashin

Well-known member
This has been an interesting thread. What always strikes me about photography is the viewer is always simply dealing with the inherent qualities of the image presented to them. As with the images here or in any history of photography collection, image quality is not comparative: it is solely base on what is presented. While the technical quality of my images have improved with advances in photographic technology, the images themselves are equal in their inherent quality (although I hope I am getting better).

I am certainly not nostalgic. My digital camera present real advantages--I would never shoot a film faster than ISO 400 and IR photography was not easy with film. There were a host of technical and processing errors that could just ruin the results--no clone tool to save us. Sure I miss certain qualities film emulsions have, but digital images have others that film does not, so it is a wash.

The thing that drew me to photography was I could walk out into the world and bring back those things I found. You could say photographer are hunters of beauty (although fishermen and -women would probably be more accurate as it recognizes the luck and patience involved). The act is a kind of one pointed meditation on those things around you and outside you. Sure, we bring our own biases and views along with it, but it does not work very well if the reality is not able to support that view.

We spend a great deal of time talking gear, but that is not what makes me grateful to be a photographer. It is the gifts we return with.
 

darr

Well-known member
This has been an interesting thread. What always strikes me about photography is the viewer is always simply dealing with the inherent qualities of the image presented to them. As with the images here or in any history of photography collection, image quality is not comparative: it is solely base on what is presented. While the technical quality of my images have improved with advances in photographic technology, the images themselves are equal in their inherent quality (although I hope I am getting better).
I enjoy looking at old photography in my spare time; really old stuff made with some of the lenses I long for today. Currently I am revisiting The Photography of Erskine Beveride, Wanderings with a Camera in Scotland. Nothing special some would say, but those that appreciate the inherent qualities of the image presented to them would see maybe why I long to look at this book and many others from a bygone era. I enjoy looking at the architecture, people, and the land, and I try to imagine being the photographer with the gear and film they shot with. I have so much appreciation for their work and abilities.


I am certainly not nostalgic. My digital camera present real advantages--I would never shoot a film faster than ISO 400 and IR photography was not easy with film. There were a host of technical and processing errors that could just ruin the results--no clone tool to save us. Sure I miss certain qualities film emulsions have, but digital images have others that film does not, so it is a wash.
A tool is a tool to me. Without my digital cameras, my film photography would not be digitized because scanning was a bit too time consuming, so I stopped doing it for the most part. You are so right about IR film photography. I remember on a trip to Stonehenge one year, I brought a few rolls of IR film and faced a royal hassle going through an international baggage check. I was told to put the IR film in the lead bag I had for my other films by an inspector after explaining to them it would probably not protect it, but nonetheless, I did what I was told. It came out useless thanks to the x-ray machine. The slide film came out perfect so it is not like I have nothing to show for the trip. Today shooting an IR converted mirrorless is so simple compared to our past attempts!

The thing that drew me to photography was I could walk out into the world and bring back those things I found. You could say photographer are hunters of beauty (although fishermen and -women would probably be more accurate as it recognizes the luck and patience involved). The act is a kind of one pointed meditation on those things around you and outside you. Sure, we bring our own biases and views along with it, but it does not work very well if the reality is not able to support that view.
I came into photography after I was proficient at illustrating (my initial career was commercial art). The camera made it possible for me to draw moving objects like a cantankerous cat, etc. Then I realized I liked it more than drawing, and so began my journey of chasing light. Then I got hooked on feeling the light and soon found where "awareness" found me. Whether it was a paid job, a teaching demonstration, or just me and my camera, I am hooked on the quiet awareness I can tap into at times, and it shows up as seeing an object's purpose no matter what it is, or seeing how the light sculpts, etc. Whenever I see it, I am grateful.

We spend a great deal of time talking gear, but that is not what makes me grateful to be a photographer. It is the gifts we return with.
A great design with an excellent build is what I value in gear. Gear does not make us great photographers, having something to say does. But, when I have a great piece of gear I can depend on, I am most thankful. The digital age has brought some incredible changes to how efficient we can capture what we want to say, but it has never changed what I want to say. I never stopped shooting film because I think a part of me is like a fisherman. I do not eat fish, nor do I care to catch something I would not eat, but I think I understand why some choose to go to the stream or the pond to cast out their line in nature's quiet environment. I think the luck element combined with the patience you speak of above is part of who I am. And yes, I am always grateful for whatever gifts I return with. I am also hooked on looking. Whether it is art or not, I am looking at it.

Great post Will!

Kind regards,
Darr
 

Thorkil

Well-known member
Wonderful pictures you all post here !!! Just a humble wish, please state how you scan, while this is very interesting for me, specially if you digitize with a camera, please state the lens used too.
I am loaning a Zeiss Milvus 100/2 from a friend, and hope to improve my result with the Z7 by that. If I succeed I will certainly buy one. My wife don't completely agree... But for my part compared to the expenses flying several times to Venice, staying at hotels etc., that lens would just be a minor expense judged in a whole view, and could fulfill a longtime dream...(while I do not get to town for scanning)
 

Charles S

Well-known member
Wonderful pictures you all post here !!! Just a humble wish, please state how you scan, while this is very interesting for me, specially if you digitize with a camera, please state the lens used too.
I am loaning a Zeiss Milvus 100/2 from a friend, and hope to improve my result with the Z7 by that. If I succeed I will certainly buy one. My wife don't completely agree... But for my part compared to the expenses flying several times to Venice, staying at hotels etc., that lens would just be a minor expense judged in a whole view, and could fulfill a longtime dream...(while I do not get to town for scanning)
Mine are scanned w an Epson V850. I tried the scanning with the camera approach, and came back from it. For context, I often shoot 8x10, and the V850 is good enough. The neg is so big that it lies flat and the dust specs are small in relative terms comapred to MF, and add to the patina. For MF I am only moderately satisfied. It is probably my technique. I stopped 35mm after selling my Pakon
 

Thorkil

Well-known member
Mine are scanned w an Epson V850. I tried the scanning with the camera approach, and came back from it. For context, I often shoot 8x10, and the V850 is good enough. The neg is so big that it lies flat and the dust specs are small in relative terms comapred to MF, and add to the patina. For MF I am only moderately satisfied. It is probably my technique. I stopped 35mm after selling my Pakon
Thanks! so you are not completely satiesfied with the V850 solution on MF, considering both dust and resolution I guess? - while an Epson V850 could be an alternativ for me (although then I had to learn some more software, Silverfast, which could be uphill for me, in the same way as going to town for scans :angel:)...
 
Last edited:
Top