[filmmaster]

I did an image search for David Hamilton and I wish I hadn't. I thought I vaguely remembered the name from somewhere, and I should have trusted my memory. Now I'm going to have to clear my search history. I strongly recommend that forum members DO NOT go looking to find out what I'm talking about, because that stuff might well be illegal in your country.

Nothing illegal about his photographic output. Hamilton actually used adult supervision and contracts with the model and their legal guardian who was in the same room.

yet countries that MIGHT have an issue with Hamilton have no issue with sally mann, nor any issues with people doing things with animals that are contrary to nature.

[BigMackCam]

Nothing illegal about his photographic output. Hamilton actually used adult supervision and contracts with the model and their legal guardian who was in the same room.

yet countries that MIGHT have an issue with Hamilton have no issue with sally mann, nor any issues with people doing things with animals that are contrary to nature.

At the very least, one might consider Hamilton's predilection for nude or semi-nude portraiture of pre- and early-pubescent girls inappropriate, even in the context of era. With respect, he's perhaps not the best example to bring up regarding the character of films and developing methods

That said, we're getting off-topic. My apologies to the OP... oh, wait - I am the OP...

[filmmaster]

At the very least, one might consider Hamilton's predilection for nude or semi-nude portraiture of pre- and early-pubescent girls inappropriate, even in the context of era. With respect, he's perhaps not the best example to bring up regarding the character of films and developing methods

That said, we're getting off-topic. My apologies to the OP... oh, wait - I am the OP...

Actually he IS the best example to use to show that the appearance and "quality' of certain types of film are purely a myth perpetuated by both the manufacturers AND the users.

Look, his photos are in two styles of development. His black and white photos that i have seen ascribed to his output are all done in a classic black and white manner, ie like everyone else. His color work however was developed by a person for him using very peculiar technique NO one else had much access too.

Yet using standard color film in a 4x5 and bigger camera... and that special processing for his film.. his photos came out looking as if they were PAINTED in the 1890-1910 era. using standard scenes of those painters.

picasso can paint nude and semi nude teen age girls, but its bad for hamilton to do an identical photo ?

[BigMackCam]

Actually he IS the best example to use to show that the appearance and "quality' of certain types of film are purely a myth perpetuated by both the manufacturers AND the users.

Look, his photos are in two styles of development. His black and white photos that i have seen ascribed to his output are all done in a classic black and white manner, ie like everyone else. His color work however was developed by a person for him using very peculiar technique NO one else had much access too.

Yet using standard color film in a 4x5 and bigger camera... and that special processing for his film.. his photos came out looking as if they were PAINTED in the 1890-1910 era. using standard scenes of those painters.

You missed my point entirely. I was suggesting it wasn't the best example to post in terms of your own profile and reputation as a member of these forums (though of course you're entitled to enjoy whatever "art" you wish)...

picasso can paint nude and semi nude teen age girls, but its bad for hamilton to do an identical photo ?

There have been weirdos throughout the ages, long before David Hamilton - and, sadly, long after...

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 02-15-2022 at 11:44 AM.

[Dartmoor Dave]

Yet using standard color film in a 4x5 and bigger camera... and that special processing for his film.. his photos came out looking as if they were PAINTED in the 1890-1910 era. using standard scenes of those painters.

His photos came out looking like exactly the cheesy 1970's era softcore porn that they were. His soft focus, diffused lighting style was the usual look for pseudo-artsy porno in those days, and his use of that style signals a clear intention to sexualise the pubescent and pre-pubescent girls that he was obsessed with.

[BigMackCam]

His photos came out looking like exactly the cheesy 1970's era softcore porn that they were. His soft focus, diffused lighting style was the usual look for pseudo-artsy porno in those days, and his use of that style signals a clear intention to sexualise the pubescent and pre-pubescent girls that he was obsessed with.

I could be wrong, David, but it looks like the number of David Hamilton fans on PentaxForums has reduced by one... for the time being, at least

[Viking42]

I could be wrong, David, but it looks like the number of David Hamilton fans on PentaxForums has reduced by one... for the time being, at least

Looks like someone beat me to it, as I was about to report said member's posts to a mod. Well done Mike, for standing up and speaking your mind.

[StiffLegged]

I remember Amateur Pornographer Photographer was pretty keen on Hamilton's girly work back in my youth. In late 2016 he was the subject of multiple allegations of serious sexual assault dating back decades and took his own life soon after.

I don't know whether the allegations would have stood up in court but we'll never know now. I do know I don't want to remember his work either.

[Dartmoor Dave]

I could be wrong, David, but it looks like the number of David Hamilton fans on PentaxForums has reduced by one... for the time being, at least

Glad to see it. Thank you, Mike, for being one of the good guys. And thanks to the moderators for doing the right thing.

[gofour3]

Kodachrome's an odd one. As you say, it's a really difficult film to get good scans from with any dedicated scanner I've ever tried. But it's a fantastic film for DSLR scanning, and I've had some good results from that method.

One of the hardest films to scan was Kodachrome. Ektar was introduced during that transition from film to digital and Kodak wanted to advertise and assure photographers that their finest grain, top shelf product would scan well for future-proofing.

My film scanner uses Silverfast s/w and has a built-in Kodachrome profile. So instead of picking your image as a positive, you can choose Kodachrome instead. Note I'm completely useless at scanning, so about the only good scans I can get are from mounted Kodachrome slides. Ektachrome or any Fuji E6 don't turn out so well for me...

Phil.

[LesDMess]

I still have some rolls Ektar 100 here, exp date is 12/2016. I bought these years ago with the idea it would be nice to use my K2 and ME super sometimes.

A forum member had some fridge stored rolls of Kodak Royal Gold 25 with develop by date of 01/2000 that he shipped to me in 2018 and I shot and had processed shortly after - Give away: Seven rolls of Kodak Gold Royal 25 ISO

I shot it at box speed and increased exposure time up to +7. Judging from the exposures, it looks like it is still good at ISO25. Colors looked great as expected.



By contrast, I picked up a free box full of Kodak Ektar 125 that was not kept in cool storage as it was left outside under covered parking in Atlanta, Georgia. It had an expiration date of 4/1992 and stayed outdoors until I picked it up in 9/2010. I shot a test roll at ISO32 and over and under exposed from there and processed it at box speed. Looks like it is best at ISO32 ±1 stop.



Definitely leans towards green but can be easily adjusted either in scan as a batch or in post.

I would guess your Kodak Ektar 100 will be just fine but if you have more than 1 roll to try an exposure test and maybe overexpose by 1 in general. Although with Kodak Ektar 100's huge latitude for overexposure, +1 will hadly be noticed.

[Dartmoor Dave]

My film scanner uses Silverfast s/w and has a built-in Kodachrome profile. So instead of picking your image as a positive, you can choose Kodachrome instead. Note I'm completely useless at scanning, so about the only good scans I can get are from mounted Kodachrome slides. Ektachrome or any Fuji E6 don't turn out so well for me...

Phil.

Thanks for the tip, I'll give the Silverfast trial version a go. The free Epson software doesn't have any specific film profiles, and it won't save as DNG so I can't make my own profiles, so I know it makes sense to switch to either Silverfast or Vuescan. Over the past few years I've only shot a couple of rolls of flm a year and I've not been overly bothered about scanning quality, but I'm planning to shoot more film this year so I'll need to raise my game.

And I think you're underestimating your own scanning abilities. Although I don't post in the film thread very often I look at it almost daily, and you've been posting some great stuff. Especially with the new Ektachrome.

[Henrico]

A forum member had some fridge stored rolls of Kodak Royal Gold 25 with develop by date of 01/2000 that he shipped to me in 2018 and I shot and had processed shortly after - Give away: Seven rolls of Kodak Gold Royal 25 ISO

I shot it at box speed and increased exposure time up to +7. Judging from the exposures, it looks like it is still good at ISO25. Colors looked great as expected.



By contrast, I picked up a free box full of Kodak Ektar 125 that was not kept in cool storage as it was left outside under covered parking in Atlanta, Georgia. It had an expiration date of 4/1992 and stayed outdoors until I picked it up in 9/2010. I shot a test roll at ISO32 and over and under exposed from there and processed it at box speed. Looks like it is best at ISO32 ±1 stop.



Definitely leans towards green but can be easily adjusted either in scan as a batch or in post.

I would guess your Kodak Ektar 100 will be just fine but if you have more than 1 roll to try an exposure test and maybe overexpose by 1 in general. Although with Kodak Ektar 100's huge latitude for overexposure, +1 will hadly be noticed.

@LesDMess; Your post is very helpful, thnx!

This give me confidence using my expired Ektar 100 rolls. I will use them at ISO 64, that must be sufficient.

30+ years ago I used Ektar 25 and Ektar 125 and was very happy with it. It gave me sharp fine grained moderate saturated prints with some old looking colors. Very special. After a few years they were out of production, or at least not available anymore where I lived.

[LesDMess]

@LesDMess; Your post is very helpful, thnx!

This give me confidence using my expired Ektar 100 rolls. I will use them at ISO 64, that must be sufficient.

30+ years ago I used Ektar 25 and Ektar 125 and was very happy with it. It gave me sharp fine grained moderate saturated prints with some old looking colors. Very special. After a few years they were out of production, or at least not available anymore where I lived.

You're welcome.

I never even encountered Ektar 25 and 125 until I picked up that box for free. If this was released in early 90's as you say, it's just too bad for me as I wasn't much into photography and photographic equipment then.

Regarding the original topic of "Reputations of individual films - are they based on fact, legend, or a mix?" of course one of the reputations of individual films - such as most color negatives, is their extremely wide latitude particularly on the overexposure side. For perspective, this is Kodak Portra 400 and Kodak Ektar 100 compared to digis.



Even at +10 stops overexposed, with a little bit of white balance and levels adjustments you can still make use of it while the digis are completely blown out unrecoverable by +4 even in RAW. These are older digis but I have tried this same test on newer models and the results are the same.

With this roll of Kodak Ektar 100 I only went as far as +5 because I didn't think such a saturated contrasty film would have as much latitude as the Portra but I have since conducted a more proper exposure test and it is very wide as well.

[Henrico]

Interesting... A digital sensor behaves more like a slide film. Color negative has much more dynamic range.

In time I was scanning with my Coolscan I always choose to do it 48 bit TIFF. The exposure of the scans could be adjusted depending the darkness of the filmstrip. So this 3x16 bits could be trimmed on the real dynamic range on the film.

It was amazing how much detail and contrast could be captured in the dark and light areas of the composition. I saw so much more info on my screen then I ever saw on my best factory prints in the analogue days, especially in shots with dark shadows and bright sky's.

Later when I sold my Coolscan and started scanning with a RAW camera, I could achieve similar results. Though my K-01 only had 12 bits real DR, by using bracketing mode and post processing I could extract all information available in the negative.

Ektar 25 was introduced in 1988. I found an article where they used 30 years old rolls, you will be surprised: Kodak Ektar 25, Frozen for Over 30 Years | PetaPixel