Had a brief trip out to New York a couple weeks back. Like the last time, I decided to take film cameras only - my trusty K1000 (with a 50mm 1.4 and a 24mm 2.8) and my Fuji GA645i. (I also brought that cute little Olympus 35RC but it's so tiny it hardly counts. Plus I haven't developed the film in it yet.)

I like making myself work under those constraints (couple focal lengths, available light, limited ISOs), including the delayed gratification of getting the film back. And I just know that, even if I would've had my K-5 IIs and all the lenses, the film is what I'd end up liking best.

K1000, M 50mm 1.4, FujiPro 400H (@800)
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.


Delta 3200 (@1600)
7.

8.

9.

10.


24mm 2.8
11.


Cinestill 800T
12.

13.


Fuji GA645i, Lomo 400 (@800)
14.

15.


and then we have these "happy accidents": blame quality control on the Lomo 400 line but this isn't the first time I've had weird lightleak looks or other aberrations in my Lomo 120 film. Happily, somehow they've usually resulted in interesting (vs. ruined) photos.
16.

17.

18.

[Canada_Rockies]

I've had the odd shot like #18 over the years, mostly when I tried to get more shots on a roll by winding on one too few. Nice series with a patient subject.

[Heinrich Lohmann]

A very nice series of a pretty subject, love the lighting. As for my own liking, # 1, 4, 7, 11 and 17. Thanks for posting them.

[LeRolls]

These are all quite interesting and unique. I like the unexpected light leaks in #16.

[fuent104]

It's nice to see your work outside of the usual studio setting. Good job.

You've probably done the research, and this might not interest you, but...Cinestill is most likely rebadged Kodak 500ASA cine film. That film yields almost not grain when rated and shot at 320 ISO. All Kodak motion picture films are virtually grainless when rated 2/3 stop higher than what Kodak rates them.

I learned this from my professor, who is an ASC cinematographer. He said he doesn't know a single cinematographer who rates Kodak films at their listed rating, and that most cinematographers rate them 2/3 stop lower than Kodak does. His theory about it is that Kodak essentially lies, or bends the truth with their ISO ratings, so the film stocks will look more attractive to producers ("look, it's high-speed film?!").

Anyways, I know you've got your look down, and that's probably not helpful information, but I thought I'd share it just in case.

[alan_smithee_photos]

Thx all!

Cinestill is most likely rebadged Kodak 500ASA cine film. That film yields almost not grain when rated and shot at 320 ISO. All Kodak motion picture films are virtually grainless when rated 2/3 stop higher than what Kodak rates them.

I'll have to try that. Usually I'm shooting with available light, so if anything I end up pushing it a stop. I have one more role of it that I'm hoping to shoot outdoors with some city lights. Love to try it at 320 (or something like that)!

[Cuthbert]

15 and 13 for me, nice shots!

[fuent104]

Thx all!



I'll have to try that. Usually I'm shooting with available light, so if anything I end up pushing it a stop. I have one more role of it that I'm hoping to shoot outdoors with some city lights. Love to try it at 320 (or something like that)!

Cool. If you do end up shooting at 320, I'd like to see the results. I always rate my film 2/3 - 1 stop lower than the manufacturers, and I've gotten good results.