Pentax MZ-S, Zenitar 16mm, Ilford PanF+50

[jct us101]

This one is kind of neat, but I really still don't like your high ISO noise in daytime (at least I assume it was daytime, your conversions make it kind of hard to tell) photos. I like the spotted sunlight on this one though, that's a pretty nice addition to the photo. I think I like this one.

[ll_coffee_lP]

I have to agree. I'm not a fan of the noise, especially when it's day time noise, and when I suspect that it's been added after (see top left corner where theirs a swath of no noise).

I'm a fan of the image though.

c[_]

[JeffJS]

Once again

"Pentax MZ-S, Zenitar 16mm, Ilford PanF+50"

No conversion... Glad you like the image though.

[jct us101]

Once again

"Pentax MZ-S, Zenitar 16mm, Ilford PanF+50"

No conversion... Glad you like the image though.

I'm sorry but I don't even know what that means, I don't shoot film usually. So sorry about that, I guess.

[Tuner571]

I think this is definitely better then your other shot in the graveyard. This one has a very strong subject and the photo is perfectly exposed. The shadows look good and the sun lite areas are not blown out at all, thanks for sharing.

[Pentaxie]

I'm sorry but I don't even know what that means, I don't shoot film usually. So sorry about that, I guess.

It is not noise per se. It is "graininess" which is good in some film based pictures. If one were to uploaded into the PC and internet, noises may appears but when you look into the hardcopy picture, it's as smooth as silk.

Hope you understand what I try to explain.

Cheers.

[jct us101]

It is not noise per se. It is "graininess" which is good in some film based pictures. If one were to uploaded into the PC and internet, noises may appears but when you look into the hardcopy picture, it's as smooth as silk.
Hope you understand what I try to explain.
Cheers.

Yeah, I got it now, I did some darkroom photos back in highschool, and I totally forgot about the grain in the photos. Sorry about that Jeff, I guess I should have been reading the description a little bit better than I was earlier.

[JeffJS]

It is not noise per se. It is "graininess" which is good in some film based pictures. If one were to uploaded into the PC and internet, noises may appears but when you look into the hardcopy picture, it's as smooth as silk.
Hope you understand what I try to explain.
Cheers.

Yeah, I got it now, I did some darkroom photos back in highschool, and I totally forgot about the grain in the photos. Sorry about that Jeff, I guess I should have been reading the description a little bit better than I was earlier.

No problem.. Sometimes us old film pharts forget that not everyone has the experience of focusing on the grain and are use to zooming to 400% to pixel peep looking for Noise. Two different things entirely..

[eddie1960]

Pan F is difficult to scan with the fine grain it has on the neg and in print, that being said people focus too much on pixel peeping, i frequently shoot films like Tri X for the grain I get, i gives a gritty quality i can't get digitally

nice work Jeff good to see examples from the Zenitar I've been looking at one

[JeffJS]

Wow, You went back in time.

Yes, there's a Lot of grain showing in all of the photos from that day in the scan. Thing is, I still have 7 or 8 50 foot rolls of this stuff and don't really know what to do with it (other than sell it). I bought a case several years ago thinking I was going to hone my Zone System skills but beyond learning to meter for it, I never went any further (went digital instead). So. once in awhile, I'll roll a couple 12 or so exposure cartridges and go shoot some B&W for scanning. Haven't had much desire to do any wet printing in quite some time. Not since I bought the V700 anyway. If I'm going to continue using the stuff scans, I'll have to get a better film processing method.

Anyway, purpose of showing the photo was the photo itself and my fancy new MZ-S. Most of the pixel peeping posts in this (and other of my threads from the time) were about somebody's desire to boost his post count so he could win a camera (which he did) in the 1,000,000th post contest.

I agree, Pixel peeping a film shot converted to digital is sometimes pointless. I've used Tri-X 320 and those come out pretty good but my still all time favorite is the APX-25. I use to shoot with a lot of TMax100 Pro as well but haven't had any in some time.

Thanks for your comments though