:cool: Lets see those ''film'' shots

Swift1 · 08-17-2013, 11:18 PM - **1 Like**

Pentax 67, SMC Pentax M*67 300/4 EDIF, expired Fujichrome Velvia RVP

**arnold** · 08-18-2013, 01:06 AM

Originally posted by pentax_sam

Yeah, I have a 50mm f/2. Thanks for the constructive criticism, I need a lot more of that to be honest, everyone else on the internet is like "Pretty!"... except they say that to everyone else too. I definitely agree with you, I was kind of uncomfortable with this camera at the time, and I actually didn't even know as much back then (like 2 months ago) as I do now. I overused the open-end of my aperture a LOT on that trip. To make things worse, I was using ISO400 film in extremely bright sunlight, I would have been better off bringing ISO200 film probably... plus I got cheap prints at walgreens, and scanned them with my cheap scanner. I kind of regret that haha.

Well that is good that are learning very fast. I think you will surprise yourself with every new film you do. Film requires more thought if one doesn't want to waste it, so it forces one to be more careful with each shot.

alan_smithee_photos · 08-20-2013, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by pentax_sam

To make things worse, I was using ISO400 film in extremely bright sunlight, I would have been better off bringing ISO200 film probably... plus I got cheap prints at walgreens, and scanned them with my cheap scanner.

I'd echo the comment about stopping the lens down a bit (f4 or 5.6 maybe), but re: the film comment, I think 200 speed is kinda the worst of both worlds. It's not fast enough for low light and an unnecessary compromise for bright light. At that speed you'd be better off with 100 or 160, or going up to 400. If I don't know what the light's going to be light I pick 400. If I'm outdoors I'll shoot something slower without fear (but will happily use 400, too). Treat yourself to some Ektar (100) or Portra (160, 400; even their 800 is great). You'll be amazed at the difference.

Another thing to consider, I also opt for cheap processing at my local Walgreens a lot of the time but I usually don't bother with prints. I just have them scan them their to a CD. I figure it's as least as good as my flatbed scanner at home. Here's an example of the fine folks at Walgreens work, developing and scanning cheap Lomo 800 (same as Fuji Press 800, I think):

More here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/232866-people-kira-pt-1-...heap-film.html

aurele · 08-20-2013, 02:02 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by alan_smithee_photos

Treat yourself to some Ektar (100) or Portra (160, 400; even their 800 is great). You'll be amazed at the difference.

i agree with that : Portra have a very large range of usability. You can push it to 2 stops easily, and it don't need to be pulled.

This is portra 800, i did one thing after using my flatbed scanner is just moving one cursor : the one called "black" in photoshop / lightroom, because scanner seem to like when there is like a white overcast.

Tak-A 28mm f2.8

DA*55

To be honnest, i had ten pictures to do indoor, so i got Portra 800. i thought using it outdoor will waste it, too much light, and grain will be seen... My foot ! film is super clean, i plan on 20*30 or 30*40cm printing without the shadow of a doubt !

Last edited by aurele; 08-20-2013 at 02:11 PM.

alan_smithee_photos · 08-20-2013, 03:40 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by aurele

To be honnest, i had ten pictures to do indoor, so i got Portra 800. i thought using it outdoor will waste it, too much light, and grain will be seen... My foot ! film is super clean, i plan on 20*30 or 30*40cm printing without the shadow of a doubt !

The first time I shot it I was amazed at the sharpness. Just beautiful.

**arnold** · 08-20-2013, 08:14 PM

Digging into my old slides, I thought this was worth putting in here. It could really do with a better scan. Taken in 1961 with a Kodak Retinette 1A, Sydney at Warwick Farm car races.

**jva59** · 08-20-2013, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by alan_smithee_photos

The first time I shot it I was amazed at the sharpness. Just beautiful.

Breathtakingly lovely shot!

fuent104 · 08-20-2013, 10:44 PM

Originally posted by alan_smithee_photos

The first time I shot it I was amazed at the sharpness. Just beautiful.

Yes, the film is beautiful.

alan_smithee_photos · 08-21-2013, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by arnold

Digging into my old slides, I thought this was worth putting in here. It could really do with a better scan. Taken in 1961 with a Kodak Retinette 1A, Sydney at Warwick Farm car races.

Love this!

Swift1 · 08-21-2013, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by arnold

Digging into my old slides, I thought this was worth putting in here. It could really do with a better scan. Taken in 1961 with a Kodak Retinette 1A, Sydney at Warwick Farm car races.

Yes...awesome photo.

Swift1 · 08-21-2013, 11:36 AM

A Show of Hands

Canon EOS Elan II, EF 50/1.8 II, expired Kodak Gold 200

**Jacquot** · 08-21-2013, 06:36 PM

Love it, another classic..!

mamba909 · 08-21-2013, 11:43 PM

Originally posted by alan_smithee_photos

Another thing to consider, I also opt for cheap processing at my local Walgreens a lot of the time but I usually don't bother with prints. I just have them scan them their to a CD. I figure it's as least as good as my flatbed scanner at home. Here's an example of the fine folks at Walgreens work, developing and scanning cheap Lomo 800 (same as Fuji Press 800, I think):

Thanks for sharing that tidbit about Walgreens. I took my first roll of film (well, ever since I got a K1000; the roll of film was a Kodak Ultramax 400) to a local mom & pop photography store, and I was a bit disappointed with the results. For about $13-15, I got my negatives and a CD back with 1544px x 1024px photos @ 72 dpi. Can you tell us what's the average price you pay to develop your film at Walgreens and at what resolution they scan the photos at?

I have a roll of T-Max 100 that's almost finished, and I have 5 rolls of Portra 160 heading my way so I would like to know if I should just get my rolls developed at Walgreens. Thanks in advance for any info you can share.

And of course, I'll share some photos in this thread once I get some film developed.

**grhazelton** · 08-22-2013, 09:43 AM

While I try to avoid WalMart I found myself in a local one so, while my wife shopped for something I wandered over to the photo department. Yes, they "do" film, in a manner of speaking. What you pick up is a CD with your images, and prints if ordered, and That's All, Folks! No negatives. I told the pleasant fellow working the counter that I found that terrible, and he, after looking around to see if any of the supervisors were nearby, agreed.

tuco · 08-22-2013, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by grhazelton

...
What you pick up is a CD with your images, and prints if ordered, and That's All, Folks! No negatives.
...

Hm, I wonder if there is legal recourse for stealing your intellectual property.

08-20-2013, 02:02 PM - 1 Like	#8539
aurele Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Paris, France Photos: Albums Posts: 3,217	Originally posted by alan_smithee_photos Treat yourself to some Ektar (100) or Portra (160, 400; even their 800 is great). You'll be amazed at the difference. i agree with that : Portra have a very large range of usability. You can push it to 2 stops easily, and it don't need to be pulled. This is portra 800, i did one thing after using my flatbed scanner is just moving one cursor : the one called "black" in photoshop / lightroom, because scanner seem to like when there is like a white overcast. Tak-A 28mm f2.8 Tak-A 28mm f2.8 DA55 To be honnest, i had ten pictures to do indoor, so i got Portra 800. i thought using it outdoor will waste it, too much light, and grain will be seen... My foot ! film is super clean, i plan on 2030 or 3040cm printing without the shadow of a doubt ! Last edited by aurele; 08-20-2013 at 02:11 PM.*

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K20D test shots at Lets Go Digital	schufosi777	Pentax News and Rumors	6	04-20-2013 11:31 AM
Macro Cool Macro shots	derajjjg	Post Your Photos!	2	12-27-2009 09:36 PM
Lets see your Moon and Mars shots	Igilligan	Post Your Photos!	9	12-05-2009 08:55 AM
Way cool bat shots	and	General Talk	7	10-01-2009 02:54 AM
Cool Shots & Info	Fl_Gulfer	Post Your Photos!	0	12-10-2007 11:44 AM

08-17-2013, 11:18 PM - 1 Like	#8536
Swift1 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Oregon Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,079	*Pentax 67, SMC Pentax M67 300/4 EDIF, expired Fujichrome Velvia RVP**

08-18-2013, 01:06 AM	#8537
arnold Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,294	Originally posted by pentax_sam Yeah, I have a 50mm f/2. Thanks for the constructive criticism, I need a lot more of that to be honest, everyone else on the internet is like "Pretty!"... except they say that to everyone else too. I definitely agree with you, I was kind of uncomfortable with this camera at the time, and I actually didn't even know as much back then (like 2 months ago) as I do now. I overused the open-end of my aperture a LOT on that trip. To make things worse, I was using ISO400 film in extremely bright sunlight, I would have been better off bringing ISO200 film probably... plus I got cheap prints at walgreens, and scanned them with my cheap scanner. I kind of regret that haha. Well that is good that are learning very fast. I think you will surprise yourself with every new film you do. Film requires more thought if one doesn't want to waste it, so it forces one to be more careful with each shot.

08-20-2013, 01:38 PM	#8538
alan_smithee_photos Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 844	Originally posted by pentax_sam To make things worse, I was using ISO400 film in extremely bright sunlight, I would have been better off bringing ISO200 film probably... plus I got cheap prints at walgreens, and scanned them with my cheap scanner. I'd echo the comment about stopping the lens down a bit (f4 or 5.6 maybe), but re: the film comment, I think 200 speed is kinda the worst of both worlds. It's not fast enough for low light and an unnecessary compromise for bright light. At that speed you'd be better off with 100 or 160, or going up to 400. If I don't know what the light's going to be light I pick 400. If I'm outdoors I'll shoot something slower without fear (but will happily use 400, too). Treat yourself to some Ektar (100) or Portra (160, 400; even their 800 is great). You'll be amazed at the difference. Another thing to consider, I also opt for cheap processing at my local Walgreens a lot of the time but I usually don't bother with prints. I just have them scan them their to a CD. I figure it's as least as good as my flatbed scanner at home. Here's an example of the fine folks at Walgreens work, developing and scanning cheap Lomo 800 (same as Fuji Press 800, I think): More here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/232866-people-kira-pt-1-...heap-film.html

08-20-2013, 03:40 PM - 1 Like	#8540
alan_smithee_photos Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 844	Originally posted by aurele To be honnest, i had ten pictures to do indoor, so i got Portra 800. i thought using it outdoor will waste it, too much light, and grain will be seen... My foot ! film is super clean, i plan on 2030 or 3040cm printing without the shadow of a doubt ! The first time I shot it I was amazed at the sharpness. Just beautiful.

08-20-2013, 08:14 PM	#8541
arnold Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,294	Digging into my old slides, I thought this was worth putting in here. It could really do with a better scan. Taken in 1961 with a Kodak Retinette 1A, Sydney at Warwick Farm car races.

08-20-2013, 09:48 PM	#8542
jva59 Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Posts: 2,409	Originally posted by alan_smithee_photos The first time I shot it I was amazed at the sharpness. Just beautiful. Breathtakingly lovely shot!

08-20-2013, 10:44 PM	#8543
fuent104 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: California Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,356	Originally posted by alan_smithee_photos The first time I shot it I was amazed at the sharpness. Just beautiful. Yes, the film is beautiful.

08-21-2013, 10:56 AM	#8544
alan_smithee_photos Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 844	Originally posted by arnold Digging into my old slides, I thought this was worth putting in here. It could really do with a better scan. Taken in 1961 with a Kodak Retinette 1A, Sydney at Warwick Farm car races. Love this!

08-21-2013, 11:31 AM	#8545
Swift1 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Oregon Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,079	Originally posted by arnold Digging into my old slides, I thought this was worth putting in here. It could really do with a better scan. Taken in 1961 with a Kodak Retinette 1A, Sydney at Warwick Farm car races. Yes...awesome photo.

08-21-2013, 11:36 AM	#8546
Swift1 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Oregon Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,079	A Show of Hands Canon EOS Elan II, EF 50/1.8 II, expired Kodak Gold 200

08-21-2013, 06:36 PM	#8547
Jacquot Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sun City Center, FL Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,544	Love it, another classic..!

08-21-2013, 11:43 PM	#8548
mamba909 Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: L.A. County, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 405	Originally posted by alan_smithee_photos Another thing to consider, I also opt for cheap processing at my local Walgreens a lot of the time but I usually don't bother with prints. I just have them scan them their to a CD. I figure it's as least as good as my flatbed scanner at home. Here's an example of the fine folks at Walgreens work, developing and scanning cheap Lomo 800 (same as Fuji Press 800, I think): Thanks for sharing that tidbit about Walgreens. I took my first roll of film (well, ever since I got a K1000; the roll of film was a Kodak Ultramax 400) to a local mom & pop photography store, and I was a bit disappointed with the results. For about $13-15, I got my negatives and a CD back with 1544px x 1024px photos @ 72 dpi. Can you tell us what's the average price you pay to develop your film at Walgreens and at what resolution they scan the photos at? I have a roll of T-Max 100 that's almost finished, and I have 5 rolls of Portra 160 heading my way so I would like to know if I should just get my rolls developed at Walgreens. Thanks in advance for any info you can share. And of course, I'll share some photos in this thread once I get some film developed.

08-22-2013, 09:43 AM	#8549
grhazelton Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Jonesboro, GA Photos: Albums Posts: 1,972	While I try to avoid WalMart I found myself in a local one so, while my wife shopped for something I wandered over to the photo department. Yes, they "do" film, in a manner of speaking. What you pick up is a CD with your images, and prints if ordered, and That's All, Folks! No negatives. I told the pleasant fellow working the counter that I found that terrible, and he, after looking around to see if any of the supervisors were nearby, agreed.

08-22-2013, 10:35 AM	#8550
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,026	Originally posted by grhazelton ... What you pick up is a CD with your images, and prints if ordered, and That's All, Folks! No negatives. ... Hm, I wonder if there is legal recourse for stealing your intellectual property.