[Cuthbert]

Zenza Bronica ETRSi
Zenzanon MC 40/4
Kodak Ektar 100
Epson V500

Mmm...I like it!

Yesterday in town I found this 50s pinup:





Pic taken with my old NEW Canon F-1 (am I allowed to post pics of this camera on these boards?), FD50 mm 1.2 and Portra400.

[Lauke_101]

Pic taken with my old NEW Canon F-1 (am I allowed to post pics of this camera on these boards?), FD50 mm 1.2 and Portra400.

Yes you are, film is film right Especially with shots as awesome as yours!

[Cuthbert]

Yes you are, film is film right Especially with shots as awesome as yours!

Naah, you're too god, I'm blushing...

Actually I'm not satisfied by this film, but I don't understand if it was a problem of incorrect exposure on my side, the print from the lab or if it was just bad light, here you can see the colourful dinosaur from one side and perhaps you can see what I mean:



1955 Chevrolet Bel Air.

[stevebrot]

Pic taken with my old NEW Canon F-1 (am I allowed to post pics of this camera on these boards?)

Yes you are, film is film right Especially with shots as awesome as yours!

Yep, it was Javier's intent when he started this thread that it be camera agnostic. Photos posted here have been taken with all manner of gear spanning the better part of 100 years of photographic history.


Steve

[Lauke_101]

Actually I'm not satisfied by this film, but I don't understand if it was a problem of incorrect exposure on my side, the print from the lab or if it was just bad light, here you can see the colourful dinosaur from one side and perhaps you can see what I mean:

Exposure looks about right, although it's quite hard to really get that wrong with modern color neg film. Your shots have the typical Portra look if you ask me (I'm addicted to the stuff ). It's not the most punchy film in the world, that's why it works so well in portrait photography. So perhaps it's just that you prefer a different flavor?

[Cuthbert]

No, I am also a great fan of the Portra, it's the only colour film I use, all the others I tried make my pics look...I don't know how to explain...boring perhaps? I would like to give a shot to Fuji professional though.

The problem is that in the last film I shot something went wrong, I don't know what, but the shadows look like black pools, I thought it was an exposure error on my side but I'm starting to think it's the lab. However, the Portra is the bed especially with 50s vehicles with these vivid colours of Tha era, perhaps later I'll post other examples, I would love to have my pics printed on Portra paper too to see if there's any difference.

[Nesster]

Yep, it was Javier's intent when he started this thread that it be camera agnostic. Photos posted here have been taken with all manner of gear spanning the better part of 100 years of photographic history.


Steve

Steve you are right... and just to make it official, the camera I used for this photo turned 100 years old last year



I used an ~1898 Taylor,Taylor Hobson Cooke lens on a 1947 RB Graflex SLR for this one.

[grhazelton]

Mmm...I like it!

Yesterday in town I found this 50s pinup:





Pic taken with my old NEW Canon F-1 (am I allowed to post pics of this camera on these boards?), FD50 mm 1.2 and Portra400.

Oooh! A '55 Chevy BelAir hardtop! I need one of these to accessorize my Vitessa L.

When I was in highschool back in the Paleolithic, a bud had a '55 cream and green 55 BelAir hard top, Loaded: V8, AT, power steering, power brakes, power windows, and ... wait for it .... factory air conditioning! The sort where the evaporator is in the trunk, I guess, and the cooooool air is wafted towards you from 2 big clear plastic "horns", one on either side of the package shelf behind the rear seat. What a ride! Supposedly bought from a little old lady who only drove it to the gin mills on the weekends.

[Cuthbert]

Ahahahah! I can assure you that cardinal red Bel Air received as many attentions as I would have reserved to a resurrected 1955 Betty Page with all her fierce gear: Fringe, corset, stockings and all the other accessories...I think I have at least eight shots of her!

Another good prey of that Sunday was this ice cream van:




And more in the same years you in the US were driving such juggernauts like the Bel Air we in Italy were poor and all we could afford were the these tiny tin cans:

[arnold]

Steve you are right... and just to make it official, the camera I used for this photo turned 100 years old last year

used an ~1898 Taylor,Taylor Hobson Cooke lens on a 1947 RB Graflex SLR for this one.

Quite amazing how good these are. It shows that a good photo is more limited by the photographer than the equipment.

[Cuthbert]

Quite amazing how good these are. It shows that a good photo is more limited by the photographer than the equipment.

Indeed!

[Lauke_101]

No, I am also a great fan of the Portra, it's the only colour film I use, all the others I tried make my pics look...I don't know how to explain...boring perhaps? I would like to give a shot to Fuji professional though.

The problem is that in the last film I shot something went wrong, I don't know what, but the shadows look like black pools, I thought it was an exposure error on my side but I'm starting to think it's the lab. However, the Portra is the bed especially with 50s vehicles with these vivid colours of Tha era, perhaps later I'll post other examples, I would love to have my pics printed on Portra paper too to see if there's any difference.

In your photo of the Fiat 500 I see those murky shadows more prominently. The tires just sort of disappear in the wheel arches. You're definitely right about that and this is not how Portra usually performs. Looking at the highlights, I'm quite sure your exposures are spot on. I presume your film hasn't expired yet, leaving the lab as the only culprit I guess.

[Cuthbert]

In your photo of the Fiat 500 I see those murky shadows more prominently. The tires just sort of disappear in the wheel arches. You're definitely right about that and this is not how Portra usually performs. Looking at the highlights, I'm quite sure your exposures are spot on. I presume your film hasn't expired yet, leaving the lab as the only culprit I guess.

Thank you for you feeback, other pics of the same batch are even worse, for instance these two:





I usually use Boots, can anybody suggest me a good lab in the Midlands area (UK) at this point?

[stevebrot]

Another good prey of that Sunday was this ice cream van:

Now you've done it...I have a sudden urge for ice cream...


Steve

---------- Post added 09-09-14 at 12:22 PM ----------

Quite amazing how good these are. It shows that a good photo is more limited by the photographer than the equipment.

Although the equipment was often not that bad. I saw a documentary a few weeks ago regarding early photography in Southern Oregon and was amazed at the the quality of the images originally captured on glass-plates. To view the documentary online:

Capturing Oregon's Frontier

Or to see a few of the photos:

https://plus.google.com/photos/114431897981658921755/albums/5853431950424569393

https://plus.google.com/photos/114431897981658921755/albums/5854616216232843537

Steve

[gary2881]

The most well known early Southern Oregon photographer was Peter Britt. His studio and cameras are preserved in the museum at Jacksonville, Oregon.