[Nesster]

Pentax 645, CZJ Flektogon 65/2.8, Kodak E100G

Nice, I was at those sculptures but on a rainy day, and with a D600. That damn camera has put a (temporary) dent in my film shooting.

[womble]

Super shots, and at first I thought, hey, why am I not logged into flickr. Ipernity! How is that working? I'm curious

I am very happy with ipernity. Much smaller than flickr and consequently far fewer views, but a nice clean interface. Best of all the ipernity team listen to their users and try and implement changes and features requested. It sometimes takes a while, but I am so fed up with the big boys of the internet just ignoring their user base that I'll take small and slow over utter disregard for users.

K.

[arnold]

Finally got this film back. LX, M50/1.4, Kodak 400
[/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/aeomaster32/11218182976/]Plumeria (Frangipani)Pentax LX, M50/1.4[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/aeomaster32/]arnold_broese[/url], on Flickr" target="_blank">

[alan_smithee_photos]

Finally got this film back. LX, M50/1.4, Kodak 400

Lovely. I miss Hawaii...

[wkraus]

Is that a problem of incorrect exposure, different lenses or bad film vs. good film?

Apparently you did not get an answer yet. In order to see what might be going wrong: how do you transfer your negatives to digital? All negative to positive conversions are essentially interpretations with a lot of leeway.

[Cuthbert]

Apparently you did not get an answer yet. In order to see what might be going wrong: how do you transfer your negatives to digital? All negative to positive conversions are essentially interpretations with a lot of leeway.

I leave the lab to do that for me, I tried two different sources and it seems the problem is the same, on the other side my shots with Portra 400 don't show this problem:




For instance this one is a good shot (a little grainy I know, but I'm still learning) so I was wondering if Gold Colour is just a bad film.

[aurele]

this is what you get when you cross-process Kodak E100VS:

i was wondering : do expired E6 film need to be compensate like C41 film ? I have a 1991 Provia 100 i'm going to use. Should i use it like a 50 iso slide film ?

[wkraus]

I leave the lab to do that for me, I tried two different sources and it seems the problem is the same, on the other side my shots with Portra 400 don't show this problem:

For instance this one is a good shot (a little grainy I know, but I'm still learning) so I was wondering if Gold Colour is just a bad film.

It might just not harmonize with the scanning machine/software they are using. It is difficult to get "feedback" from your negative shots because there are so many variables involved until you see the results. Unless you want to get into image processing (Photoshop or whatever will do the trick) you better stick to those films that work well with your lab. And you should try if it works better with a little more exposure. Underexposed negatives will give you more grain, colour shifts in the shadows and less dynamic range.

[Cuthbert]

It might just not harmonize with the scanning machine/software they are using. It is difficult to get "feedback" from your negative shots because there are so many variables involved until you see the results. Unless you want to get into image processing (Photoshop or whatever will do the trick) you better stick to those films that work well with your lab. And you should try if it works better with a little more exposure. Underexposed negatives will give you more grain, colour shifts in the shadows and less dynamic range.

The problem is that I obtain the same results with GC in every lab I tried in the UK and in Italy...while my rolls with Portra and BW400CN are much better, also in terms of grainess:




Anyway, do we have any thread regarding films? Just for avoiding to hijack this thread.

[fuent104]

Yashica Electro 35 GX, Yashinon 40mm 1.7, Hema 200 Iso color film.

I just saw these images for the first time. I've wanted a Yashica Electro 35 for a while. I think the first image in this series just sold me on one.

[crabe919]

First shots with the lx & K55 1.8 on tmax 400 @ 1600

[Jonathan Mac]

First shots with the lx & K55 1.8 on tmax 400 @ 1600

Cool. Most people would push Tri-X rather than T-Max, good to see it being done here. I'll need to try one day but I'm just not sure about how best to develop them.

[aurele]

Cool. Most people would push Tri-X rather than T-Max, good to see it being done here. I'll need to try one day but I'm just not sure about how best to develop them.

i've done it with both, and all i remember is that it's possible, the results are pretty much expected (in contrast, DR, grain), but i prefer Ilford Delta 400.
In fact, the thing that i liked is that it was very easy to predict how the film would react to push.

All that to say : it's not something very risky to do

[crabe919]

i've done it with both, and all i remember is that it's possible, the results are pretty much expected (in contrast, DR, grain), but i prefer Ilford Delta 400.
In fact, the thing that i liked is that it was very easy to predict how the film would react to push.

All that to say : it's not something very risky to do

I've prefer tmax over delta 400, i found (personally) that delta get's more contrasty than tmax, even rated at 400. For me tmax has a bit more greyscale range than delta.

Used xtol to develop tmax.

[Vendee]

Cool. Most people would push Tri-X rather than T-Max, good to see it being done here. I'll need to try one day but I'm just not sure about how best to develop them.

I think that TMax 400 pushes better than Tri-x. The TMax grain is so fine so start with, the pushed shot shows very little increase. The shot below was TMax 400 @ 1600 and was developed in TMax developer which gives a speed increase. You could also use Microphen especially if you wanted to push it to 3200.