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

keyser · 03-12-2010, 10:18 PM

Loving the B&W's Jason!

I'll add a couple from the same lens & Kodak BW400CN.

and I've posted the following on another thread before:

Agnostic · 03-13-2010, 02:47 AM

Originally posted by keyser

and I've posted the following on another thread before:

I saw it in the other thread. Classic shot, the light and tones are fantastic!

goddo31 · 03-13-2010, 06:04 AM

Originally posted by keyser

Loving the B&W's Jason!

I'll add a couple from the same lens & Kodak BW400CN.

Thanks keyser. What do you think of the BW400CN? I love the M50 f1.4.
As mentioned by Agnostic, that 2nd picture of yours is great, I like it.

cheers,

GeneV · 03-13-2010, 08:04 AM

Originally posted by goddo31

I always like the shots in this thread, and this page is no exception; very nice by everyone

Recently I was feeling 'adventurous' and wanted to shoot some film at my birthday, in low light. So I shot some cheap BW400CN at 1600iso for fun. Came out very very grainy, but there's some shots that I like:

Taken with ME Super, M50 f1.4 and kodak BW400CN @ 1600. Mostly at f1.4 or f2

I like the available light shots. I don't think there is anything all that "cheap" about BW400CN in any sense of the word--unless you buy it in a throwaway camera. (I have been shooting LegacyPro/Neopan at less than half the price of BW400CN) Your shots are a terrific example of what I was talking about earlier with that film being entirely different depending upon the exposure.

keyser · 03-13-2010, 10:16 AM

I have to agree with that - BW400CN is not cheap except for its price! The two examples I gave above were straight scans from the minilab... no PP at all. It is super fine grained so as long as your lens can resolve enough detail, you'll have sharp, medium contrast pictures. Just don't think you can underexpose to up the contrast, you'll end up with lots of grain.

GeneV · 03-13-2010, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by keyser

I have to agree with that - BW400CN is not cheap except for its price! The two examples I gave above were straight scans from the minilab... no PP at all. It is super fine grained so as long as your lens can resolve enough detail, you'll have sharp, medium contrast pictures. Just don't think you can underexpose to up the contrast, you'll end up with lots of grain.

It is not even all that cheap in price. Adorama price for BW400CN--36 exp $4.29; for Tmax TMY 400--$3.89, and the B&W ISO 400 choices go down in price from there to Tri-X and Neopan 400. I guess all the Kodaks are a bit cheaper than the Ilford offerings at that store, though. Then, there is processing...

**k0og** · 03-13-2010, 04:50 PM

I'm enjoying the ISO400 B&W shots here too!

This week I exercised the old K1000 & Pentax-M 50mm f2.0 lens, 400TX processed in D76 1:1. My second roll done in the bathroom, after not processing my own film for about 25 years. This roll came out better than the first, but still working on the process - part of which is learning the best way to use my new Epson V500 scanner. I found that the auto exposure option tends to push the contrast too far and blow highlights, so it's better to manually set the scanner histogram to catch the full range of details.

Pictures of an old steam locomotive, Engine 1501, on display at a local park.

-Joe-

goddo31 · 03-13-2010, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by keyser

I have to agree with that - BW400CN is not cheap except for its price! The two examples I gave above were straight scans from the minilab... no PP at all. It is super fine grained so as long as your lens can resolve enough detail, you'll have sharp, medium contrast pictures. Just don't think you can underexpose to up the contrast, you'll end up with lots of grain.

Here in Perth it's quite a lot cheaper to buy (and easier to find) than Tri-X or Neopan or anything else really. Plus the processing is a lot cheaper. This is also the first time that I have had this film processed by the pro lab that I go to - I think part of my preconception about it being 'cheap' comes from dodgy photo shop scans! Shots like your dodge truck certainly show me how good it can be.

GeneV · 03-13-2010, 08:02 PM

Originally posted by goddo31

Here in Perth it's quite a lot cheaper to buy (and easier to find) than Tri-X or Neopan or anything else really. Plus the processing is a lot cheaper. This is also the first time that I have had this film processed by the pro lab that I go to - I think part of my preconception about it being 'cheap' comes from dodgy photo shop scans! Shots like your dodge truck certainly show me how good it can be.

Interesting how that is different in different parts of the world. These days, I've been shooting the heck out of LegacyPro (rebranded Fuji Neopan) for $1.50 per 36 and souping it myself for less than $1.00 a roll. When I shoot a roll of one of the chromogenic BW films, it is a splurge at about than 3 times that total price.

I shot XP1 in the old days by the long roll. There was nothing cheap about the results. The Ilford version of C41 was not difficult either.

lbenac · 03-13-2010, 08:12 PM

I have just installed LR3 beta to check the new printing option that make it really easy to print several different photos on the same page.

This is a pretty cool feature.

ps: Across 100

ANd one more Across 100

Cheers,

Luc

GeneV · 03-13-2010, 08:16 PM

Cool shots. I stayed at a Bed and Breakfast in walking distance of Lighthouse Park about a year ago. I'd dig out a shot or two for comparison, but they'd have to go on the D side of the forum.

GeneV · 03-13-2010, 08:44 PM

Here is one from this morning, at a farm not too far away. This scan is reduced for uploading, but the original shows what the Pentax 645 is capable of rendering.
Pentax 645/TMax 100 in HC110

Swift1 · 03-13-2010, 09:11 PM

Here are a few more Fuji 200 shots.
All three MZ-L, FA 50/1.4

Swift1

tuco · 03-13-2010, 10:08 PM

Love the rhodendrums and the dog, Swift.

Swift1 · 03-13-2010, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by tuco

Love the rhodendrums and the dog, Swift.

Thanks Tuco.

Swift1

03-13-2010, 04:50 PM	#2542
k0og Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Rolla, Missouri Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 699	Tri-X I'm enjoying the ISO400 B&W shots here too! This week I exercised the old K1000 & Pentax-M 50mm f2.0 lens, 400TX processed in D76 1:1. My second roll done in the bathroom, after not processing my own film for about 25 years. This roll came out better than the first, but still working on the process - part of which is learning the best way to use my new Epson V500 scanner. I found that the auto exposure option tends to push the contrast too far and blow highlights, so it's better to manually set the scanner histogram to catch the full range of details. Pictures of an old steam locomotive, Engine 1501, on display at a local park. -Joe-

03-13-2010, 08:12 PM	#2545
lbenac Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Burnaby, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,313	LR3 print to file I have just installed LR3 beta to check the new printing option that make it really easy to print several different photos on the same page. This is a pretty cool feature. ps: Across 100 ANd one more Across 100 Cheers, Luc Last edited by lbenac; 03-13-2010 at 09:04 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

03-12-2010, 10:18 PM	#2536
keyser Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Tsawwassen, BC Posts: 376	Loving the B&W's Jason! I'll add a couple from the same lens & Kodak BW400CN. and I've posted the following on another thread before:

03-13-2010, 02:47 AM	#2537
Agnostic Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Netherlands Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 414	Originally posted by keyser and I've posted the following on another thread before: I saw it in the other thread. Classic shot, the light and tones are fantastic!

03-13-2010, 06:04 AM	#2538
goddo31 Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Perth, Western Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,576	Originally posted by keyser Loving the B&W's Jason! I'll add a couple from the same lens & Kodak BW400CN. Thanks keyser. What do you think of the BW400CN? I love the M50 f1.4. As mentioned by Agnostic, that 2nd picture of yours is great, I like it. cheers,

03-13-2010, 08:04 AM	#2539
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by goddo31 I always like the shots in this thread, and this page is no exception; very nice by everyone Recently I was feeling 'adventurous' and wanted to shoot some film at my birthday, in low light. So I shot some cheap BW400CN at 1600iso for fun. Came out very very grainy, but there's some shots that I like: Taken with ME Super, M50 f1.4 and kodak BW400CN @ 1600. Mostly at f1.4 or f2 I like the available light shots. I don't think there is anything all that "cheap" about BW400CN in any sense of the word--unless you buy it in a throwaway camera. (I have been shooting LegacyPro/Neopan at less than half the price of BW400CN) Your shots are a terrific example of what I was talking about earlier with that film being entirely different depending upon the exposure.

03-13-2010, 10:16 AM	#2540
keyser Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Tsawwassen, BC Posts: 376	I have to agree with that - BW400CN is not cheap except for its price! The two examples I gave above were straight scans from the minilab... no PP at all. It is super fine grained so as long as your lens can resolve enough detail, you'll have sharp, medium contrast pictures. Just don't think you can underexpose to up the contrast, you'll end up with lots of grain.

03-13-2010, 10:24 AM	#2541
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by keyser I have to agree with that - BW400CN is not cheap except for its price! The two examples I gave above were straight scans from the minilab... no PP at all. It is super fine grained so as long as your lens can resolve enough detail, you'll have sharp, medium contrast pictures. Just don't think you can underexpose to up the contrast, you'll end up with lots of grain. It is not even all that cheap in price. Adorama price for BW400CN--36 exp $4.29; for Tmax TMY 400--$3.89, and the B&W ISO 400 choices go down in price from there to Tri-X and Neopan 400. I guess all the Kodaks are a bit cheaper than the Ilford offerings at that store, though. Then, there is processing...

03-13-2010, 07:52 PM	#2543
goddo31 Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Perth, Western Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,576	Originally posted by keyser I have to agree with that - BW400CN is not cheap except for its price! The two examples I gave above were straight scans from the minilab... no PP at all. It is super fine grained so as long as your lens can resolve enough detail, you'll have sharp, medium contrast pictures. Just don't think you can underexpose to up the contrast, you'll end up with lots of grain. Here in Perth it's quite a lot cheaper to buy (and easier to find) than Tri-X or Neopan or anything else really. Plus the processing is a lot cheaper. This is also the first time that I have had this film processed by the pro lab that I go to - I think part of my preconception about it being 'cheap' comes from dodgy photo shop scans! Shots like your dodge truck certainly show me how good it can be.

03-13-2010, 08:02 PM	#2544
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by goddo31 Here in Perth it's quite a lot cheaper to buy (and easier to find) than Tri-X or Neopan or anything else really. Plus the processing is a lot cheaper. This is also the first time that I have had this film processed by the pro lab that I go to - I think part of my preconception about it being 'cheap' comes from dodgy photo shop scans! Shots like your dodge truck certainly show me how good it can be. Interesting how that is different in different parts of the world. These days, I've been shooting the heck out of LegacyPro (rebranded Fuji Neopan) for $1.50 per 36 and souping it myself for less than $1.00 a roll. When I shoot a roll of one of the chromogenic BW films, it is a splurge at about than 3 times that total price. I shot XP1 in the old days by the long roll. There was nothing cheap about the results. The Ilford version of C41 was not difficult either.

03-13-2010, 08:16 PM	#2546
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Cool shots. I stayed at a Bed and Breakfast in walking distance of Lighthouse Park about a year ago. I'd dig out a shot or two for comparison, but they'd have to go on the D side of the forum.

03-13-2010, 08:44 PM	#2547
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Here is one from this morning, at a farm not too far away. This scan is reduced for uploading, but the original shows what the Pentax 645 is capable of rendering. Pentax 645/TMax 100 in HC110

03-13-2010, 09:11 PM	#2548
Swift1 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Oregon Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,079	Here are a few more Fuji 200 shots. All three MZ-L, FA 50/1.4 Swift1

03-13-2010, 10:08 PM	#2549
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,026	Love the rhodendrums and the dog, Swift.

03-13-2010, 10:16 PM	#2550
Swift1 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Oregon Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,079	Originally posted by tuco Love the rhodendrums and the dog, Swift. Thanks Tuco. Swift1