Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 
Log in or register to remove ads.

Showing results 1 to 25 of 50 Search:
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras 05-08-2023, 07:20 PM  
:cool: Lets see those ''film'' shots
Posted By John Poirier
Replies: 26,338
Views: 3,324,147
A medium format film shot from 2010. Koni Omega Rapid 200, 58mm. Probably Ilford FP4.
Gabriola Island Forest Number 143 by John Poirier, on Flickr
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras 05-06-2023, 01:45 PM  
:cool: Lets see those ''film'' shots
Posted By John Poirier
Replies: 26,338
Views: 3,324,147
Victoria, British Columbia. 2011. Probably Fuji Superia 400 with a Tamron 28-200.
11-22-013 16x23.jpg by John Poirier, on Flickr
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras 05-01-2023, 02:34 PM  
:cool: Lets see those ''film'' shots
Posted By John Poirier
Replies: 26,338
Views: 3,324,147
I processed my first film in 1974. It was a train wreck.
74-01-002 master.jpg by John Poirier, on Flickr
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras 04-30-2023, 04:20 PM  
:cool: Lets see those ''film'' shots
Posted By John Poirier
Replies: 26,338
Views: 3,324,147
I haven't posted from Flickr for a long time, so this is a test. Pentax LX, 100 macro, HP5.
21-08-n-011-Edit.jpg by John Poirier, on Flickr
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras 08-02-2018, 07:50 PM  
:cool: Lets see those ''film'' shots
Posted By John Poirier
Replies: 26,338
Views: 3,324,147
That's a very fine shot.
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras 08-01-2018, 03:14 AM  
:cool: Lets see those ''film'' shots
Posted By John Poirier
Replies: 26,338
Views: 3,324,147
As a retired professional I've done regular solo shows at various galleries in my region. Also a goodly number of group shows. My shows are of what I considered my personal work when I was a working pro. I have sold a reasonable number of prints. I would not try to make a living from it. Very, very few "fine art" photographers make substantial incomes from print sales. They make most of their money from day jobs, from commercial work, of from teaching photography.

I've slowed down a lot and in future expect to do one or two shows a year at local galleries. I can do the photography but the travel and schmoozing to market my work to major urban galleries is more than I care to take on at this stage in life. However, I intend to continue making prints to please myself. For me a good print is a much more true expression of photography than an "image" on a (usually uncalibrated) monitor.

Incidentally, much of my work is on FF digital. I continue to shoot film because I enjoy the process, including messing around with old cameras. Some of the film work is good enough to show, but usually as 12x18 prints from 35mm rather than the 24x36 prints I can easily pull from FF digital. There's nothing wrong with a good 12x18 print, but these days catching audience attention is more a matter of large size than of whether the image has anything interesting to say. Once you have peoples' attention, some begin to see the qualities in pictures that make them worth hanging on their walls and revisiting many times. From my perspective, that is what has made selling my prints worthwhile.

In terms of your image, jellygeist, it's colourful and probably saleable. If it's of a well-known local landmark, that increases the odds of sales. That sort of thing can be sold at local arts/crafts fairs. Cards can also work for shots in this style. However, a single image is unlikely to carry much weight in marketing prints. As a standalone image you might get paid peanuts for it from a stock agency. If you want to sell prints, in my view the image should be part of a body of work that demonstrates that your picture is an example of a consistent artistic vision rather than a fluke.

You may want to look around and see what people are charging for prints at fairs in your area. You will probably find that a lot of them are selling cheap and nasty prints for barely enough money to cover printing and framing expenses, with nothing for their time or operating costs. It's up to you to decide whether you want to compete in that market or aim higher.
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras 06-13-2017, 06:05 PM  
:cool: Lets see those ''film'' shots
Posted By John Poirier
Replies: 26,338
Views: 3,324,147
Salal plants in our yard. Pentax S3, Kilfitt Makro Kilar D 40/2.8, HP5 Plus
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras 06-12-2017, 04:57 PM  
:cool: Lets see those ''film'' shots
Posted By John Poirier
Replies: 26,338
Views: 3,324,147
Haven't posted for a while, but here is something recent. Made with a Pentax S3 and Kilfitt Makro Kilar D 40/2.8 on HP5 Plus.
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras 04-20-2017, 05:36 PM  
:cool: Lets see those ''film'' shots
Posted By John Poirier
Replies: 26,338
Views: 3,324,147
I'd say the pictures were probably shot on Kodachrome. I've scanned a good deal of pre-war and late 1940s Kodachrome, and these have a similar "feel". Agfacolor is unlikely, as it was a German product.
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras 06-15-2016, 12:24 PM  
:cool: Lets see those ''film'' shots
Posted By John Poirier
Replies: 26,338
Views: 3,324,147
The camouflaged structures are there to draw attention away from the dumpster, which is actually a secret entrance to a bunker whose purpose I can't tell you about.
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras 10-26-2013, 09:59 AM  
:cool: Lets see those ''film'' shots
Posted By John Poirier
Replies: 26,338
Views: 3,324,147
Summer Night, unnamed lake near Yellowknife, Northwest Territories. 1985. Yashica Mat 124G, Kodak Ektachrome 64 Professional. Print size 24x36 inches.

Long exposure blurred out mosquitoes. This is from my first roll of medium format colour. Yesterday I shipped my last rolls for processing. I expect to continue shooting medium format black and white for a few years, though.


185-0001 by John Poirier, on Flickr
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras 09-19-2013, 08:23 PM  
:cool: Lets see those ''film'' shots
Posted By John Poirier
Replies: 26,338
Views: 3,324,147
Yes, exposure is very important. Underexposure in particular can be disastrous in terms of proper tonal rendition. Given a properly exposed neg, you can have a great deal of control over the "look" of an image. As usual, Steve has hit the nail on the head in terms of what is important in practical terms.

In my view, these days it is more useful to have a clear view of what you want as a finished product, and some inkling of how you are going to get there in terms of scanning and image corrections, than to worry about the colour characteristics of a given film.

Steve's comment about Kodachrome's subtle colour rendition reminds me of something I've been thinking about.

It's quite true that Kodachrome could produce beautiful results under many conditions. It could also be a real bear in harsh lighting. And it changed in character somewhat over the years.

In the old days, choice of lens/film combinations could be very significant in terms of the character of final results. Slide films were the professional standard. Properly stored and processed slide films had very predictable characteristics, and professional photographers placed great reliance on being able to produce a consistent look with a given lens or set of lenses. Pre-digital technology allowed very little flexibility in the reproduction process, so the "look" of a slide could often have a significant effect on the finished product in a high-quality printing workflow. (Not that the term workflow was widely used back then.) I did colour separations for printing, as well as printing Cibachrome back in the seventies, so I know a bit about it.

Colour negative film was viewed as strictly amateur stuff for a number of reasons, including the fact that printing was a highly subjective process with great limitations in terms of colour and contrast control. Prints were crap for reproduction purposes. (Scanning and printing colour negatives continues to be highly subjective, although we have a lot more control now.)

These days, so much control is available through scanning, and through image editing software, that the character of film and of lenses in terms of colour rendition and contrast have become much less of a factor in terms of determining the qualities of a finished image. Frankly, I find the tendency of some individuals to go on and on about particular lenses or films based on characteristics that can easily be changed by nudging a few sliders in Photoshop a bit weird. Or maybe more than a bit weird.

I'll add that as someone who did imaging in archives for 20 years I'm well aware of the need to respect the character of vintage film images for reproduction purposes. Had the privilege of working on some 1930s Kodachromes from the Arctic, among other things.

Anyhow, take advantage of the great exposure latitude, sharpness and fine grain of films like Ektar to produce technically excellent images. Don't get sidetracked by claims that negative films have particular biases in terms of colour balance, saturation and contrast. Yes, they do, but the ultimate look is largely in your hands. In 2013 it's your artistic vision, not the film or the lens, that should determine the final product.

It's up to you to define what you want as an end result, and to identify the skills and knowledge required to get there.

My two cents' worth. ( Which will soon be worth nothing, as pennies are obsolete in Canada.)
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras 09-19-2013, 10:42 AM  
:cool: Lets see those ''film'' shots
Posted By John Poirier
Replies: 26,338
Views: 3,324,147
Colton's interpretation of the truck image is very pleasing. It looks excellent on my well-calibrated monitor.

Yes, there are a lot of over-saturated, at least to my taste, film images around. Tip for dealing with saturation? Adjust it in your image editing software.

When you scan a negative, you are interpreting it. There are many variables in the image scanning process, including hardware, scanning software, the way in which scanning software is set up, monitor calibration, and the user's personal tastes and skills. Excessive saturation is an artifact of choices made in the scanning and image editing chain, not a fixed characteristic of the film.
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras 04-02-2013, 07:20 PM  
:cool: Lets see those ''film'' shots
Posted By John Poirier
Replies: 26,338
Views: 3,324,147
Alleyway, Nanaimo, British Columbia. Pentax LX, Tamron 24/2.5, Kodak HD400. Printed 16x24 inches for a gallery show. (I've decided to include printing information in these postings because my main interest is in making prints, rather than posting on the Web.)



CN04-35-n-007 by John Poirier, on Flickr
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras 03-24-2013, 08:16 PM  
:cool: Lets see those ''film'' shots
Posted By John Poirier
Replies: 26,338
Views: 3,324,147
Arches, Victoria, British Columbia. Minolta Maxxum 7000, Sigma 28-200, Fuji Superia 400. (I have a show at a gallery in Victoria this summer. Part of the show is a set of urban images printed 16x24 inches. I'll post pics from the set as I have time.)


[IMG] 11-68-n-009 by John Poirier, on Flickr[/IMG]
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras 10-05-2012, 12:10 AM  
:cool: Lets see those ''film'' shots
Posted By John Poirier
Replies: 26,338
Views: 3,324,147
Hi. I really like most of your pictures. I think you are making intelligent use of the character of film.

You need not be too apologetic about technical quality, as what you have done has a certain resonance that is more important than technical perfection. Doing your own scanning will give you more control over results, but if I were you, working in your style, I would not try too hard to be a conventional perfectionist.

In much of my own work, I am a perfectionist. It is essential to my style. However, I do admire work that successfully incorporates a certain degree of rawness.

John
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras 10-04-2012, 11:55 PM  
:cool: Lets see those ''film'' shots
Posted By John Poirier
Replies: 26,338
Views: 3,324,147
Hi. More nice work from you!

Its good to see well-done colour neg scans.

John
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras 06-06-2012, 07:13 PM  
:cool: Lets see those ''film'' shots
Posted By John Poirier
Replies: 26,338
Views: 3,324,147
Probably a hoof being trimmed as a horse shoe is attached. Either that or someone forgot to remove the shoe before the horse was thrown on the barbecue...
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras 06-05-2012, 12:02 PM  
:cool: Lets see those ''film'' shots
Posted By John Poirier
Replies: 26,338
Views: 3,324,147
I'd say the contrast is due mainly to bad scanning and/or tonal correction, not the film.
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras 03-03-2012, 12:11 PM  
:cool: Lets see those ''film'' shots
Posted By John Poirier
Replies: 26,338
Views: 3,324,147
Hi- I came across these recently. They are from a project I did many years ago, documenting construction of a birch bark canoe. I was fortunate in doing a number of projects of this type during my career. The scans are old, dating from the mid-nineties. I don't have the original slides as they are in a museum. I did this project with a Nikon F801, 24-50 and 80-200/2.8 lenses. (I've always used Pentax gear for my personal work but my job came with Nikon gear.) Used very gentle fill flash for a lot of the shots.

Attachment 119905

Attachment 119906

Attachment 119907

Attachment 119908

Attachment 119909
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras 02-16-2012, 07:52 PM  
:cool: Lets see those ''film'' shots
Posted By John Poirier
Replies: 26,338
Views: 3,324,147
@Mr. b- I really like your bridge shot.

As there has been a discussion about scanning snow scenes on another thread, thought I'd post this one. This is an old scan from the mid-90s. The original neg is buried for the moment, but it was probably 200 ISO of some sort. Most likely shot with a Super Program, probably with an off-brand 18-28 I had for a while.
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras 02-13-2012, 10:25 PM  
:cool: Lets see those ''film'' shots
Posted By John Poirier
Replies: 26,338
Views: 3,324,147
@twitch and wuzet. I like your shots- they're playful and a bit out there. Also fairly rough in terms of colour and tonal rendition- very appropriate in the context.

John
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras 01-13-2012, 09:17 PM  
:cool: Lets see those ''film'' shots
Posted By John Poirier
Replies: 26,338
Views: 3,324,147
Trucks idling in extreme cold. ca. 1993/94. Yellowknife, Northwest Territories. Probably shot with Super Program, A70-210, Fujicolor 400

This is a sort of interesting oddity. The scan was made in late 1993/early 1994 in Kodak Photo CD format. I converted all Photo CD files to TIFF several years ago. The quality of the original scans was remarkably good- resolution not high, but decent, maybe 3000 pixels across. Colour and tonal rendition were very nice. This is typical of what I was getting on Photo CD from good negs. Kodak had some nice scanning software and scanners, but a lot of other things about the system were rather weird.

The trucks were holding for a trip via ice roads to resupply a gold mine very far out on the tundra. This was a relatively early version of the trucking shown in the reality show "Ice Road Truckers."

https://themotec1.netfirms.com/Users/Hosted/cdn/images/pentaxforums/attach/jpg.gif
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras 01-12-2012, 01:10 PM  
:cool: Lets see those ''film'' shots
Posted By John Poirier
Replies: 26,338
Views: 3,324,147
Thanks.

Yes, I did use a tripod.The light was dim and I was working at f/11, so the shutter speed was around 2 seconds.

I use tripods for 99.9 % of my landscape work because my goal is to make large prints- 16x20 and larger. Most of the time I shoot medium format. From my perspective shooting this sort of thing hand-held is a waste of time and film. A very impoortant part of the impact of my work is sharpnress and detail.

I do other types of work that are hand-held and less demanding in terms of sharpmess.
'
'For me, a big part of the fun of shooting Pentax 35mm gear is to see how far I can take quality. in using an assortment of fine lenses from Takumars onwards.

Cheers

John
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras 01-11-2012, 06:24 PM  
:cool: Lets see those ''film'' shots
Posted By John Poirier
Replies: 26,338
Views: 3,324,147
Search took 0.00 seconds | Showing results 1 to 25 of 50

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:39 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top