|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
07-13-2009, 01:51 AM
|
| |
Rollei Retro is my current favourite film. I just wish the base was less prone to curl. I don't get the same levels of contrast that you do ... Could be different scanners, I guess.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
06-11-2009, 12:42 PM
|
| |
This belongs in the Film Grain thread ...
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
06-11-2009, 03:19 AM
|
| |
The British Museum?
Snap!
Provia 400X
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
06-04-2009, 02:37 AM
|
| |
Mountain Vision, number two is a masterpiece!
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
06-03-2009, 02:53 PM
|
| |
I know you'd rather avoid it, but any decent noise-reduction software, such as Neat Image, will fix those scans. It looks to me like chroma noise (coloured speckling) from the scanning, not the film itself. This is easily rectified, virtually without any loss of detail.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
06-03-2009, 03:04 AM
|
| |
Taken in Pisa, Italy, and nearby Lucca. The film was Sensia 200.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
05-30-2009, 03:34 PM
|
| |
Sensia 200 - a nice, no-fuss film.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
05-10-2009, 07:12 AM
|
| |
Superb! The contrast between the old lamp and the modern architecture is great.
I love Rollei Retro 100. Shame the base isn't thicker, it curls something terrible. But it has beautiful tonality, as you can see here.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
04-25-2009, 07:30 AM
|
| |
That's better. No interference from the jetty or the buildings behind, the running kids add interest too. You might want to crop off the far left and possibly far right though. Great shot!
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
03-21-2009, 05:34 AM
|
| |
Me too. Which is exactly my point. Unfortunately the thread has become bloated and unwieldy because a few people have insisted on flooding it with the contents of their hard drive.
What's wrong with a little judgment and restraint? How is it abusive to expect that we are considerate of one another's bandwidth? A case in point: Douglas recently posted seven images of a polar bear, when just one would probably have sufficed. Now, I don't expect to open a book by Eliot Porter and find several similar pictures of the same lion, just because Porter was unwilling to exercise a little discernment and selection. These are critical qualities in photography, arguably more so now in the digital era than ever before.
This is not just about this thread. It's about keeping all similar threads in the future from becoming unmanageable. However, I can see that I am in a minority of one. Therefore I will quietly withdraw from the discussion and leave you all to your peaceful enjoyment of the photos.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
03-20-2009, 01:43 PM
|
| |
I hate to correct you twice in one post, but firstly, I have never posted any image of myself and my child on the forum. How could I? I only post pictures that I myself have taken. And secondly, an ad hominen attack is one in which the man is tackled, not the argument. Another word for it, which you may find easier to spell, is name-calling. Javier, I have never called you anything other than the name your parents gave you.
Contrary to your assumption, I have no objection to family photographs. That would be absurd. I do think one should think twice before posting, for example, blurry old photos of ones wife in a leotard. However, there is one area in which we are in agreement: a family snaps thread might be a good idea. I suppose it would be an even better idea if there weren't already a section of the gallery set aside for just that purpose.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
03-19-2009, 11:28 AM
|
| |
I never said I was offended by your pictures. I do think you could be more rigorous in your selection. I refer you to your original post:
I thought it would be a great idea to have a thread on images that show the beauty of film |
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
03-19-2009, 04:00 AM
|
| |
Javier, no offence - your wife is lovely - but these photos belong on Flickr. I thought the thread was intended to showcase outstanding examples of film photography, but it is in danger of turning into an album of family snaps.
With that, and the whole Pumalite business, and the multiple repostings, the thread has kind of outlived its usefulness, IMHO.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
03-18-2009, 10:38 AM
|
| |
I've been wondering about Pumalite. This shot seems to show a dot screen. It's certainly not a scan of a photographic print. Lost the original, Pumalite?
Javier, I respectfully disagree with you. This is not a small matter that should be quietly shoved under the carpet. We're talking about alleged theft, and, by association, a shadow cast on all our efforts here on the forum. If Pumalite is John Shaw, let him come forward. If he isn't, he should be banned from the forum and his images removed.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
03-11-2009, 02:33 PM
|
| |
A couple more from me. Rollei Retro 100 and Ilford HP5.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
03-10-2009, 01:38 AM
|
| |
Javier, that Tri-X shot of your boy has a strange texture. Have you applied noise reduction on it?
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
03-09-2009, 03:45 PM
|
| |
Here's a few that I think would have come out differently on digital. They're mostly Sensia 200, except the landscape, which is a Fuji print film (some commercial thing, I think it had a different name back then), and the black and white, which is Ilford HP5 if I remember rightly, although it has the look of an infrared film shot without a filter.
|
