Can we talk about film?

[coolguy4747]

Just caught up on all 20 pages of this thread 😅 and frankly learned quite a lot, though of course have still barely scratched the protective coating covering the surface. Especially if I ever want to develop my own, which I hope I don't because I'm already mad enough that I want to shoot film at all!

I found a couple of 30+ year old rolls of 35mm film in a box of 8mm film reels from my late grandmother, which I digitized in Nov/Dec. I loaded the film in a Nikon FM my brother got for a photography class in high school, but I never really got to use because our school switched to digital the year I got there. Anyway, brought the film & FM to family Christmas to see what would happen, and while you can definitely tell the film is way old, I got some usable shots after some digital adjustments. Most are of my niece and nephew and I don't want to show their faces. This one is not my absolute favorite from the group, but the face is pretty obscured so I feel okay sharing.

I had fun shooting and processing the shots, so I bought a Mamiya 645 1000s from eBay and some rolls of 120. So far I did a roll of Portra 400 and Cinestill 800T. I finished one roll of Gold 200 and another 8 shots in. It's fun exploring stocks but I'm also trying to just have fun with it and not overthink it. Here's a few from my first two rolls. I did a just-for-fun shoot with a friend, mostly on digital but with a few 645 shots. Don't want to share her either, so there's a shot of me that I set up and she pressed the button. Don't love the pose, but you live and you learn I guess. I also didn't do much adjustment here since I am also waiting on an Essential Film Holder so I can work with higher quality than the jpeg scans I got from the lab.

 

[Flowstates]

This seems to be a great thread and I'm putting it aside to read it when time comes aplenty.

If you guys don't mind me sharing a few shots I took lately (I hope that you'll pardon the sub-par scanning/development artifacts.)

HP5+ in a Leica M6 with a TTArtisans 35MM 1.4 in a stock ID-11 solution.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

And despite his write up about the M3(which is also poking a bit of fun at some of the die-hard Leica snobs) he's not wrong IMO about the build quality/precision. It really is probably the most solid and well-built camera I've ever handled.

Yes, your Leica looks absolutely beautifully made. Even most luxury commodities aren’t made to that standard anymore.

 

[mollyc]

February roll back. Leica M3 with 5cm Summarit f/1.5 and Portra 400. I'm learning more about this setup with each roll and figuring out ways to get the best images. And I successfully rewound it with no light leaks!

Pretty happy with this roll. Some of the images didn't quite come out the way I'd hoped, but I knew when I took them they were a bit more experiemental (first two in the fourth row). I do take at least one photo a day, and some of these clearly lack imagination and were a "check the box" kind of photo for the day (row 1.4, row 4.4) but some I am really happy with.

March will be a fun month with a long trip for spring break where I hope to shoot a lot of film.

 

[coolguy4747]

I'm going to see my favorite musician next weekend. I've never photographed her with a "real" camera since they're never allowed and I no longer have access to press credentials. I checked the venue's policy which says "no detachable lenses or digital SLRs," so I emailed them asking if "detachable lenses" applies specifically to digital cameras and got a somewhat unclear and repetitive response: "no detachable lenses or digital SLRs. If it is a 35mm film camera or other rolled film, that is fine to bring into shows." So, I'm gonna give it a whirl with my FM 😅 worst case scenario our hotel is two blocks away, so if they don't allow it I'll just run it back real quick. I know about 10 years ago there were stories that the musician would let people take photos with her if they were polaroid/otherwise analog cameras, but not digital, so I know she has a history of appreciating film, but I am not sure how much that matters. Now I just have to decide if I want to try my roll of Cinestill 800 and have to underexpose, or try a 3200 ISO Ilford. I'd prefer color, but I'm sure it would be fun either way.

 

[piatigorsky]

I'm going to see my favorite musician next weekend. I've never photographed her with a "real" camera since they're never allowed and I no longer have access to press credentials. I checked the venue's policy which says "no detachable lenses or digital SLRs," so I emailed them asking if "detachable lenses" applies specifically to digital cameras and got a somewhat unclear and repetitive response: "no detachable lenses or digital SLRs. If it is a 35mm film camera or other rolled film, that is fine to bring into shows." So, I'm gonna give it a whirl with my FM 😅 worst case scenario our hotel is two blocks away, so if they don't allow it I'll just run it back real quick. I know about 10 years ago there were stories that the musician would let people take photos with her if they were polaroid/otherwise analog cameras, but not digital, so I know she has a history of appreciating film, but I am not sure how much that matters. Now I just have to decide if I want to try my roll of Cinestill 800 and have to underexpose, or try a 3200 ISO Ilford. I'd prefer color, but I'm sure it would be fun either way.

Shot this at a friend's performance in a really dark basement venue. Don't be fooled by the end result, the place was actually very dark although not pitch black, but I managed to get enough exposure with a fast lens on Ilford Delta Pro 3200 pushed one stop. I used a Nikon FE with a f/2 24mm lens and 1/30 sec. shutter—I didn't bother to meter, since metering at such low light is not going to be accurate anyway, but rather simply opened the aperture all the way and used the slowest possible safe shutter speed, to ensure I'd get as much light as possible. I'd say go with Delta Pro 3200 to be safe.

(I also made a few prints in the darkroom for her and got her to autograph my copy, in case she becomes an international star ten years from now and an autograph photo would suddenly be worth millions—her words not mine! She really liked the physical print—prior to this she'd only seen digital scans of film, which really can't compare with a real darkroom print.)

 

[bunnspecial]

I used a Nikon FE with a f/2 24mm lens and 1/30 sec. shutter—I didn't bother to meter, since metering at such low light is not going to be accurate anyway, but rather simply opened the aperture all the way and used the slowest possible safe shutter speed, to ensure I'd get as much light as possible.

Great photo and great work!

BTW, 1/30 at f/2 and 6400 is EV 1, which is at the lower limit of the FE's meter coupling range. Of I wasn't there but averaging meters can be difficult to work with in this sort of scenario if there's any kind of spot lighting on the performer against a dark background-nothing insurmountable but can make metering difficult. If you want to meter in low light, cameras like the Nikon F2AS can actually meter down to EV -2, and if you really wanted to go nuts the F5 and F6 are even capable of autofocus(using the center point) down to EV -1.

Also, not to be pedantic, but shooting Delta 3200 at 3200 is already pushing the film. It's actually an ISO 1000/31º film(see the data sheet ) that's designed to handle EI 3200 and extended development quite well. As you've seen, it can work even at EI 6400. BTW, much the same is true of Kodak TMAX P3200(ISO 1000/31º in TMAX developer, ISO 800/30º in most other developers), and that's actually why they branded it as "P3200" and not just TMAX 3200.

Just as another comment, back when I was in high school and trying to make things work in low light for the school newspaper, I used TMAX P3200 some, but also used a lot of Tri-X pushed to 1600-6400 in D76. Part of it was cost, as Tri-X is less expensive(DRAMATICALLY so then) but also I just liked the look of it. Somewhere or another along the way, I tried Tri-X in Diafine, which is a lovely combination that actually just works out to about 1600 without any special effort. Since then, I've used TMAX developer and gained a whole other appreciation for T-grain films. On the whole, I still like my Tri-X(and my Plus-X...) but if I ever shoot Delta 3200 or TMAX P3200 again it's probablty the developer I'll try.

 

[piatigorsky]

Great photo and great work!

BTW, 1/30 at f/2 and 6400 is EV 1, which is at the lower limit of the FE's meter coupling range. Of I wasn't there but averaging meters can be difficult to work with in this sort of scenario if there's any kind of spot lighting on the performer against a dark background-nothing insurmountable but can make metering difficult. If you want to meter in low light, cameras like the Nikon F2AS can actually meter down to EV -2, and if you really wanted to go nuts the F5 and F6 are even capable of autofocus(using the center point) down to EV -1.

Also, not to be pedantic, but shooting Delta 3200 at 3200 is already pushing the film. It's actually an ISO 1000/31º film(see the data sheet ) that's designed to handle EI 3200 and extended development quite well. As you've seen, it can work even at EI 6400. BTW, much the same is true of Kodak TMAX P3200(ISO 1000/31º in TMAX developer, ISO 800/30º in most other developers), and that's actually why they branded it as "P3200" and not just TMAX 3200.

Just as another comment, back when I was in high school and trying to make things work in low light for the school newspaper, I used TMAX P3200 some, but also used a lot of Tri-X pushed to 1600-6400 in D76. Part of it was cost, as Tri-X is less expensive(DRAMATICALLY so then) but also I just liked the look of it. Somewhere or another along the way, I tried Tri-X in Diafine, which is a lovely combination that actually just works out to about 1600 without any special effort. Since then, I've used TMAX developer and gained a whole other appreciation for T-grain films. On the whole, I still like my Tri-X(and my Plus-X...) but if I ever shoot Delta 3200 or TMAX P3200 again it's probablty the developer I'll try.

Yes, I know Delta Pro 3200 is actually rated at ISO 1000, although I've shot it at 1000 before (for example the photo attached to this reply) and thought the contrast was too low for my taste, although I'm sure others will find this appealing. I would like to try Tmax developer someday, unfortunately I've never seen it available here in Taiwan — heck, even Tmax film is nearly impossible to find here! (Kodak is definitely not prioritizing the market here.) I've been using HC-110 almost exclusively for the past two years, half the time doing stand development because I'm just too lazy. I also like living life on the edge, so I almost never shoot at box speed: I've done several 100 ft. rolls of HP5+ and Fomapan 400 all at ISO 1600 or above, and there was this crazy period when I was pushing HP5+ up to 25600 — of course the results looked absolutely horrible!

 

[mollyc]

Oh, I just got around to doing my grids for March. These are all with a Leica M3. The first two grids are exclusively a vintage 50mm Summarit, and the last grid a combo of that lens and a goggled 35mm Summaron.


1. Kodak Gold

2. Kodak Ultramax

3. Kodak Ultramax (smaller grid since some of the roll spilled over into April)

 

[jacobsss]

i recently watched maze runner, anyone else here ?

 

[OldMacs4Me]

i recently watched maze runner, anyone else here ?

I think you might want to view the contents of the thread. It does not relate to movies.

 

[bunnspecial]

I picked up some film from the lab yesterday, the first I've had developed in a few years(how it's slipped away from me...). I have some E6 in the mailbox today ready to send off after having to hunt a bit for a lab willing to develop my Velvia 100, or maybe rather ignore the fact that it's Velvia 100

I still have some B&W that I need to do myself...soon...and hopefully will post some scans of the most recent batch when I can get them done.

 

[mollyc]

Sharing my April photos. My daughter and I went to New Orleans for a weekend and I ended up taking my Nikon F100 instead of the Leica because I knew we'd be short on time and I didn't want to think about metering externally and fussing with focus. That meant that I finished off a roll I started last August that I kind of forgot about (I didn't really, I knew it was in the camera, but I was ignoring it). I had forgotten how nice and easy that camera is to use, so I continued to use it for another roll when we got back, but I'm back to using the Leica for May (obviously still working on that roll now, so nothing to share there).



Leica M3 | Ultramax (I shot and shared the beginning of this roll for March, so it seems like it's short, but these are just the April images)

Nikon F100 | Fuji 200 (partial roll which was originally started in August 2023; only sharing the April 2024 images here)

Nikon F100 | Kodak Gold

Nikon F100 | Kodak Gold

All in all, I'm pleased with the way this project is going so far. I'm not getting a ton of really good keepers, but I definitely have some that I really love, and I am learning a good deal about what I do and do not like about film. I'm on my 10th roll right now for the year, so I am already doing better than I did for 2023 with only 6.5 rolls!

 

[mackmgg]

Having done my own B&W development but sending off color for a while, I just developed my first roll of C41 yesterday! Was a lot easier than I was expecting since it had always seemed more intimidating than black and white.

Here’s a sample shot that was taken with my Olympus Six over the weekend on Kodak Gold 200:

 

[mollyc]

Keep your negatives, yo!

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/06/arts/film-photography-negatives.html?unlocked_article_code=1.xk0.936R.I6o89mlAQtJl&smid=url-share

 

[mollyc]

Actually I suspect that anyone posting in this thread already does keep their negatives, but still an interesting read. We waited too long to pick up one of my daughter's first rolls of film from the store, and when we went back, they'd already gotten rid of them. I wasn't scanning yet, and she'd had scans emailed to her. We weren't purposely avoiding picking them up, we'd just gotten busy and missed the (unknown to us) 30 day timeframe. Like I think we went in on day 32 or 33....she's still sad about that. She's also said that if ever there is a fire or other emergency at our house, the negatives are one of the first things she'd grab to save. She has hers super organized.

I have all my negatives, but sadly they are not organized at all...one of my projects for this summer.

 

[Flowstates]

One thing that has been extremely surprising to me since the beginning of my endeavours with film was the price of the (admittedly bespoke) A4 film holding sheets.

 

[mackmgg]

Actually I suspect that anyone posting in this thread already does keep their negatives, but still an interesting read. We waited too long to pick up one of my daughter's first rolls of film from the store, and when we went back, they'd already gotten rid of them. I wasn't scanning yet, and she'd had scans emailed to her. We weren't purposely avoiding picking them up, we'd just gotten busy and missed the (unknown to us) 30 day timeframe. Like I think we went in on day 32 or 33....she's still sad about that. She's also said that if ever there is a fire or other emergency at our house, the negatives are one of the first things she'd grab to save. She has hers super organized.

I have all my negatives, but sadly they are not organized at all...one of my projects for this summer.

Yeah I assume most people here would only leave negatives by accident. Luckily my local camera store that I generally drop of film at (if I’m not developing at home) keeps them around for at least 30 days, then puts them aside in archive for at least 90 days. They also aren’t great at scanning 35mm film, it‘s always decently cropped in and they only give JPGs. I still pay for the low res scans (which are pretty cheap) just because I’m impatient and want to see the images sooner, but the high res scans seem like a waste. Higher resolution but still just cropped in JPGs. For 120 it’s not nearly as cropped, but the resolution is the same. So of course I always rush to pick up my negatives to scan better at home!

I find it funny in the article that they’re talking about people just wanting the prints and leaving the negatives. I doubt many people getting prints are leaving the negatives, especially since you have to come back for the prints anyway! It’s the scans that most people really want, and honestly a digital file is probably going to outlast a negative if it’s a good scan. I don’t think I’ve ever ordered prints when developing, even though they were having a promo last month where it was only a couple dollars to get the whole roll printed.

Right now my negatives are poorly labeled, but they’re at least in a binder in mostly chronological order. I should really do a better job of writing the date, camera, lens, location, etc. I also think (at least compared to film) SD cards are cheap enough I more or less do the same thing when I fill one up. It gets put into an SD case, also rarely labeled with dates but at least when you pop it into a computer the files have metadata.

 

[bunnspecial]

Nutty for me to think about not getting my film back(I won't say negatives because I sitll shoot a lot of slide film).

At the same time, though, I still scan everything myself. In fact I just became aware of an aftermarket full-roll feeder for the Nikon Coolscan 4000/5000. I have a 4000 that needs a few repairs(I have a V also, but it doesn't support full roll scanning). The full roll feeder is on its way to me, and I'm anxious to try it out-there's something appealing about being able to toss a roll in and come back an hour or two later to it being done.

 

[mackmgg]

Nutty for me to think about not getting my film back(I won't say negatives because I sitll shoot a lot of slide film).

At the same time, though, I still scan everything myself. In fact I just became aware of an aftermarket full-roll feeder for the Nikon Coolscan 4000/5000. I have a 4000 that needs a few repairs(I have a V also, but it doesn't support full roll scanning). The full roll feeder is on its way to me, and I'm anxious to try it out-there's something appealing about being able to toss a roll in and come back an hour or two later to it being done.

Those have definitely been tempting, but alas I don't really have anywhere to store a scanner. Plus despite the hassle of setting it up and going through photos one by one the results of scanning with my mirrorless camera are pretty good and it only takes 5-10 minutes to do a 36 exposure roll of 35mm and less than half that for 120.

If it's a roll I shot on my EOS film camera there's also a good chance I'm using the same lens to scan the film as I used to shoot the photos. So the metadata in the digital photos is occasionally accidentally right, in a broken clock right twice a day kind of way.

 

[bunnspecial]

Those have definitely been tempting, but alas I don't really have anywhere to store a scanner. Plus despite the hassle of setting it up and going through photos one by one the results of scanning with my mirrorless camera are pretty good and it only takes 5-10 minutes to do a 36 exposure roll of 35mm and less than half that for 120.

If it's a roll I shot on my EOS film camera there's also a good chance I'm using the same lens to scan the film as I used to shoot the photos. So the metadata in the digital photos is occasionally accidentally right, in a broken clock right twice a day kind of way.

I know camera scanning has become the go-to answer, although a dedicated film scanner(or now 3 of them, plus a flatbed that can do up to 8x10) still gives me better results. Yes, it's more work to get there, but the work is worth it for me. There are some inherent technical advantages in proper scanners, especially the models that have actual proper Digital ICE.

Granted too I bought all my film scanners before they went nutty in price, as it seems all film gear has lately.

There's a part of me that still wants a Nikon Coolscan 9000, as it does have some notable and significant advantages over the 8000 I have. With that said, it's getting into the price range that an Imacon Flextight II gets awfully tempting also, or if I had the space an actual proper drum scanner...

 

[mollyc]

I know camera scanning has become the go-to answer, although a dedicated film scanner(or now 3 of them, plus a flatbed that can do up to 8x10) still gives me better results. Yes, it's more work to get there, but the work is worth it for me. There are some inherent technical advantages in proper scanners, especially the models that have actual proper Digital ICE.

Granted too I bought all my film scanners before they went nutty in price, as it seems all film gear has lately.

There's a part of me that still wants a Nikon Coolscan 9000, as it does have some notable and significant advantages over the 8000 I have. With that said, it's getting into the price range that an Imacon Flextight II gets awfully tempting also, or if I had the space an actual proper drum scanner...

can you run your scanners on a modern mac, or do you have to use an older version and/or pc for the software?

 

[bunnspecial]

can you run your scanners on a modern mac, or do you have to use an older version and/or pc for the software?

I stick to using older Macs so that I can use the Nikon software and get real Digital ICE plus all the other scanner controls and features that Nikon offers.

For USB scanners(Coolscan IV, V, 5000), you can use a modern mac and virtual 10.6.8, although I think that's iffy on Apple Silicon Macs.

Vuescan is an option, and I have a perpetual "pro" license from 20 years ago that I still use, but it comes up short in a few ways and is better in others. It can offer multi-pass scanning with pretty much all scanners it supports, which can be a good thing. With that said, it's inferior to Nikon's multi-sampling on the 8000/9000. Multi-pass depends on exact registration between each pass, while multi-sampling takes multiple exposures before moving the scan head(both can cause some resolution loss, but it's a lot less pronounced with multi-sampling).

My biggest criticism of Vuescan fundamentally comes down to ICE. Digital "ICE" has two essential components-the scanner-side hardware that takes the infrared scan, and the software-side algorithms that use that information for dust and scratch removal. It's only correctly and properly called "ICE" when using IR scan data and treating it with the ICE software from Kodak/Applied Science Fiction.

Vuescan can do infrared channel scanning, but make use of their own algorithms to treat the scan. In side-by-side testing of the same frames of film, Vuescan is both inferior at scratch removal, and tends to cause a lot more blurring while doing so. I didn't believe it until I tried it, but it was dramatic(and that was with me just using Nikon Scan on the default "normal" and getting a near perfect result, and playing with every available parameter in Vuescan).

People have gotten the Nikon software working in Windows 10, although as I understand Microsoft did deprecate some Firewire drivers so it takes a bit of work to run the Firewire scanners. Macs still support Firewire perfectly-even the newest AS Macs running the most current OS-but software support of course is nowhere near as good.

 

[piatigorsky]

Keep your negatives, yo!

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/06/arts/film-photography-negatives.html?unlocked_article_code=1.xk0.936R.I6o89mlAQtJl&smid=url-share

One way to ensure that you keep your negatives is to develop your own film! I've massively increased my film output in the 3+ years I've been developing at home, and it isn't that hard to do, especially for black and white. Plus, it's fun teaching kids how photography used to be done.

 

[headlessmike]

Keep your negatives, yo!

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/06/arts/film-photography-negatives.html?unlocked_article_code=1.xk0.936R.I6o89mlAQtJl&smid=url-share

I've spent the last decade digitizing my wife's grandfather's old slides (lovely Kodachrome) and negatives (most b/w). They date from the late 1940s to the early 90s. Many of the negatives are dirty and scratched, so the post-processing takes time, but the final results are much better than they would have been had I been forced to scan prints. So far I have nearly 30 GB of scans, but in about a year I reckon I will be finished.

A fun touch is that I inherited his old foldable Voigtländer Vito II that he bought in 1949 and which was used to take all of the 1950s photos in the collection. It still works like a charm.