Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

bunnspecial

macrumors G3
May 3, 2014
8,352
6,495
Kentucky
I’m pretty sure most of you didn’t even read my original post or my subsequent posts.

I was very clear from the outset about wanting to learn about different color film stocks, lab scanning, and different film formats.

I did not ask about home development (although did ask a follow on question once it was brought up) or the process of learning photography from scratch or the best way to shoot black and white.

I am not sure how my very specific questions about film in the first post got extrapolated to meaning shooting black white or how Leica is the best for that digitally.

I will just find a different group to ask questions. I had hoped since this group is diverse in terms of age, genre, and location that it would be a good topic for discussion.

Thank you to those of you who actually addressed my questions and offered links to sites and shared your own photos.

I'm sorry for my sometimes rambling on things like this.

I shoot a decent bit of B&W film and enjoy it because it MAKES me think differently, but at the end of the day my heart is in color also. Occasionally I'll see something and think "that would work well in B&W" but most often I really am drawn to the color. I could count on one hand the number of digital originals I have converted to B&W.

I'm happy to at least give a stab at answering any questions I can, and hope that we can see some no-doubt beautiful work from you when you get your first roll processed.
 

mollyc

macrumors G3
Original poster
Aug 18, 2016
8,064
50,725
I'm sorry for my sometimes rambling on things like this.

I shoot a decent bit of B&W film and enjoy it because it MAKES me think differently, but at the end of the day my heart is in color also. Occasionally I'll see something and think "that would work well in B&W" but most often I really am drawn to the color. I could count on one hand the number of digital originals I have converted to B&W.

I'm happy to at least give a stab at answering any questions I can, and hope that we can see some no-doubt beautiful work from you when you get your first roll processed.
You gave a very thoughtful reply concerning negative vs slide among other things. And describing different types of stocks. Plus countless private messages. ?

I don’t mind the inherent tangents that come with discussing such a broad topic.

I do not appreciate the way I was talked down to by several posters in this thread. I would have thought by now I had shown my skill in my photo shares throughout the years I’ve been here.
 

mollyc

macrumors G3
Original poster
Aug 18, 2016
8,064
50,725
I will stay on point. Are you considering Lomography color film?

Lab scanning - cost will vary based on the quality you want, basic jpegs or a higher dpi (if you plan on having large prints made)

Attached is a digitizing service I will have some slides processed at

I have only briefly heard on the Lomography brand and haven’t researched them. I don’t know what their stocks look like.

I am currently shooting Portra 400 and next will use Fuji Superia 400.

I have three labs on my list to try. Richards, The Darkroom, and The Find Lab. My first roll I will have developed locally just because it’s a test roll.
 

dimme

macrumors 68040
Feb 14, 2007
3,263
32,131
SF, CA
I did like an earlier suggestion of creating a good light box and carrier set-up, and using a good digital camera macro set-up as opposed to scanning. Since Molly already has the camera gear this approach could prove quite feasible, whether shooting slides or negs.

Anyways my original sentiment stands. Have fun with it!
Something like this can be found on ebay. Worked well back in the day.
 

Attachments

  • s-l1600.jpg
    s-l1600.jpg
    134.6 KB · Views: 95

Steven-iphone

macrumors 68000
Apr 25, 2020
1,953
16,490
United States
I have only briefly heard on the Lomography brand and haven’t researched them. I don’t know what their stocks look like.

I am currently shooting Portra 400 and next will use Fuji Superia 400.

I have three labs on my list to try. Richards, The Darkroom, and The Find Lab. My first roll I will have developed locally just because it’s a test roll.
Here is the Lomography website if interested

 

bunnspecial

macrumors G3
May 3, 2014
8,352
6,495
Kentucky
I have only briefly heard on the Lomography brand and haven’t researched them. I don’t know what their stocks look like.

I am currently shooting Portra 400 and next will use Fuji Superia 400.

I have three labs on my list to try. Richards, The Darkroom, and The Find Lab. My first roll I will have developed locally just because it’s a test roll.

We can talk privately if you wish, but I would encourage you to avoid Lomography emulsions as they, in general, are geared toward imparting a certain aesthetic and bright colors or even color fidelity are not among those.

My experience with their film stock has been in the 110 format, as they are the only current supplier I'm aware of. The 110 format is inherently limiting so can't necessarily show the film's resolving power(I used arguably the best 110 format camera made, the Pentax Auto 110 SLR, but there are still film flatness concerns along with size), but can give a good idea of the overall color behavior and so forth of a film stock.

Lomography as a whole can be rather polarizing among what I call the film "hold outs"-the ones-like me-who never stopped using film, or otherwise who used film in the past and are returning to it. I'd rather say publicly, but again PM me if you want my opinion.

BTW, I'd recommend adding Dwayne's Photo in Kansas to your list. They had some notoriety as the last K-14 processor in the world, but do excellent E-6 work. I've not used them for C-41, but folks who have speak highly of them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mollyc

headlessmike

macrumors 65816
May 16, 2017
1,438
2,838
We can talk privately if you wish, but I would encourage you to avoid Lomography emulsions as they, in general, are geared toward imparting a certain aesthetic and bright colors or even color fidelity are not among those.

My experience with their film stock has been in the 110 format, as they are the only current supplier I'm aware of. The 110 format is inherently limiting so can't necessarily show the film's resolving power(I used arguably the best 110 format camera made, the Pentax Auto 110 SLR, but there are still film flatness concerns along with size), but can give a good idea of the overall color behavior and so forth of a film stock.

Lomography as a whole can be rather polarizing among what I call the film "hold outs"-the ones-like me-who never stopped using film, or otherwise who used film in the past and are returning to it. I'd rather say publicly, but again PM me if you want my opinion.

BTW, I'd recommend adding Dwayne's Photo in Kansas to your list. They had some notoriety as the last K-14 processor in the world, but do excellent E-6 work. I've not used them for C-41, but folks who have speak highly of them.
Lomography certainly have some funky films that can be divisive. But they do also have a few traditional film stocks, like their Color Negative 800, that are apparently old (and otherwise discontinued) Kodak formulations. I know of some photographers who swear by these films.
 

r.harris1

macrumors 68020
Feb 20, 2012
2,210
12,757
Denver, Colorado, USA
I’m pretty sure most of you didn’t even read my original post or my subsequent posts.

I was very clear from the outset about wanting to learn about different color film stocks, lab scanning, and different film formats.

I did not ask about home development (although did ask a follow on question once it was brought up) or the process of learning photography from scratch or the best way to shoot black and white.

I am not sure how my very specific questions about film in the first post got extrapolated to meaning shooting black white or how Leica is the best for that digitally.

I will just find a different group to ask questions. I had hoped since this group is diverse in terms of age, genre, and location that it would be a good topic for discussion.

Thank you to those of you who actually addressed my questions and offered links to sites and shared your own photos.
I do hope you continue to post on this topic - I think it's a good one indeed. You've made your interests quite clear. I think film as an image capturing medium is as worthy a discussion as that of any digital camera. It's different. You have to think differently. It imposes different limits than you find on digital cameras and each set of film stock has it's own voice. There's magic, to me, in light going through amazing optics hitting a particular film "sensor" and working with chemistry to alter and adjust.

I remember maybe a decade ago, I got drawn back into the uniqueness and beauty of film as an image capture medium at an exhibit while on our (pre-pandemic) endless vacations in the UK. At The Baltic in Newcastle, there was an exhibit then that wasn't specifically around classic photography but film as an artistic medium. It has a definite and very different response to light hitting it than any digital sensor (yes, yes you can approximate it in digital blah, blah, blah). It's beautiful in a way that is hard for me to describe. I'm heading down a film path now that we're all starting to wake up from our year+ long slumber. I hope to share some of that journey here.

Edit: I'm using my Nikon FM2n - all manual, no G or later, so not as fancy as your excellent F100 - and exploring both b&w (developing in home) and color (out to a lab for negative) and in both cases using a digital camera / Capture One to process the negative for printing and sharing. I've not yet pulled the trigger but my scanning platform will be my d850/eventual Z7II(or Z(whatever)) with holder, light, stand from these folks: https://www.negative.supply/ and will probably add a medium format film camera of one variety or another later.

I do like b&w a great deal and appreciate @Clix Pix 's view of the world but also color - two different parts of the brain for sure. I'm excited to explore both worlds. The last year has shown that life is short. I need to live it :).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mollyc and Clix Pix

bunnspecial

macrumors G3
May 3, 2014
8,352
6,495
Kentucky
It has a definite and very different response to light hitting it than any digital sensor (yes, yes you can approximate it in digital blah, blah, blah). It's beautiful in a way that is hard for me to describe

There is a lot of truth to this, and what makes it interesting to me is that in a sense you make a decision before pressing the shutter about what the final result might look like.

Certain emulsions have very distinctive looks about them.

Many folks wax poetically about Kodachrome. When I was a high school kid with his first SLR in 2005, I'd read about this mythical/legendary stuff and bought a couple of rolls of it on my first trip to a real camera store. I also bought the same number of rolls of Velvia(original Velvia, not Velvia 100 or the reincarnated Velvia 50).

I loaded up a roll in my Canon T90 and went out excitedly to photograph the Tulips down at the Capitol(always a big thing in Kentucky, and something I have years of) plus some other colorful and exciting things.

My first roll came back and my response was...well...what's so special about this stuff? It was fresh, in date, cold stored Kodachrome 64, processed promptly by arguably the best Kodachrome lab in the world(actually one of I think 3 at the time), Dwayne's Photo. It was dull, drab, and just boring to me.

That same day, I'd also shot a roll of Velvia. It came back at the same time from the same lab, and it was jaw dropping. I'd never seen color like that in a photo I'd taken. I was new to slide shooting at the time so was making do with an old handheld slide viewer, but still it blew me away.

I kept it up with Kodachrome, and eventually something would hit "right" on its color palette. Other times, I'd go in thinking that something would render well on it, and some of my later Kodachromes I shot were a lot more satisfying than those first ones. From then on, though, it was mostly Velvia to me, although I've returned some to the very clean and less over the top E100/E100G.

Still, though, it's funny how that sticks with you. I will be browsing through old photos online, or an article that has old photos spaced through it, and I'll have a reaction of "That's Kodachrome" on certain ones. I've yet to be wrong when the film stock was indicated on the photo. It's hard to explain what I see, but the best I could describe it is that all the colors tend to "block up", and most any red is rendered with a certain distinctive "Kodachrome Red".

Velvia of course has its own color palette quirks. Most of the people photos I have that have been taken on Velvia are of caucasian people, and I tend to avoid showing the subjects their photos just because most folks don't like seeing a photo of their face pink or even red. Still, though, the selective warming of yellow to a golden yellow type color is like nothing else.
 

tizeye

macrumors 68040
Jul 17, 2013
3,241
35,935
Orlando, FL
Well, back to the camera store...
Earlier posting (#52) on this thread got me to thinking about running a roll through a vintage camera "just for fun." Was looking at chemicals for developing, since I have the tanks and other equipment, but when they said $5 to develop B&W - negatives only, no scan - but I can do that, I quit looking at chemicals. This currently is only a 1 roll experiment so shelf life of $20-$30 of chemicals would become an issue for multiple future rolls, making the $5 a no-brainer.

First the good news, held film, still in foil, against the take-up reel, and the edges match so the camera takes 120 film and won't require an adapter for 116 film that hasn't been manufactured for decades (century???). Then I noticed that had wooden reel that haven't been used for decades (WWII when metal was scarce?). Do I really want to turn that in with the film to be developed rolled around it? The camera store indicated they do the development in house, so could ask for it back, but probably better just to get a metal roll to begin with.

IMG_0078.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clix Pix and mollyc

mollyc

macrumors G3
Original poster
Aug 18, 2016
8,064
50,725
I’m have trouble finding someone to fix my grandfather’s camera. I don’t know how to make bellows nor install them properly. ☹️
 

tizeye

macrumors 68040
Jul 17, 2013
3,241
35,935
Orlando, FL
I’m have trouble finding someone to fix my grandfather’s camera. I don’t know how to make bellows nor install them properly. ☹️
You may want to contact (from his website) Jurgen Kreckel who does antique camera repair and own certo6.com. He is located in Pennsylvania. Internet search shows him to be highly respected among antique camera forums as he did repairs. Interactions indicate that he can be a little eccentric as antique camera are his baby. Cost? No camera repair is cheap, but probably in the low $100's. As states on website, describe problem as you perceive it in email, and he will return a quote. Good luck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mollyc

mollyc

macrumors G3
Original poster
Aug 18, 2016
8,064
50,725
You may want to contact (from his website) Jurgen Kreckel who does antique camera repair and own certo6.com. He is located in Pennsylvania. Internet search shows him to be highly respected among antique camera forums as he did repairs. Interactions indicate that he can be a little eccentric as antique camera are his baby. Cost? No camera repair is cheap, but probably in the low $100's. As states on website, describe problem as you perceive it in email, and he will return a quote. Good luck.
yes, I did look at him already. Unfortunately he has some very poor reviews on Reddit (I think the Antique Camera channel, I forget exactly) of people who have used him, so I got a little turned off. Like taking months and months to get their camera back and then things not fixed properly.

I did find some place in England that I think could fabricate the bellows for me but then I'm left with the how to get them attached part.
 

tizeye

macrumors 68040
Jul 17, 2013
3,241
35,935
Orlando, FL
OK...ran that roll of film through. Counted size correctly with 8 exposures rather than the typical 12 "square 6x6mm" on 120. Bellows didn't have a light leak, but inadvertent back opening caused exposure issue. The back release slides too easily and next time will put tape over latch when film is loaded. Only 6 exposures as really underexposed on 2 interior shots...which were the ones I wanted, of course. They were of my 91 y/o mother and 4 mo old great grandson - and the irony of a camera older than her. Used my Sony for meter reading as with all of the others, but mis-set something, and unfortunately didn't think to use the Sony or the iPhone to take a back-up picture.
2000px--2.JPG
2000px-.JPG
2000px--4.JPG
2000px--3.JPG
2000px--5.JPG
2000px--6.JPG
 

mollyc

macrumors G3
Original poster
Aug 18, 2016
8,064
50,725
OK...ran that roll of film through. Counted size correctly with 8 exposures rather than the typical 12 "square 6x6mm" on 120. Bellows didn't have a light leak, but inadvertent back opening caused exposure issue. The back release slides too easily and next time will put tape over latch when film is loaded. Only 6 exposures as really underexposed on 2 interior shots...which were the ones I wanted, of course. They were of my 91 y/o mother and 4 mo old great grandson - and the irony of a camera older than her. Used my Sony for meter reading as with all of the others, but mis-set something, and unfortunately didn't think to use the Sony or the iPhone to take a back-up picture. View attachment 1807181 View attachment 1807182 View attachment 1807183 View attachment 1807184 View attachment 1807185 View attachment 1807186
I'm sorry your portraits didn't come out but I love the ones you posted. I adore the light leaks, although you probably don't want them.

Still working on my first roll with just a couple of frames left, but I bought three more rolls of Portra 400 for our trip to the beach next week. I also have a roll of Fuji to use, and at the rate I shoot film, I think that will be more than enough for a week (plus I am still taking at least one digital camera and my Holga with two rolls for that). I had wanted to shoot and develop an entire roll before the beach so I knew if I was okay on my exposures, but oh well.
 

mollyc

macrumors G3
Original poster
Aug 18, 2016
8,064
50,725
Finally, after a long summer, I got three rolls of film scans back! Such a long wait! So now the real questions begin.

As a refresher, I bought a used Nikon F100. It is in very good condition physically, and I doubt it was used much. For about 90% of my images I used my 35mm 1.8G lens. An awful lot of the images I took with this lens are front focused. Can a film body and lens be mis-calibrated like a digital camera? I'm willing to chalk a few images up to being OOF just due to being unfamiliar with the camera, or perhaps just forgetting to move the focus point and not paying attention. But not this many.....

A couple of images I used my Velvet 56 in manual focus and despite my old eyes looking through a tiny viewfinder, those images are bang on sharp. A couple of images I think I used my 105mm macro lens and those are also sharp, so it would seem to be a lens issue. My 35mm lens was always one of my sharpest lenses on my D700/D800 so it's suprising I would have issue with it on a film camera.

Here are some that are just outrageously soft/out of focus. These are with the 35mm.

FB_September_16_2021_001-3.jpg


This one you can see the very bottom flower is in focus, so obviously that lens somehow front focused.
FB_September_16_2021_002.jpg


This should have been a super easy one, but the back wall is OOF and that tiny rear view mirror is in focus (really well!); not the story I was going for.
FB_September_16_2021_001-4.jpg


This one was quite low light and pushing the ability of the camera (I took photos on my digital camera at the same time at ISO 1600), but again, the dock at the bottom is in focus.
FB_September_16_2021_001-6.jpg



But then I have images like these:

35mm; focus is where I put it.
FB_September_16_2021_001-7.jpg



35mm; focus on the roses where I intended.
FB_September_16_2021_001.jpg



Velvet 56 I think, in perfect focus.
FB_September_16_2021_001-8.jpg



100mm macro lens. overexposed (that's a learning curve for me) but suitably sharp.
FB_September_16_2021_001-5.jpg



Any suggestions??
 

mollyc

macrumors G3
Original poster
Aug 18, 2016
8,064
50,725
it’s extra disappointing because i shot film exclusively when we went to nyc and most of them are front focused. i had better luck with my beach photos, especially ones shot at a distance.
 

bunnspecial

macrumors G3
May 3, 2014
8,352
6,495
Kentucky
The front focused ones are bizarre.

I've never seen a film body that far off unless something crazy was going on like the mirror not being in position and the distance from the back of the mirror to the CCD(the focusing CCD at the bottom of the mirror box) being way off.

Also, given that the F100 has focus points nowhere close to the in-focus areas on the "missed" focus it's hard to believe that it's pocking that up.

What are your focus settings? Continuous or single shot? Focus priority or release priority? Tracking? Back button? I'm wondering if it's something wonky there.

Also, this would stump me even more, but can I assume the OOF ones looked in-focus after you let the camera AF?

Last thing, when you use an MF lens, or MF one of your 35mm lenses, does the electronic rangefinder show in focus when the image "looks" sharp?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mollyc

mollyc

macrumors G3
Original poster
Aug 18, 2016
8,064
50,725
The front focused ones are bizarre.

I've never seen a film body that far off unless something crazy was going on like the mirror not being in position and the distance from the back of the mirror to the CCD(the focusing CCD at the bottom of the mirror box) being way off.

Also, given that the F100 has focus points nowhere close to the in-focus areas on the "missed" focus it's hard to believe that it's pocking that up.

What are your focus settings? Continuous or single shot? Focus priority or release priority? Tracking? Back button? I'm wondering if it's something wonky there.

Also, this would stump me even more, but can I assume the OOF ones looked in-focus after you let the camera AF?

Last thing, when you use an MF lens, or MF one of your 35mm lenses, does the electronic rangefinder show in focus when the image "looks" sharp?
good questions! just what i need. i will report back tomorrow. ?
 

mollyc

macrumors G3
Original poster
Aug 18, 2016
8,064
50,725
What are your focus settings? Continuous or single shot? Focus priority or release priority? Tracking? Back button? I'm wondering if it's something wonky there.

Also, this would stump me even more, but can I assume the OOF ones looked in-focus after you let the camera AF?

For discussion's sake, all custom functions are set to default EXCEPT BBF, which I do have set to AF-On. My shutter button does not focus.

But for the specific questions:

Single shot

Not asked, but I toggle focus points

Continuous Servo AF (this is what I use on my digital bodies)

I do not see an option on this camera to set focus priority vs release priority. Might be overlooking it?

The focus setting are different than what I am used to on my digital bodies (the digital are more advanced, but easier to figure out what is set. the custom functions on the F100 leave something to be desired). To be honest I'm not actually sure what the camera is set to.....

Okay, getting closer....(I got a free Magic Lantern guide when I bought this camera). It is set to Single Servo, Single AF. I think maybe I should set it to Continuous Servo and Single AF. I am not a fan of tracking (which for this camera is the [ ] [+] toggle, and mine is set to [ ]), and I want to be in charge of the focus point.

Back button focus (set through custom function)

As to your last question, I tried moving the focus points around tonight and the camera definitely tracks the different points at different distances and I can hear the AF of the lens (tested with the 35mm).
 

bunnspecial

macrumors G3
May 3, 2014
8,352
6,495
Kentucky
Okay, not sure if this will help, but worth a shot:

CSM 9(closest subject priority in single server). Default 0(enabled), change to 1(disabled)

That's the only potentially relevant CSM I see. I don't THINK there are any "hidden" CSMs that would help you(as best as I remember they mostly have to do with data recording) but I'd check and set them for you if you were closer. I sold my F100 so can't see/look anymore, and the computer-accessible-only CSMs are not well documented. I don't see focus priority either-I think that's an available F6 CSM, but it also has more in common with the D2x than any other film Nikon...

I'm still a bit stumped.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mollyc

r.harris1

macrumors 68020
Feb 20, 2012
2,210
12,757
Denver, Colorado, USA
All very bizarre! I’m assuming with the F100 that there’s no chance the film itself wasn’t completely taut for whatever reason? I wouldn’t assume that would be the case but thought I’d throw that out there. I had somewhat similar behavior in my old Yashica. Obviously no auto focus on that camera but I remember that where I’d focused was not in focus on the scan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mollyc

mollyc

macrumors G3
Original poster
Aug 18, 2016
8,064
50,725
Okay, not sure if this will help, but worth a shot:

CSM 9(closest subject priority in single server). Default 0(enabled), change to 1(disabled)

That's the only potentially relevant CSM I see. I don't THINK there are any "hidden" CSMs that would help you(as best as I remember they mostly have to do with data recording) but I'd check and set them for you if you were closer. I sold my F100 so can't see/look anymore, and the computer-accessible-only CSMs are not well documented. I don't see focus priority either-I think that's an available F6 CSM, but it also has more in common with the D2x than any other film Nikon...

I'm still a bit stumped.
thanks, i will try that. ? that whole setting seems odd to me anyway. why would you just assume you want the closest thing in focus? although that actually does seem like what happened here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: r.harris1
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.