shortscale photography thread.

[Freethenoise]

Out of the city for a few days. In North Wales where my Dad lives.

Notice the kayakers breaking through and leaving tracks in the ice, thought that was pretty cool:

Fuck, that's pretty...

[visceral]

very cool thread

[luciguci]

some shots i took last night celebrating my friend's b-day, all taken straight from the camera, no post processing

DSCF0859 by christian guzman, on Flickr
DSCF0858 by christian guzman, on Flickr
DSCF0860 by christian guzman, on Flickr

[luciguci]

WAIT no that's a lie, I cropped out some dark boring bits of the panorama on the sides

[Dillon]

Took some things to Goodwill, and decided to go in out of curiosity. Rare to find any electronics worth buying anymore (most go to their auction site now), so my eyes lit up when I looked in the glass case that cameras are kept in. What's that? A Nikon? With a nice prime lens? Yes please. It's an FE, from 1979 or so, and appears to work perfectly. Whoever dropped it off must not have known that Nikon film gear is still worth quite a bit. Looking forward to seeing how it compares to my Canon cameras of the same vintage...playing with it, it's an absolutely fantastic camera. So much more flexible and easier to use than the Canon AE bodies. Only downside so far is that the exposure meter in the viewfinder isn't lit up, and is darkly colored, so in dim light it's not even functional.



Oh, since we're talking film, a few recent photos I suppose...all Canon AE bodies, Fuji film...

[Dillon]

I got my first roll developed from the Nikon FE. Using Fuji 200 (Superia, the cheap stuff, not Velvia), which I never have before. I'm not too impressed with it...it tends to be on the cool side, and had some odd pinkish hues I tried to edit out, but couldn't (see picture of the grill below). It's also a bit noisy for an ISO 200 film, and bright light is largely blown out. I like grocery store Kodak better for the money.

But the camera, oh man! What a joy to use. I think at least one person on here regularly uses a Nikon FM, and I can see why. I believe the FE is much the same camera, but with an electronic meter and aperture priority. I think I might sell all my Canon film gear to get more Nikon lenses, which will hold value better anyhow. Image quality is virtually the same but I like using the FE better. Its only downside is the matchstick meter needle isn't illuminated.

These are all with the 35mm f/2 it came with. Pleased at the quality.







That last one of the car, I took at a local race track, because it's beat to hell but was keeping up with BMWs and Porsches.

[finboy]

I just got into photography last novemberish, still rookie as fuck but it's fun and doesn't seem to annoy as many people as music when I do it. Anyways, some choice shots from the year...















Due to timing limitations I usually end up shooting what's around me (and that ends up being whatever is around the dog park). I'd love more time to try some wildlife work but that likely won't be in the cards until the new year.

Current gear:
Canon sl1 (tempted to get the new m5 to replace)
Canon 24mm pancake
Canon 40mm pancake
Canon 10-18mm
Canon 55-250mm
Canon 400mm f5.6
Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 Art
Sigma 50-100mm f1.8 art

[Dillon]

Rookie or not, you've got a really good eye. The shaking Aussie is great

Anyone here shoot Canon EOS film bodies? EOS bodies are my primary for digital, but I've never owned a film one until now. I frequent thrift stores around here, and couldn't pass up a practically brand new EOS 650 with accessories for $15. I love it. I forgot how much fun modern "full frame" bodies are, film or not. And it's amazing to see how well modern Canon lenses work on such an old camera. I didn't know this at the time, but it's the very first EOS body, circa 1987. And they got it right from the very beginning. It had a roll of film in it with 8 shots taken, so I decided to keep shooting. Looking forward to seeing how it turns out.

[Dillon]

Anyone have tips on fixing film scans? I've put a few rolls of film through the 650 now, and the quality is impressive for being cheap film (Fuji Superia). But the majority of the lab's scans have this weird kind of layer over it that I can't seem to get rid of. And/or certain colors are blown out. I don't know if the camera wasn't metering correctly or if it's just the lab's scanners doing weird stuff. Examples...







It's inconsistent. Because here are some that turned out alright:

[riotshield]

Another thread resurrection

Lunar eclipse was on last night and clear sky allowed for some nice views from our balcony.

Shot these with a 200mm cheap ass analog lens I bought online













This is the moon together with Mars which was very bright as well

[euan]

Mate. Sweet.

[Bacchus]

Long time no update...

I haven't really thought about photography in a long time. Pretty much since I started my current career. This is probably indicative of a poor work/life balance. I've been off work for a while and reassessing things and decided to get back into it, but the price of shooting film is much higher than it was ten years ago. So I decided I would like to process my own film, but before doing that, I would need to work out how to scan 35mm reliably.

I think I've got it. This is two rolls of Ilford HP5 that I shot in Reykjavik over Christmas ten years ago. Icelandic winter is weird to take pictures of. The sky is always overcast and the thick, light clouds light everything in a shadowless glow. It feels like a wankery thing to say, but it like a country made out of HP5. There are no really dark spots and no really white spots, but everything is an extraordinary range of contrasting mid-tones.

Anyway, here's some photos. Happy with the scans. Less happy that the lab I used ten years ago has managed to scratch both reels.

Iceland 2014-4 by Paul Rodgers, on Flickr

Iceland 2014-5 by Paul Rodgers, on Flickr

Iceland 2014-7 by Paul Rodgers, on Flickr

Iceland 2014-15 by Paul Rodgers, on Flickr

Iceland 2014-19 by Paul Rodgers, on Flickr

Iceland 2014-20 by Paul Rodgers, on Flickr

Iceland 2014-22 by Paul Rodgers, on Flickr

Iceland 2014-23 by Paul Rodgers, on Flickr

Iceland 2014-26 by Paul Rodgers, on Flickr

Iceland 2014-27 by Paul Rodgers, on Flickr

Iceland 2014-29 by Paul Rodgers, on Flickr

Iceland 2014-30 by Paul Rodgers, on Flickr

Iceland 2014-33 by Paul Rodgers, on Flickr

Iceland 2014-35 by Paul Rodgers, on Flickr

Iceland 2014-37 by Paul Rodgers, on Flickr

Iceland 2014-39 by Paul Rodgers, on Flickr

Iceland 2014-40 by Paul Rodgers, on Flickr

Iceland 2014-41 by Paul Rodgers, on Flickr

Iceland 2014-43 by Paul Rodgers, on Flickr

Iceland 2014-44 by Paul Rodgers, on Flickr

Iceland 2014-49 by Paul Rodgers, on Flickr

Iceland 2014-54 by Paul Rodgers, on Flickr

Iceland 2014-56 by Paul Rodgers, on Flickr

Iceland 2014-60 by Paul Rodgers, on Flickr

Iceland 2014-61 by Paul Rodgers, on Flickr

Iceland 2014-63 by Paul Rodgers, on Flickr

Iceland 2014-65 by Paul Rodgers, on Flickr

Iceland 2014-66 by Paul Rodgers, on Flickr

Iceland 2014 by Paul Rodgers, on Flickr[/spoil]

[plopswagon]

Nice! I’ve been enjoying doing photography for work. For the longest time I’d convinced myself that I was a terrible photographer (probably from that time when I was in my early twenties and a girl I was crushing on told me my photos were “boring”). Turns out it just something one has to practice. I’ve been considering moving to film. My wife used to be a photographer but quit when she couldn’t get her favorite paper anymore and digital wasn’t fun for her.

[DanHeron]

They look great!

How did you go about scanning them in the end?

[Bacchus]

Thanks. I'm pretty happy with the results.

I initially made my own film strip holder from stiff card and used a packaging tube cut to about the minimal focal distance of one of the lenses that my wife has for her D5300. Sort of a homemade ES-2. This sort of worked, but not very well. The image that it captured was mostly tube, with the negative in a tiny frame in middle. Lots of cropping needed.

20241128_132955.jpg (1.88 MiB) Viewed 281 times

20241128_124641.jpg (1.16 MiB) Viewed 281 times

I spent a bit of time thinking about how to improve this and decided I should cut the tube further and instead use the 55mm f/3.5 Micro lens that I got with my Nikkormat. This would present a few issues that I had plans to overcome, but I realised I'd probably still end up spending £20 on it, as well as five or ten or twenty hours fettering, and no guaranteed good results at the end.

So I decided to bite the bullet at buy the JJC FDA K1.



With this kit and the 55mm lens, I was able to get close to getting a full recreation of the 35mm negative on the D5300's APS-C sensor. I managed to get a Nikon M2 extension tube for a fiver, reducing the minimal focal distance of the 55mm, and with that I can get a full 1:1 recreation. And it's plenty sharp enough at the corners for me. I'll still play around a bit with ISO and shutter speeds to fine tune the exposure, but I think I've more or less sussed it.

An added bonus is that the M2 and 55mm Micro lens were sort of made with each other in mind, so it opens up the chance to play with macro photography with the Nikkormat if I want to.

Turns out it just something one has to practice.

Very much this. I'm enjoying trying to get my hand in again, seeing photos as I'm walking around.

I've got a stack of cheap colour film from aaaages ago that I'm shooting and will develop next week. Got the Paterson tank and C41 chemicals in the post.

The film expired in 2013, so probably not the best film to learn to develop with.

[Gavin]

cool

[Bacchus]

A few more. An issue is that some of the film is a little curled, which gives these sort of blown out corners. Might have a think about leaving film in heavy books for a few days to see if that flattens it.

Newcastle 2014-2 by Paul Rodgers, on Flickr

Newcastle 2014 by Paul Rodgers, on Flickr

Westport-5 by Paul Rodgers, on Flickr

Westport-14 by Paul Rodgers, on Flickr

Westport-15 by Paul Rodgers, on Flickr

Westport-17 by Paul Rodgers, on Flickr

Westport-24 by Paul Rodgers, on Flickr

Westport-33 by Paul Rodgers, on Flickr

Westport-36 by Paul Rodgers, on Flickr

Westport-49 by Paul Rodgers, on Flickr

Westport-50 by Paul Rodgers, on Flickr

Westport-51 by Paul Rodgers, on Flickr

[plopswagon]

Good stuff!

[Bacchus]

First go developing. Because of being skint and having a pile of colour film, I went C41, which is a bit trickier, apparently. Used a big water bath to keep temperatures at 39C.

Some conclusions before the photos (which are all snapshots for the sake of testing things, rather than "good" photos):

The film is expired, which makes it harder to pinpoint where the issues are. Weird colour casts might be exposure problems, or developing problems, or scanning problems.

Some of the rolls have been exposed at 400 then pushed a stop in development. I think this (along with age) is the source of some of the graininess.

I find it hard to get inspired to take decent photos if I don't trust the film/process etc. It might have been a better use of money to spent more to get a B&W kit plus some HP5.

First roll was pretty disappointing. It was shot at 200 and not pushed. Reading around it, I think the issue might have been over agitation during development. I didn't realise this was a thing, but the magenta striping gives it away:

► Show Spoiler

Second roll was shot at 400 and pushed a stop. Colours etc are better so I think I've sussed the agitation issue. The inside photos (which were sort of hail Marys anyway) are pretty grainy. These were all shot on a little Agfa, which I think I like (I got a light meter for this camera and I'll post again about it later). The Agfa has a pretty loose rewind knob/canister holder, so if you're not careful about keeping it tensioned, you can inadvertently get double exposures.

► Show Spoiler

[Bacchus]

Also, as much as I love the Micro-Nikkor 55mm lens, I've always wanted something a bit quicker than f/3.5 so that I can possibly shoot indoors.

The 50mm f1.8 is very common, and I kept an eye on ebay and eventually got this Series E for cheap. The listing described it as "bent," referring to the outer rim of the lens. Looking at the photos, I spotted reflections where there shouldn't be and realised there must be a filter on there. I thought I'd take a punt and put in a lowball offer and see if I could straighten then remove the filter.

It arrived just now, and there is a filter on. But it came straight off, it hasn't marred the threading in anyway at all.

Lens is in great condition underneath. So a mint lens for cheap, with a free cosmetically damaged UV filter. Noice.

It doesn't have the F-mount prong to couple with the light meter, so I'll have to stop-down meter readings. But I'd be looking at paying £60-£100 more for the equivalent lens with the prong. So I'll keep my money and stop-down.

► Show Spoiler

20250130_132618.jpg (1.8 MiB) Viewed 180 times

20250130_132641.jpg (1.87 MiB) Viewed 180 times

20250130_133430.jpg (1.52 MiB) Viewed 180 times