Jump to content
IGNORED

The Rllmuk Photography Thread


PeteJ
 Share

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, FishyFish said:

 

How do you scan yours (scanner model / software etc.)?

 

I've got a couple of scanners - an Epson V550, and a Plustek 8100 - and use Vuescan when scanning E6 film. However, the software gives me different options dependent on the scanner used based on it's capability. I've not scanned any 120 Velvia 100, but found some 120 Provia 400 transparencies to be a complete PITA to scan well using the V550 and Vuescan.

 

So far, the Plustek and Vuescan are giving me pretty good results for 35mm transparencies straight out of the scanner.

 

I think the images I posted above are post-Lightroom, so the one with the red cast has probably still had some editing done on it.

 

I'm using a V550 and the pack-in Epson software. I'm not sure what advantage Vuescan would give as I scan with no adjustments (no ICE, no unsharp mask, levels set to 0-255, and make sure not to clip anything).

 

The V550 scans both colour and black and white negatives really well, but seems to have issues with slides, especially Velvia 50 and 100. Provia isn't too bad, nor were some 1970s slides I scanned.

 

Here's another Velvia 100 example:

 

img276.thumb.jpg.1e6dc1dd647a97d5e87e9cd809e071c7.jpg

 

Concrete Factory

 

 

Provia looks worse initially but is easier to edit because it doesn't seem to shift colours differently in the darks, mid-tones and lights:

49406183592_87aeb8768b_k_d.jpg

 

Skylines

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m gearing up for this year’s street photography competition at work. There are 5 rounds, each with a theme, but they haven’t been announced yet. I have been practising trying to spot out of place things that perhaps have a story. I’m not that confident yet with just shooting randoms, but perhaps I work towards that.

 

These are my interesting shots from the last week


1. Empty frame. What’s the story here? Did someone like the picture so much they stole it? Or maybe it’s deliberate, or maybe someone just never put one in.

 

3D42F5EA-A426-4CF1-8148-3138FC59B5BB.jpeg


2. Burst Hose. This was poetic, a burst hose pipe was sprinkling a fake grass bench. We thought it might have been an art installation but there was a cleaner using the hose.

2BF5F85F-298A-42AC-B248-63DFD145D56A.jpeg


3. Escape! A cage had been purpose built to contain a tree stump. It was escaping

DAEC316E-4990-4F38-9109-CDDA15E4351F.jpeg
 

4. Mixer. An abandoned mixer at a bus stop. Why???!!

327D6505-939F-40FB-8B2C-CC2D0859E482.jpeg


5. The bus doors opened and there was a homeless guy giving his food to the pigeons

A9FA2938-564E-4B71-83FA-76AEA76199B8.jpeg
 

6. Art. Someone had purposely oriented it out of their window. It was quite high up. I experimented with black and white and fixing the angle so it was straight on.

9E0EA438-2182-4B15-80E2-10363C4CC5D6.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few recent shots following trips to Dartmoor.

 

Shaugh Prior

5G1A0009-L.jpg

 

5G1A0028-L.jpg

 

New Bridge

5G1A0069-L.jpg

 

5G1A0065-L.jpg

 

Hollwell Tor

5G1A0202-Edit-L.jpg

 

Hound Tor (Haytor in background)

5G1A0238-Edit-L.jpg

 

Bowerman's Nose

5G1A0311-Pano-L.jpg

 

5G1A0343-L.jpg

Edited by PeteJ
couldn't get images to work
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I took this mess of a photo (Velvia 100):

Primary Colours

I don't like it much but I quite like this tiny crop from the bottom left:

 

img283crop.thumb.jpg.57c1e4783623eedfeccb761b0ed7d1c0.jpg

 

Dog Bucket. It's a shame I didn't have a narrower lens or a different camera.

 

 

I tried scanning in an old Holga negative from 2010. I’m not sure what film but it would have been really cheap. I think the negative has faded - or it was badly exposed in the first place - because the negative looked really faint compared to more recent ones. But it came out OK compared to the original scan I made of a printed photo.

 

Old Holga Picture: View from under Blackfriars Bridge

 

Original scan of photo:

 

7

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some nice photos above.  I am liking the Tors posted above and mthe candle display a bit further up.

 

I've been tinkering with some more photos recently which I have made into a Dyptych - as it is a white border you can't really see the outline unless you click on it.

 

962619731_AlbertDyptych-3.thumb.jpg.5a156016d0c0562d8a29242a11b5d8fd.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dorset photos taken last week.

 

Swanage

24-105@ 32mm. f/11 2.5 sec. Taken at 11:35am so had to work with with the light. Used a Lee Little Stopper to slow down the water. With these coastal shots it's always best to let the wave brake and take the shot whilst it retreats if doing a long exposure, otherwise you get a load of white mess. In this situation, each wave was quite close together so it was tough to get a clean shot, but I think the next wave adds to the shot.

5G1A0491-L.jpg

 

Seacombe.

16-35@ 20mm f/11 0.25 seconds. Little stopper.

Quite a trek down a coastal path to get to this ledge, and to be honest I had no idea what to expect. The tide was out but it was looking deadly at times. It was difficult to capture the mood of the location so I decided to do a B&W conversion in Silver Effects Pro to bring out the detail. I don't normally like to process so much but I quite like the effect. My god I was tired when I got back to the car though, that's quite a walk back up!

5G1A0560-Edit-L.jpg

 

Different exposure in colour, but same composition.

5G1A0563-L.jpg

 

 

Chapman's Pool

16-35mm@ 19mm, f/11 0.8 seconds .9 medium grad + polarizer

Bit of a nightmare composition, balancing composition with risk of death. It's an absolutely spectacular part of the South West Coastal Path but it's surprisingly difficult to photograph. The foreground is interesting  but the immediate bottom of the cliff is very ugly, making it difficult to position yourself whilst capturing the amazing coastline before you. On this  day it was blowing like crazy at well, so I kept low to keep out of the wind as much as possible. Unfortunately the light promised so much at sunset but it never came, leading to a rather flat shot. Weirdly I cannot get the image to look natural, this shot of more or less exactly as it came out of the camera. On this shot I've cut out the foreground rocks in order to minimize the dirty green path at the bottom of the cliff. 

5G1A2846-L.jpg

 

 

St Aldhelm's Chapel

16-35mm@ 21mm, f/11 1/60th second. Polarizer, .6 soft grad. Converted to Infrared in Lightroom

Bit of a trek here, despite being around the corner from the shot above. When I arrived there were people sat on camping chairs along one edge (hidden from this shot), and about five minutes after taking this three coastguard volunteers arrived to do maintenance on on of their nearby coastguard building. Positioning was difficult to more these distractions, and on top of that it was blowing like mad making any long exposure to capture the moving grass impossible. In the end I had to wait for the clouds to position themselves in such a way to form some interest, and in post I decided that the scene looked much better in infrared.

The sign on the door is about covid, preventing access to inside the chapel.

5G1A2892-Edit-L.jpg

 

Kimmeridge Bay

16-35@20mm, /14 20seconds, .9 medium grad + polarizer.

I stupidly didn't check the tide before coming here, which was right out but coming in as the sun set. This made compositions difficult especially with no movement in the water but enough of a breeze to cancel out any reflections and some very flat light. I've used a grad here to cut through the water in the foreground, to give a little more interest.

5G1A0439-L.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excuse the double post! These are shoot in our local woods about a week ago. It was chucking it down with rain, making it very difficult to keep the glass try. Especially tricky as my polarizer has a gap between the lens and the filter, meaning rain could get between the two resulting in me having to try them both off every few seconds. I have a rain cover for the camera, which made the shoot possible at all, but it wasn't easy.

 

I really like this one but I'm desperate to reshoot it with the colours changing. There is a log on the ground which bothers me too, which could be cloned out quite easily but I couldn't be bothered to fire up Photoshop! The camera, with the biggest lens I own, was pretty much as low down as my tripod allows and I was lying in the mud\ leaves. With my full waterproofs on I probably looked a bit dodgy but never mind!

100-400mm @ 117mm, f/11 3.2 seconds. 

 

5G1A2985-L.jpg

 

Bracketed exposure in order to not whiteout the background, blended in Lightroom.

16-35mm @ 20mm f/11 1/15th sec (multiple exposures, these details are from the middle one)

5G1A2937-HDR-L.jpg

 

16-35 @ 33mm, f/11,  2 seconds

5G1A2956-L.jpg

 

I spent quite a bit of time 'cleaning' the scene before taking the shot, ie moving dead branches out of the way. When I got the shot home I realized that I should have done a lot more! Never mind I quite like the shot.

16-35 @ 35mm f/11 0.3 s

5G1A2968-HDR-L.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got a new lens (well, an old, second-hand one, but new to me) for my Bronica ETRSi the other week and took it out for a test run last week. It's a 50mm which is roughly equivalent to 28mm in full-frame terms.

 

Bronica ETRSi
Zenzanon 50mm f/2.8 MC
Fujifilm Superia 100 (expired 2008)

 

Autum in the Limb Valley

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I'm still struggling with slide film. The raw scan looked like this:

50610910791_d5ee53a5df_h.jpg

 

After trying to remove the discoloration, I ended up with this:

 

Nothing to see here

 

...which is very wrong but I don't know if I can be arsed with it really.


edit - it now looks like this:

Nothing to see here edit

Slide film is great in ideal conditions but in low light, especially slightly underexposed, it’s a bit of a nightmare. It’s not worth bothering with in a lot of conditions.
 

 

Digital (Old 5D3) looked like this after an edit:

50611030747_e5fb37da00_k.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 16/11/2020 at 19:59, Monkeyspill said:

I'm still struggling with slide film. The raw scan looked like this:

 

Slide film is great in ideal conditions but in low light, especially slightly underexposed, it’s a bit of a nightmare. It’s not worth bothering with in a lot of conditions.

 

I know how you feel. While I've had some lovely results from slide film - including expired stuff - I've also had disappointments where, no matter how I tried, I couldn't get them looking quite right. It's easy to mess up the exposure with it too, so I'm tending to use it as a "fair weather" film now. That's not to say it isn't capable outside of ideal conditions, but I think I need to up my game in terms of proper metering if I'm going to be able to get better results every time in all conditions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 16/11/2020 at 21:39, iknowgungfu said:

It all sounds mystical to me.  Never ventures in film -always presumed it would be too expensive these days.

 

Slide film isn't cheap, and reversal film has gone up in price lately too, but I scan everything at home, and develop black & white film myself, so that cuts out a lot of the costs.

 

There are a surprisingly high number of younger photographers using film now and prices of cameras have risen noticeable over the past few years as a result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, FishyFish said:

 

I know how you feel. While I've had some lovely results from slide film - including expired stuff - I've also had disappointments where, no matter how I tried, I couldn't get them looking quite right. It's easy to mess up the exposure with it too, so I'm tending to use it as a "fair weather" film now. That's not to say it isn't capable outside of ideal conditions, but I think I need to up my game in terms of proper metering if I'm going to be able to get better results every time in all conditions.

 

My metering is shit. The Rolleiflex’s light meter is surprisingly OK considering its age but the dials to select film speed and stops have broken so I’m just guessing the exposure now.

 

Velvia 100, though, is the most finicky film I’ve used. Much more fiddly than even Velvia 50. I think I might stick to Provia for slides in future as it’s a bit more forgiving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Before I put in trading folder and elsewhere anyone interested in buying a beginners dslr? I have this canon 1300d twin lens pack not had a great amount of use it’s 3 years old I have original box and receipt paid about £400 wanting £200. Be a nice Xmas present. I’ve got a few books to throw in also and an extra battery. 
Just pm me if interested. 
 

edit: it’s sold

 

40DB596E-1A56-4B2D-9E1A-20FEA8A94578.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I’m never satisfied with any photos I make. I always know/think I could do better. I think the reason I've started to enjoy film is the amount of work it takes. When I studied art (I was a bit crap and it was the only subject I could get away with) I gravitated towards the medium that took the most effort (printmaking in my case).
 

So I think I just enjoy putting lots effort into something regardless of whether the end result is shit or not. I quite like the fact that these were taken with a semi-broken camera with no light meter. I was expecting to get an underexposed mess.

 

img410South Ealing Station

I don’t know if I’m just too lazy but I haven’t processed my own black and white yet. I’ve got all the chemicals and a bathroom that I can black out. And I can even remember vaguely how to do it - I should probably give it a go. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 22/12/2020 at 18:30, Monkeyspill said:

I’m never satisfied with any photos I make. I always know/think I could do better. I think the reason I've started to enjoy film is the amount of work it takes. When I studied art (I was a bit crap and it was the only subject I could get away with) I gravitated towards the medium that took the most effort (printmaking in my case).
 

So I think I just enjoy putting lots effort into something regardless of whether the end result is shit or not. I quite like the fact that these were taken with a semi-broken camera with no light meter. I was expecting to get an underexposed mess.

 

img410South Ealing Station

I don’t know if I’m just too lazy but I haven’t processed my own black and white yet. I’ve got all the chemicals and a bathroom that I can black out. And I can even remember vaguely how to do it - I should probably give it a go. 

 

I find shooting film tactile and maybe a little therapeutic. I can get sharper images that can be more heavily processed straight out of the bad with my digital gear, but just prefer the way that my film shots look. The whole analog process of choosing which film you want to use, loading it in the camera, (in my case, at least) taking time over each shots because you have a limited number (and each one has a financial cost) and you don't want to waste any, winding (or feeling the camera wind) the film on between shots, developing the film, and the anticipation of the results without the chimping and instant feedback - all these things have an appeal for me. I also like the challenge of using low-spec cameras sometimes. Some of my favourite film photos have come from cheap point-and-shoot cameras, or my Holga.

 

It's not better than digital other than it's what I personally prefer, it's more expensive on a shot by shot basis and, as a result, not something where I will experiment in the same was as with digital photography. I tend to get the same number of "keepers" from a single roll of film as I would if I shot ten times the ammount on digital,although that goes back to the aforementioned care when taking film shots. Digital can work in exactly the dame way - it's my fault for being sloppy in knowing I can shoot as many pictures as I like, not the format.

 

I only started develping my own film last year when my arm got twisted by the lockdown and the temporary closure of labs. I was nervous about cocking it up and ruining my photos, but it worked out well and I get results as good as the lab I use produces. It saves on cost quite a but once you get over the inital purchase of equipment too. I don't have a darkroom - no room for one -so I just use a changing bag to get the film into the dev tank. Once that's done everything else can happen in daylight (other types of light are available. :))

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 27/12/2020 at 21:57, Monkeyspill said:

I scanned this:

Untitled-1

Zoomed in and noticed (near top right corner):

50768369406_10845d78d1_o_d.jpg

 

It’s actually on the negative. Could a tiny bug have got into the camera and got exposed on the film? 

 

While it seems unlikely, the bug being on the negative seems the only possible answer. If it had been anywhere else it would have been out of focus (assuming it's not a huge, 6" thing crawling on the ceiling of the shop!). I guess it must have been partly translucent as it would have just shown up as a silhouette otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was having a play with some split toning on my old snaps of Japan which has been fun. Interesting that you can blow the back doors off and make them look like an Nvidia demo, or just fiddle a bit to almost recreate the atmosphere of the location which the raw file doesn't do. This is pretty subtle but was pleased with it.

 

DSC_0832.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Art Vandelay said:

Was having a play with some split toning on my old snaps of Japan which has been fun. Interesting that you can blow the back doors off and make them look like an Nvidia demo, or just fiddle a bit to almost recreate the atmosphere of the location which the raw file doesn't do. This is pretty subtle but was pleased with it.

 

DSC_0832.jpg

Love it, nice treatment creates a great atmosphere. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, FishyFish said:

 

While it seems unlikely, the bug being on the negative seems the only possible answer. If it had been anywhere else it would have been out of focus (assuming it's not a huge, 6" thing crawling on the ceiling of the shop!). I guess it must have been partly translucent as it would have just shown up as a silhouette otherwise.

It’s odd - I don’t know if something could have happened in the lab (but I don’t see how that would work) or in actually making the film itself because it’s the first time I’ve seen it. It almost doesn’t look like something made from film grain as it’s so sharp (compared to everything else in the image).
 

I have all the chemicals (some expired!), thermometer, 2 different sized tanks, etc to process my own film. I just need some large enough glass bottles to mix the chemicals in. So I might as well give it a go when I get time. I remember processing film at school and college but having trouble with water streaks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Monkeyspill said:

It’s odd - I don’t know if something could have happened in the lab (but I don’t see how that would work) or in actually making the film itself because it’s the first time I’ve seen it. It almost doesn’t look like something made from film grain as it’s so sharp (compared to everything else in the image).
 

I have all the chemicals (some expired!), thermometer, 2 different sized tanks, etc to process my own film. I just need some large enough glass bottles to mix the chemicals in. So I might as well give it a go when I get time. I remember processing film at school and college but having trouble with water streaks.

 

B&W is pretty straightforward. Colour and slide film need higher, and consistent, temperature chemicals, which is why I've not attempted either of those. Most B&W film can be developed at 20 degrees, so pretty much room temperature give or take. I use a one-shot developer, so it stays in it's original bottle until I pour some out to dilute with tap water. The used developer gets disposed of afterwards. The stop-bath and fixer are both reusable for multiple rolls and I keep mine in a plastic dilute orange juice bottle and a Dettol detergent bottle respectively with stickers on them so I know how many times I've used each. I keep them in a cardboard box in the garage when not in use, so they don't get affected by light or temperature.

 

I avoid water streaks by using de-ionised water with some wetting agent (about 2ml in 600ml of the water) for the final rinse. You can get deionised water in supermarkets - usually located with the car screen-wash and stuff for about £1.50.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, FishyFish said:

 

B&W is pretty straightforward. Colour and slide film need higher, and consistent, temperature chemicals, which is why I've not attempted either of those. Most B&W film can be developed at 20 degrees, so pretty much room temperature give or take. I use a one-shot developer, so it stays in it's original bottle until I pour some out to dilute with tap water. The used developer gets disposed of afterwards. The stop-bath and fixer are both reusable for multiple rolls and I keep mine in a plastic dilute orange juice bottle and a Dettol detergent bottle respectively with stickers on them so I know how many times I've used each. I keep them in a cardboard box in the garage when not in use, so they don't get affected by light or temperature.

 

I avoid water streaks by using de-ionised water with some wetting agent (about 2ml in 600ml of the water) for the final rinse. You can get deionised water in supermarkets - usually located with the car screen-wash and stuff for about £1.50.

Thanks - that’s useful and means I’ve got pretty much everything I need now. My developer is a few years out of date but it’s dry powder so I reckon it will be fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Xevious changed the title to The Rllmuk Photography Thread

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.