Having Fun with Shooting Film

[ricsal]

Super Program+Cosina 50mm 2.0 and Cosina 24mm 2.8
Film: Mitsubishi 200

1)

19160017 by Salleh, on Flickr

2)

19160010 by Salleh, on Flickr

3)

19160008 by Salleh, on Flickr

4)These last two pic has been PPed to look like antique Sepia tone.

19160023 by Salleh, on Flickr

5)

19160018 by Salleh, on Flickr

 

[pentriot]

Shot with LX+TAIR 135/2.8+Fuji Reala 100.

 

[fengwei]

Took the following photo w/ LX and K135/2.5 on Fujifilm Reala 100, color is a bit strange, but I quite like it:

 

[zk-diq]

Took the following photo w/ LX and K135/2.5 on Fujifilm Reala 100, color is a bit strange, but I quite like it:

Is scanning and colour correction/balance, not film problem.

 

[fengwei]

Is scanning and colour correction/balance, not film problem.

Yeah, I guess you are right. The same shop has been given me the similar strange colors for the past a few rolls. Next time I'd change another shop and see how.

Two more from LX + K135/2.5 on Reala 100:

 

[eselite]

Fengwei, you and ben still develop and scan the fuji reala from the same place?

 

[fengwei]

Fengwei, you and ben still develop and scan the fuji reala from the same place?

Yeah. But after the last few rolls, I think I'd go back to FEE FEE

 

[kgston]

Ok. Maybe not too good a copy then.

BTW, don't expect film to be as suitable for pixel peeping as digital. If the prints are alright at 4R, its usually good enough. For one, the resolution of the scans are not that high. Expect grain as well (you are using ISO800 and above film?). Anyway, grain is certainly more obvious and very present on film and what is possible with smooth looking digital and good ISO1600+ is really science fiction compare to film.
You may need to get used to MF as well.

Immediate solution for now is to post your photos smaller

Actually, there is no such thing as film is not suitable for pixel peeping.. let me show you an example:
Original frame at web resolution

100% crop of the left page of the text shot wide open 80mm f/4

However, you are right to mention that the resolution, specifically the optical resolution is not high enough, hence the muddy details when viewing at 100%. My personal feel is that when people see that their scans are are poor, they would naturally think the film is bad or lousy. However I just wanna point out that that is not the case.

LOL its a ISO 100 B&W film that fw passed to me. But it sure looks like ISO 400 and above. Once I get hold of the k-x, I'll post some f1.8 shots.

Looking at your scans, imho, the "grains" that you see is actually the result of a heavy unsharp mask applied. You mentioned you scanned at fotohub? I scanned at fotohub before and I strongly believe that they often over sharpen the scans to try and mask the muddy details.

Back when I was using the V700, I also tried applying unsharp mask to try and save the miserable muddy details and what I got was "grains" of similar effect I see on your scans. I hope this helps clarify your doubts

 

[tabako]

Looking at your scans, imho, the "grains" that you see is actually the result of a heavy unsharp mask applied. You mentioned you scanned at fotohub? I scanned at fotohub before and I strongly believe that they often over sharpen the scans to try and mask the muddy details.

Back when I was using the V700, I also tried applying unsharp mask to try and save the miserable muddy details and what I got was "grains" of similar effect I see on your scans. I hope this helps clarify your doubts

thanks, i switched to another shop. Its producing much better result for my Kodak ISO 400 film. Anyways I still got all the negatives, can rescan. just that I dun have any suitable scanner. Mine is a all in one printer that can't scan transparency or film.

 

[felixcat8888]

thanks, i switched to another shop. Its producing much better result for my Kodak ISO 400 film. Anyways I still got all the negatives, can rescan. just that I dun have any suitable scanner. Mine is a all in one printer that can't scan transparency or film.

Where do you send them to now?

 

[zk-diq]

This is a medium format slide scan. our monitor/scanner still not able to display or capture the full colour/tone range recorded by film.

 

[pentriot]

Fengwei, you and ben still develop and scan the fuji reala from the same place?

Yes, still sending to same place. But lately there are dust spots on some scanned pics.
I can rescan selected pics with my Nikon Coolscan V ED.

 

[tabako]

Where do you send them to now?

Mach Photo at lot one shopping centre. But only bad thing is no contax sheet. The scans are higher res than fotohub too.

 

[evolutioner]

i just got hold of a few more old russian film cams, now planning to try out my first roll..
any cheap and reasonably good film for beginners?

 

[kgston]

i just got hold of a few more old russian film cams, now planning to try out my first roll..
any cheap and reasonably good film for beginners?

Fuji Superia is cheap and good.. around 3-4 bucks.. scans well too..

 

[evolutioner]

thanks!
just got a couple of 200 superia..
hope my first time experience is alright..

 

[fengwei]

Finally got chance to post some more film photos. Took 2 rolls of film a couple of weeks ago in Little India and Chinatown w/ my MZ3 and FA43 on Fujifilm Reala 100. This time I sent the film to FEE FEE in Chinatown instead of my usual place, results seem a lot better, at least I like them better.

Here are a few just to show the colors:

 

[fengwei]

A few more from the same trip:

 

[fengwei]

Hand painting:

 

[fengwei]

Chess player: