DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Side Challenges and Tournaments >> Good ol' FILM - Ongoing Image thread
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 784, (reverse)
AuthorThread
03/05/2009 02:21:11 PM · #26
Originally posted by bergiekat:

K, I'm a moron, but my copier/printer/scanner doesn't have negative capabilities...do I just scan the original photo? Or can I lay the film/slide right on the glass and scan? I don't want to ruin my negs.
(Maybe this was a bad idea on my part, lol!!)


i would just scan the original photo in that situation. you can scan the negatives without damaging them from what i understand, but you'll have to invert them and probably play with them a lot in photoshop or similar. they would be viewable, but probably not as high quality as a scanned photo.

just for fun, before i bought my v500 but after i had started developing some black and white negatives, i put a light source behind them and snapped a shot with my dslr. as i mentioned above, this was sort of acceptable to just get a taste of what the pictures looked like.


Flickr
03/05/2009 03:42:45 PM · #27
i'll have some fresh stuff to show soon, too. Got some 3 rolls of film on the germany gtg last week of which two are b&w film i want to try to develop myself, but i need to get my hands on some chemicals, the developing box and someone to show me how to do this stuff first...lol

here's a shot i took last december on hp5 plus 120 roll film.
03/05/2009 03:53:22 PM · #28
Originally posted by Mephisto:

i'll have some fresh stuff to show soon, too. Got some 3 rolls of film on the germany gtg last week of which two are b&w film i want to try to develop myself, but i need to get my hands on some chemicals, the developing box and someone to show me how to do this stuff first...lol

here's a shot i took last december on hp5 plus 120 roll film.


i just went through the process of teaching myself how to do it. it's seriously very very easy. it's a little overwhelming trying to decide on what developer to use, but once you get past that, it's like baking brownies from the box.

i've found Massive DevChart to be helpful in figuring out the time to develop a certain type of film in a certain developer. as well as this site and this site for basic how to information. if you decide to use hc-110 as your developer, this site will help too. you can find so much information on google, it'll make your head spin :)

i think the hardest part is getting the film on the reel. i always end up dropping it, and getting lost in this giant, pitch black closet. it's probably pretty comical to an outside observer. so if you have a roll of film to sacrifice, i suggest practicing a lot in the light and with your eyes closed. don't just do it once and think you're good to go. ;)
03/06/2009 03:06:03 PM · #29
Originally posted by steefmcbeef:

Originally posted by Mephisto:

i'll have some fresh stuff to show soon, too. Got some 3 rolls of film on the germany gtg last week of which two are b&w film i want to try to develop myself, but i need to get my hands on some chemicals, the developing box and someone to show me how to do this stuff first...lol

here's a shot i took last december on hp5 plus 120 roll film.


i just went through the process of teaching myself how to do it. it's seriously very very easy. ...(snip)it's probably pretty comical to an outside observer. so if you have a roll of film to sacrifice, i suggest practicing a lot in the light and with your eyes closed. don't just do it once and think you're good to go. ;)


In college, that was exactly what we did with the "class" film...practice rolling it onto the reel. You'll get the feel for it (literally). :) Good luck...developing film is actually lots of fun!
03/06/2009 08:15:01 PM · #30
Taken earlier in the year with the 645 and Provia 100F.



Shooting data imprinted on the film edge.

bazz.
03/07/2009 04:23:15 PM · #31
unintentional multiple exposure:


had to use some intensive curves adjusts afterwards to "save" the image because due to the multiple exposure it was quite overexposed.
03/07/2009 05:26:09 PM · #32

03/07/2009 10:24:03 PM · #33


This is a series of photos I took of a friend in college, in 1980 or 1981 (I know the school year, not the month). I took these using my Pentax K1000 and did the darkroom work myself. Thanks to Pentax's standard lens mount support, I can still use this lens with my latest digital body.

I still have my negatives from college. I scanned these in using an Epson V100 flatbed scanner. I used NeatImage and healing / cloning to fix grain and negative defects, then adjusted levels to boost the contrast.

I haven't seen or talked to her since college, but I understand she ended up happily married to one of the best football players to play for UVA, who became an all-pro NFL player with the Saints. As for me, of course, I'm just a nobody...

CC welcome.
03/08/2009 12:17:07 AM · #34
Gonna have to do some scanning soon, I have two contact sheets, four test strips, and two full-sized prints.

Either the enlarger or my lens did a funky lensbaby thing, it looks pretty dang sweet.
03/08/2009 04:21:59 PM · #35
Have plenty of catching up to do, its the 8th and I've only posted one image....



This is a waterfall in the La Plata mountains that I became obsessed with, and really still am. Its really cool when you stand and look at it, but it isn't the most photogenic waterfall ever. But I am determined to one day get a killer shot of this waterfall. All three of these images were shot in 2000 with my Pentax K1000. None are really great. I plan on going back a couple times this year and see what I come up with.
03/08/2009 04:23:59 PM · #36
So pretty much I am not posting my "best work from film" but rather shots that I've wanted an excuse to scan. Some of these are going to...well....suck.

I don't think this one sucks, but its not really a standout. Yet, for some reason I've always liked it. Something about the little splash of color from the butterfly draws me to it.

03/08/2009 10:11:57 PM · #37
Maybe you will laugh...I have an old Nikon F4, it was my Dad's camera. I can't figure out how to turn it on. I remember now, I couldn't figure this out when I first picked up this camera. It takes both hands to turn it on, for some reason, you have to press two differeent thingies. I bought a book, thinking it would tell me how to turn it on, but noooooo. I had to ask an Old Photographer. I made notes in the book. I'm in the middle of a move & can't find the book. I think the Nikon might need new batts anyway. Sigh. But I can make comments.
03/08/2009 10:38:49 PM · #38
Per request from Mephisto, here is a copy of sandy3 straight from the scanner. Well, resized for DPC, but no editing.

Unedited: Cleaned:
03/09/2009 01:17:05 PM · #39
Originally posted by Nobody:

I haven't seen or talked to her since college, but I understand she ended up happily married to one of the best football players to play for UVA, who became an all-pro NFL player with the Saints. As for me, of course, I'm just a nobody...

CC welcome.


I shouldn't read things when I am really tired.... just read this as "I haven't seen or stalked her since college..."
03/09/2009 01:29:35 PM · #40
Originally posted by vxpra:

Originally posted by Nobody:

I haven't seen or talked to her since college, but I understand she ended up happily married to one of the best football players to play for UVA, who became an all-pro NFL player with the Saints. As for me, of course, I'm just a nobody...

CC welcome.


I shouldn't read things when I am really tired.... just read this as "I haven't seen or stalked her since college..."


Too funny. I only know about her post-college because of stumbling across a football article about her husband that talked about his family.
03/11/2009 12:40:58 AM · #41
Still have not had a chance to develop anything new, but here are a couple of older ones shot with my favorite point-and-shoot ever, a Canonet QL17, that I still use occasionally. These are actually color-conversions with the originals shot with some atrocious, expired Fuji 400. The film produced horrid color shots, but made for some very nice, grungy/moody photos when flipped to black and white. That's not snow, that's some truly chunky grain.

Scans of prints, unfortunately. So not the greatest quality. Ah well . . . Enjoy!



Message edited by author 2009-03-11 01:12:36.
03/11/2009 10:10:31 AM · #42
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Still have not had a chance to develop anything new, but here are a couple of older ones shot with my favorite point-and-shoot ever, a Canonet QL17, that I still use occasionally. These are actually color-conversions with the originals shot with some atrocious, expired Fuji 400. The film produced horrid color shots, but made for some very nice, grungy/moody photos when flipped to black and white. That's not snow, that's some truly chunky grain.

Scans of prints, unfortunately. So not the greatest quality. Ah well . . . Enjoy!



in my best zombie voice: GRAAAAIIINS!!!

i love how they came out
03/11/2009 01:00:10 PM · #43
These aren't very good, but it was my first crack at some sprocket hole pics and I just scanned them last night. I hear Fuji is actually better to use for this because the random lines and numbers are different colors. I'll try that next time. The holga sure takes some tack sharp pictures :P

03/11/2009 03:15:48 PM · #44
Originally posted by steefmcbeef:

These aren't very good, but it was my first crack at some sprocket hole pics and I just scanned them last night. I hear Fuji is actually better to use for this because the random lines and numbers are different colors. I'll try that next time. The holga sure takes some tack sharp pictures :P



I like them. Vintage feel.
03/11/2009 07:13:08 PM · #45
Originally posted by steefmcbeef:

These aren't very good, but it was my first crack at some sprocket hole pics and I just scanned them last night. I hear Fuji is actually better to use for this because the random lines and numbers are different colors. I'll try that next time. The holga sure takes some tack sharp pictures :P


Interesting look.....nice one!
03/11/2009 08:09:40 PM · #46
cpanaioti and sir_bazz thank you very much :)
03/12/2009 06:22:08 AM · #47
Shot a couple of rolls on the weekend so now have a few fresh ones to share over the coming days.


Laughing Clowns

bazz.

Message edited by author 2009-03-12 06:22:25.
03/12/2009 11:23:15 AM · #48
Originally posted by steefmcbeef:

. . . was my first crack at some sprocket hole pics and I just scanned them last night. I hear Fuji is actually better to use for this because the random lines and numbers are different colors.



Fun shots! Is the v500 a flatbed scanner? I have a very good film scanner (Nikon 4000ED), but the film bracket doesn't let me scan the sprocket holes. I also have a flatbed (CanoScan 500F) that I use for scanning prints occasionally, but I have never tried scanning transparencies with it (and am not sure I even know where the adapter is).

03/12/2009 12:29:46 PM · #49
Field trip todayyyy!!!! So gonna freeze.
03/12/2009 03:24:57 PM · #50
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Originally posted by steefmcbeef:

. . . was my first crack at some sprocket hole pics and I just scanned them last night. I hear Fuji is actually better to use for this because the random lines and numbers are different colors.



Fun shots! Is the v500 a flatbed scanner? I have a very good film scanner (Nikon 4000ED), but the film bracket doesn't let me scan the sprocket holes. I also have a flatbed (CanoScan 500F) that I use for scanning prints occasionally, but I have never tried scanning transparencies with it (and am not sure I even know where the adapter is).


Yes, the v500 is a flatbed that is designed to do negatives as well. To scan the negatives with sprocket holes, i put them inside the medium format film holder. Unfortunately, it didn't hold the film very well and the sides curved a bit, so i found a tiny piece of class that was big enough to cover one negative and still fit inside the film holder. i just put that on top of the film to keep it flat, and it seemed to work ok. with the v500, i think you need to have a holder in place for it to scan negatives, but i've heard of people placing negatives directly on the glass, possibly even with your scanner.

a problem does arise when the scanner does auto exposure as it tries to compensate for all the black, but it's easily fixed by selecting the inside portion of the negative and then locking in the auto exposure settings. that wasn't very clear, but i can dig up all the websites if you need. the last post in this thread is where i learned about the v500 :)
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 02:15:48 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 02:15:48 AM EDT.