A few of my first film exposures...

[Top Geek]

Here a the ones I liked from my first roll of 35mm colour film. I used Fuji ISO 200 negatives. I scanned the prints using my cheap Agfa Snapscan Touch at it's [sarcasm]incredible[/sarcasm] 600 DPI maximum. All are balanced according to my taste and the the vignetting in the first four was added afterwards.














There's definitely some obvious grain. Is that just a characteristic of ISO 200 film? Is it my cheap scanner?

Thoughts?

 

[hyperlitenerd]

I love the first picture. I have enormous respect for film photographers, good job!

 

[hansvonaxion]

Nice muted colours, especially like the last two.

You shouldn't be getting too much grain from 200.

 

[sifu]

nice ones, i personally think that if to shoot to film, no post processing on a computer other than scanning + colors to match the film.. Processing in the development room is another story for me.. but thats just me.

 

[Dr_Q]

Really nice shots there, I'm almost going full circle and getting back into film now, the only downside I can see if that it's expensive. I just love the way film looks (apart from studio stuff which in my opinion film 35mm especially sucks for).

 

[Top Geek]

You shouldn't be getting too much grain from 200.

Could be the prints then. I have no idea what DPI they're printed at. If they're at 300, then my scanner will be looking for data that isn't there at 600.

nice ones, i personally think that if to shoot to film, no post processing on a computer other than scanning + colors to match the film.. Processing in the development room is another story for me.. but thats just me.

Yeah, you're probably right, but I'm probably too lazy and/or clumsy to develop it myself

 

[Matt2000]

Those shots really do have so much more feel and character than digital shots if you catch my drift.

 

[Top Geek]

Yeah, I kind of like the imperfect look that film gives me.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Do you have any without any kind of post processing? I've never done color, but the entire mystique about film photography for me is using *real* darkroom techniques to bump the contrast, tones, and values. Fixing them on photoshop defeats the purpose IMO

 

[Top Geek]

I could rescan them, but it looks completely different than seeing them in person because of my lousy scanner.

 

[Matt2000]

Yeah, I kind of like the imperfect look that film gives me.

Didn't want to say that in case you took it the wrong way but that's what I was getting at.

 

[carolsLittleWorld]

Fuji ISO 200 film is not too grainy, but you will see some noticeable grain in it. A lot of times the amount of grain that ends up visible in the prints is more a factor of the development and the printing. You can "bake" film pretty easily (develop at too high a temperature) which will give you gobs of grain quite quickly. For color print film, even moving the temps up 1 degree will produce a noticeable increase in grain. (When they say 68 degrees, they mean *exactly* 68 degrees.)

Grain is not always a bad thing. It just depends on the look you're going for. Having a good scanner will help but it won't eliminate grain if it's there in the original print and the original film resolution was too high.

They are wonderful images though, I would not worry about grain, IMHO. From a 35mm negative, with modern film, you can usually take your print size up to about 11x14 without fear.

Hope that helps.

 

[hansvonaxion]

Do you have any without any kind of post processing? I've never done color, but the entire mystique about film photography for me is using *real* darkroom techniques to bump the contrast, tones, and values. Fixing them on photoshop defeats the purpose IMO

To be honest, printing colour in the darkroom is a different story from printing B&W. There isn't a great deal you can do to improve contrast (paper choice can make a difference), even dodging and burning can only be used sparingly as the added exposure can upset the colour balance.

 

[IceBone]

Great as always, just too much vignetting. :/

 

[Top Geek]

Aw, I liked the vignetting

I thought it complimented the DOF nicely.

 

[carolsLittleWorld]

BTW, if you really want to get the "old school" experience, try shooting slide film. It's far less forgiving than print film so it will either drive you completely mad or whip you into shape right away. Fuji made some wonderful slide films back in the day (Velvia, Provia and the like, don't know if they still make these) or you could try anything E-6 compatible that's still out in the wilds.

There's nothing quite like shooting Velvia (or any unforgiving slide film) to really learn about exposure. With zero stops of latitude, you will either learn very quickly or wind up with some expensive birdcage liner.

And, btw, fwiw, I like the vignetting too.

G'luck.

 

[Top Geek]

I've thought about doing that. Is it unforgiving in the same way that digital is?

 

[carolsLittleWorld]

Slide film is the most unforgiving thing you could even imagine. Fuji Velvia will give you the most amazing colors (think Kodak snapshot film on acid and you're there) but, holy crikey, if you are even a half or quarter stop off, you will get nothing but dark blobs or blasted out fragments. If it doesn't drive you mad, it will make you a better photographer very quickly. (Sometimes I wish I could run some in my digital camera, just because I have gotten so lazy nowadays.)

I've shot literally thousands of slides back in my pre-digital days. I think that iis the most unforgiving thing out there. Digital doesn't even come close, IMHO. ('Course it depends a bit on the film too, the most highly saturated E-6 films are the most unforgiving, with Fuji being at the top of the heap in that regard.)

You should give it a whirl, you might like it. It's hard to use but nothing quite matches those colors. I probably still have a brick of RVP 135-36 buried in my freezer, come to think of it.

Let us know if you decide to try it.

 

[hansvonaxion]

... if you are even a half or quarter stop off, you will get nothing but dark blobs or blasted out fragments.

Digital doesn't even come close, IMHO.

I wouldn't quite go that far. Quarter of a stop will still result in a useable image, in fact underexposing by a quarter to a third of a stop can give you even more saturated colour.

Slide film has about 5 stops of dynamic range, colour neg about 8 and B&W neg about 11. Earlier, lower end digital cameras like my 20D have about 5 stops, same as slide film. I've also shot a lot of slide but I'm still disappointed with the DR of my DSLR. People find digital more forgiving than slide because of the ability to post process, not many people have their own lab or can afford to have custom Ilfochrome (Cibachrome) prints made these days.

 

[Top Geek]

People find digital more forgiving than slide because of the ability to post process

And, not to mention, the ability to check the back LCD and histogram after each shot, then adjust and reshoot if necessary.