Discussion in 'Other Systems' started by phigmov, Mar 15, 2012.
just dusted off my fm2n 'cause I found 2 unused rolls in my old bag Advertisement
I love the 'film' effect shooting proper 35mm cameras gives you I hadnt done it since art college days so after i got my OMD i got a OM1-N it came with a Zuiko 1.8 50mm lens tested on my OMD its very sharp, sharper than my 12-50 kit lens @50mm f4-f5.6, so i got some cheap color film and did my first shoot with the om1 to see if it worked and it did amazingly !! Most of the photos were overexposed , My light meter doesnt work so i downloaded an app for it but trial and error will suffice. Ive 5x rolls of Agfa APX blk/wht film on standby
I dont have a darkroom so have to get the local kodak shops to develop but Whats a good film scanner, My budget would be around 150-300 dollars range ?
I also might buy a nikon FM2 or F3 ive seen a few that come with the nikon 50mm f1.4 so really wanted just to have an old film nikon in my collection as i think that F3 looks wicked
wow, it's been a while and it still feels great to shoot film
Nikon FM2N, 28mm f2.8 and Superia 100
I do have a few more on my recent blog-post here: Street Photography with Film ... i know, shameless plug. SORRY!!!
You might be able to get a new flatbed scanner in that price range (people in this thread have had good results with the Epson range). Otherwise keep an eye out for a used film scanner - I've done a little with the PlusTek but not enough to be satisfied with the results compared to getting negs scanned to CD at a shop. More experimentation required.
You can't go to far wrong with either the FM2 or F3 - one has more automation than the other in terms of the shutter and metering. The FM will run without batteries at all speeds (ie fully mechanical shutter) whereas the F3 will only do 1/80 when the batteris go flat due to the electronic shutter. The F3 will also mount non-AI lenses which can often be had for less than their more modern AI counterparts (although you have to use stop-dpwn metering).
IMHO - If you've already got a fully manual Om, I'd go for an F3.
First roll of Ektar 100 with the 35RC, came out quit well, I believe:
Scanning some film as I'm writing this and I have to suggestions to make:
1) To Kodak: when you sell the film business, make sure the T-Max is being produced for the next 100 years, minimum. I'm deadly serious about this.
2) To Olympus: is there a possibility your next high-end OM-D features the stupendous metering capability of the OM-4. Just a friendly suggestion.
Photos to follow :smile:
Ok now I'm getting results I'm very happy with from the Plustek 7600i. I switched to VueScan and am scanning 16 bit grey at full res and then doing all processing in Aperture. Also I tuned in my developing which helps a lot (I was overdeveloping). I need to go back to doing my final rinse with distilled water (or get some photoflo) as you can see here:
Virginia V by grantb photos, on Flickr
Looking Spitty by grantb photos, on Flickr
Call Me by grantb photos, on Flickr
OM-4, Zuiko 50mm f/3.5 macro, Kodak T-Max 100
OM-40, Zuiko 50mm f/3.5 macro, Agfa APX100
Should have done a better job with dust removal on these...
I used a Minolta X700 w/ Rokkor 45mm f2 lens Ilford 100 film.
Port Rowan 34 by dbuckle2695, on Flickr
Port Rowan 4 by dbuckle2695, on Flickr
Port Rowan 10 by dbuckle2695, on Flickr
Dave, the textures in that first one are amazing!
I just opened some 100 TMax I got in the mail and I realized I've never taken a single shot at 100. Back when I was in school, I always wanted to capture fast action.
Anyway here's some HP5+ 400 speed shots:
Black Anchor by grantb photos, on Flickr
Generate by grantb photos, on Flickr
Deck by grantb photos, on Flickr
Voigtlander Bessa R, Agfa APX 100 + Jupiter 50mm
picked up some stuff at the camera show today...
olympus trip 35
and a leica 50mm summicron 3rd version
Trip 35 is a lovely camera. I never get anything other than stellar shots regardless of the type of film I put through it. This guy does a nice job of refurbing them - my first film camera after getting back into photography was one of his.
Village Idiot On Film by RedTail_Panther, on Flickr
Randy On Film by RedTail_Panther, on Flickr
Kodak CN 400
taken with my Konica T4 and 35mm Hexanon lens
Barton Street 48 by dbuckle2695, on Flickr
Service Alley by dbuckle2695, on Flickr
Can someone make some recommendations for getting film developed? I saw a place a while back that charged a few bucks to develop film and post proofs for review then charged an additional fee to print the keepers. That seems good for me, but it is escaping me now...
Any recommendations would be greatly appreciated. And no, I don't live near a Walgreens. That would be too easy.
Taken with my Minolta X700 and 50mm 1.4 MD lens Ilford 125 FP4 BW film.
The Willows by dbuckle2695, on Flickr
December Grass by dbuckle2695, on Flickr
Kodak Tri-x 400
Pentx K-1000 with Kodak Tri-x 400
At the shooting range
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/66582418@N05/8272358189/" title="Gamla góða filman - kodak 400 TX by Nonnit, on Flickr">"537" height="800" alt="Gamla góða filman - kodak 400 TX"></a>
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/66582418@N05/8273423474/" title="Photo25_25_2 by Nonnit, on Flickr">"800" height="537" alt="Photo25_25_2"></a>
The E-PL1 in action
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/66582418@N05/8272358329/" title="Photo17_17-2 by Nonnit, on Flickr">"800" height="537" alt="Photo17_17-2"></a>
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/66582418@N05/8273715974/" title="Photo08_8 by Nonnit, on Flickr">"600" height="403" alt="Photo08_8"></a>
Actually digital mediums have a much more serious degradation problem than film, and many photographers back up their digital files with archivally processed film recorded negatives from their digital files. A properly processed roll of film (I'm not talking Walgreens) should easily last well over a hundred years, properly stored. CD's and other digital storage mediums are not anywhere near up to that standard. A film processing job I did for the National Archives, with archival prints also, only wanted digital scans for easy present access: the negatives and prints went into storage. So, while your photo won't fade as long as your CD can play and you have a working monitor, their actual permanence is much, much less robust than film based products. Digital storage is an archivists nightmare at present: the machines are consumer toys and tools that were not developed with the need for long term storage in mind. Do you really think your grandchildren are going to open your digital files as easily as I did my grandfather's shoe box of early 20th century prints? I don't think so. The picture of my 96 year old mother, made when she was only a couple of months old, is almost pristine after all those years of storage in a dark, dry place. When it is convenient for the industry they will drop jpeg, tiff, and any other "open" format that gets in the way of the next big thing. You don't really think this is the last big thing, do you? Or that manufacturers are going to sweat over making it all compatible with our present stuff? There will be a new generation of youngsters then, eagerly pushing the death of "traditional digital". Best put the prints that are important on archival photo paper; then you can pull one out of your wallet and look at it, showing it to the other old geezers on the park bench.
Of course I'm playing devil's advocate and hope I don't step on any toes doing so, but film photographers have no reason to apologize. Sort of "My Hasselbald can beat the pants off your OM-D". But the way, I have, use, and get good photographs from both, as I do from my Bessa R, my E-P2, my OM film cameras, and even my little XA. A good silver gelatin print had a beauty that inks cannot match, though inks and pigments can be beautiful in their own right. Why one feels like he has to choose either or in this great between time when both can be practiced, is beyond me.
Separate names with a comma.