Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Fuji Neopan 1600 shots
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   B&W Film Gallery
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 1:05 am    Post subject: Fuji Neopan 1600 shots Reply with quote
I dunno, maybe I just don't get BW film:







Using one of my Konica T4's and Hexanon 3.5/28 lens, except last shot
was with the Macro-Hexanon 3.5/55 lens. Lots of grain in the larger files.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 1:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
WHy you say so
Number 1 looks like a masterpiece to me.
Could you please post it at a size that is more visible


PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 1:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Here's the URL:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3428/3993687879_1b78ddf7d7_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2422/3993687621_8825c8fa35_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2447/3994449122_b9839f1d15_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2496/3994448936_abda44bab0_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2432/3994448782_ba3361e379_o.jpg


I shot this same swamp one time before using the Contax 137MA, but
with slower film. I think this maybe is a little better, except for the grain.

Last edited by Katastrofo on Fri Oct 09, 2009 1:30 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 1:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The idea of this image looks gorgoeus to me.
B&W is 100 times better than colour with this subject.
I think that the problem is not (just) the grain but mostly the contrast.
1600 ISO film has a laughable high contrast.
You must try the same image with a 100 ISO film (and a tripod of course).
I bet it will come out perfect.

Besides, I also like the other images that you displayed. Why the punishing small size? They would deserve a larger diplsay. I like your B&W and I think you have a talent for the genre.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 1:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio, thanks for your comments, I'll keep slugging away. These are from
my flickr account and the sizes are 1200 for the large and 500 for the
medium size. I guess I could post the URLs to the others if someone
wanted to click on them. I'm going with 1200 for the large size from now
on.

I have Acros 100 and Efke 50 both in 120, and for 35 I have one roll left
of Efke 400, Arista Premium 400 plus several rolls of the cheap
Arista 100 and 400 film. Will try it with a tripod next time around.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I love the first and last ones. Is the last one Budah?


PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 3:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
koji wrote:
I love the first and last ones. Is the last one Budah?


Koji, that's a Balinese bronze of a Hindu hunting goddess that I bought in
Ubud in 1998. The proprietor of the shop said it was from the Majapahit
era, but I doubt it is over 500 years old. Thanks for your comments.

@Orio, thanks for the heads-up about 1600 film having such high contrast.
I've seen some great work using this film for night street shots, and with
much less grain.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 6:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Katastrofo wrote:

@Orio, thanks for the heads-up about 1600 film having such high contrast.
I've seen some great work using this film for night street shots, and with
much less grain.


Yes, it is indeed great for night shots free-hand.
But nothing comes for free and you pay for the high speed with giving up subtle tones and transitions.
The slower the film, the lower the contrast, this is an overall rule that is valid for all B&W films.
So when you have a high contrast scene, like your swamp scene, a slow film will help you in capturing the subtle detail in the shadow areas, and in not burning too fast the detail in the highlight area.

I am serious when I say you have a talent for B&W. I really like your B&W images. I think that your next money spent for photography should be to get some developing and printing equipment. Knowing how much you love film, you will really enjoy it.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 8:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Most films make it possible to get a lesser contrast by other way of development (higher dilution, shorter, other developer). I have no experience with this film, but I can hardly imagin that it cannot do with a better contrast. Maybe the impression of graining is to get a little bit less too. I agree with Orio that the first picture would be helped with a somewhat slower film and tripod as it is static enough.
But I really think that your development for this film is not the optimum.
In any case, I absolutely don't see a reason to give up B&W for you with this pictures.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 10:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hi, Bill. The first thing to note about this series is subject and composition which are IMO very good. I love BW and find that it suits very well this kind of photography. This is to say that you are on the right path. For what is concerning the technicalities I have to say that the first one is a difficult subject, the extremely high contrast is going to fool any meter 90% of the time. Now my recipe is , for what's worth, pulling the film by one stop (assuming you you're processing yourself) and doing so opening up the shadows preventing the highlights to get burnt. If the speed is going too slow the tripod is your friend, doing landscape should be of no concern using it. For the rest of the series using a tripod would be simply unpractical and defeating the use of a fast film. In this case I suggest you trying a developer like Microphen from Ilford, which does IMO an excellent job squeezing out to the last bit of detail in the shadows while keeping the highlights from go away and also helps to contain the grain size. Then a lot of considerations can be made on doing photography in low available light.
Hope this can be of some help.

Cheers, Marty.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 1:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think these are excellent, though a bit dark for my taste. Yet, I admire this style tremendously - go figure Laughing

Another suggestion - I've noticed that sometimes, with high contrast negatives, the scanner's auto exposure gives too contrasty a scan. You might try scanning again, and manually setting the low-mid-high points on the scanner histogram... you'll get a flat scan that you can then tweak in pp to your liking.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 1:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio, my next order to Freestyle will be chems. Still trying to decide on
which ones for a beginner. Really thinking stand developing might be
best for me.

Minolfan, thanks for your comments, doing my own developing is the
next step.

Marty, thanks for your comments and great advice! I need to do more
reading about B&W film as Orio and you have pointed out my lack of
understanding of what capabilities the individual films have. And of course
understanding how certain chems react to those films is invaluable as well. Thanks again.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 1:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nesster wrote:


Another suggestion - I've noticed that sometimes, with high contrast negatives, the scanner's auto exposure gives too contrasty a scan. You might try scanning again, and manually setting the low-mid-high points on the scanner histogram... you'll get a flat scan that you can then tweak in pp to your liking.


Nesster, thanks much, will give that at try.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 3:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I also like this work. b&w permits to change the view on simple things Very Happy

and yes try a 100 or a 400 you'll have incredible details, i've never tried 1600 but i thin that instead of pushing a film 'ill try it for night/low light shots.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 3:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
These are from
my flickr account and the sizes are 1200 for the large and 500 for the
medium size. I guess I could post the URLs to the others if someone
wanted to click on them. I'm going with 1200 for the large size from now
on.


More free, unsolicited info Rolling Eyes Laughing

I noted that the trigger size on flicr is 1300 pixels. At that and larger, flicr creates a 1024 pix 'large' and leaves the original size as 'original'. 1299 and smaller, it won't create the 1024pix version... I suppose that holds down to 500pix...


PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 12:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hexi, thanks for your comments!

Nesster, I find 1200 the sweet spot on the dial, and can even view
35mm shot (width-wise) on my laptop at work. I found out about
the 1024 when I did a cat pic at 1500 across awhile ago.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 5:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'll be rescanning some of these, but here's one I like even with the
grain:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2425/3997644976_eb195261b8_o.jpg

The swamp is the first one I'll try to do a histogram adjustment in the
scan.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   B&W Film Gallery
Page 1 of 1