File :-(, x, )
Otherwise Anonymous !R09./old82
Yeah, some portraiture. Critiques, comments?


Kodak Academy 200, R-09 (Rodinal) 1+100.
>> Otherwise Anonymous !R09./old82
     File :-(, x)
Kodak ProFoto 400 BW for C-41 process. Man, this film is weird.
>> Otherwise Anonymous !R09./old82
     File :-(, x)
ProFoto 400 again.
>> Otherwise Anonymous !R09./old82
     File :-(, x)
And this one for good measure. Might have posted it long before.

Ilford Pan 400, R-09 (Rodinal) 1+100.
>> Teus !QbSstcPD6U
first one is good, but way too grainy and muddy for just ISO 200. what kind of film is it anyway?
it would've been nicer with some more fill light and more exposure.. it's like some parts of her body are just floating in the air

I also like the third one but it misses any detail in the clothes and face detail is very muddy and ugly. I do like the rest of the photo, with the lights, but yeah his head is just floating in mid-air with boring tonality.
did you underexpose it, or pushed the ISO?
>> Anonymous
First one could be really nice, but the accessories on the girl kinda contradict the retro style of the portrait. Plus zomg grain, what did you do with your film/scanner?
>> Otherwise Anonymous !R09./old82
     File :-(, x)
>>69816
Thanks!

Re first one, that's the best lighting I could get there (a cosy small pizza house on the corner). A couple candles on the table, and a dim bulb somewhere to my left under the ceiling. No flash, and 1/30 exposure, which was the slowest my camera offered. Although I think I stepped the 1.8/50 prime down to 2.4 or something, judging from the background.

The film is not produced any more, and even back when it was, it was quite mysterious. Apparently only made for eastern European markets, with no anti-halation layer, and grainy as hell. There never was any mention of it on Kodak sites, except, for some reason, the Hungarian one (http://wwwhu.kodak.com/HU/hu/professional/professionalFilmsAcademy.shtml).

Only ever got to shoot one roll of it, and I quite liked it, especially for the price. I posted a series of better lit shots from it last week, here's one.

Third one, yes, it's most likely underexposed. Kinda similar conditions as described above, no flash etc. Didn't have a reliable lightmeter back then. It didn't help that this film seems to be quite contrasty (second photo here was taken in very good lighting conditions, and still came out like this with virtually no pp). It required quite a bit of selective dodging/burning to tone the bg down and lighten the face up. Probably too much work than it was worth, but I wanted to be done with all those shots from back when I was still under-equipped and kind figuring stuff out. :)

And it's a "she" in all photos. ;)
>> Otherwise Anonymous !R09./old82
>>69817
As I said above, this film is just grainy. Rodinal is also a grainy developer. Go figure.

It was scanned at 4000 dpi with a Nikon LS series scanner, don't remember which model exactly. I never try to remove grain from my photos, because frankly, I don't mind it at all. If anything, I sometimes do a slight mid- and low-frequency sharpening, which (unintentionally) pronounces the grain a bit more.
>> Anonymous
>>69827
I understand people who get a kick out of shooting with shitty old cameras like Zorki, but what's the point of using old and obviously bad film?
>> Otherwise Anonymous !R09./old82
     File :-(, x)
>>69831
The point is shooting pictures I like. As opposed to masturbating to megapixolz and shitty HDRs.

The film's develop before date was way ahead when I developed it, so it wasn't "old". And what do you mean by "bad"? It got me the pictures. I like them. You don't? Too bad.

Sometimes I want grain, then I use a grainy film and process it accordingly. When I don't want grain, I use a fine-grained film. Most of the time I just don't care, and choose film based on expected lighting conditions (if I can foresee them).

Just FYI, I have a pile of waiting to be processed scans of this year's pictures shot on film which develop before date passed in 1982. But I'm not getting a kick out of this fact, just that I got some new photos I like. The film is old, but you wouldn't be able to tell looking at a print, and even less at a low-res picture on your monitor. And for all I care, this film is good - after trying out and determining a couple of things, it gives me expected and repeatable results I can use to get pictures I want (at $0.25 per roll, too).

Here's a 100% crop from a 4000 dpi scan from it, just for kicks.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>69831
Grainy != bad. There's a lot to be said for the aesthetic of grainy photographs.

>>69812
Kinda too dark

>>69813
>>69814
>>69815
These are delightful.
>> Otherwise Anonymous !R09./old82
>>69837
Thanks. About the first one, I suppose that's what they call "low key photography"? That would explain the darkness. :P But I'm not really educated in this matter.
>> Teus !QbSstcPD6U
>>And it's a "she" in all photos.
cute east-european girl I think, next time bring us proper photos so we can confirm ;)

>>and even back when it was, it was quite mysterious
first time I hear of ISO 200 b/w film

>>no anti-halation layer, and grainy as hell.
hmmm, I see. cause it's really grainy. I should've went for tri-x: more speed and less grain. its pricy though, maybe consider a "local" brand LOL. a friend of mine that lived in Belarus until a while ago used Fortepan. good street photography, but I could smell that film from miles away, and souping in Rodinal sometimes made my eyes bleed

>> I think I stepped the 1.8/50 prime down to 2.4 or something, judging from the background.
I would've went with f/2 or even a bit wider, but dont know how a f/1.8 reponds to this. get a f/1.2 :)

>>I suppose that's what they call "low key photography"? That would explain the darkness. :P
nothing wrong with low-key, it just lacks shadow detail badly. or it has too much base fog
>> Anonymous
>>69836
>masturbating to megapixolz and shitty HDRs.
Now you're just being a dick.
>> Otherwise Anonymous !R09./old82
     File :-(, x)
>>69964
>cute east-european girl I think, next time bring us proper photos so we can confirm ;)
There's a bit of it in the backlog, I'll get to it eventually. ;)

>first time I hear of ISO 200 b/w film
Really? I did most my work so far on Fomapan 200 (which supposedly is also tabular grain film), after scoring a nice supply of it. Then there's Ilford's SFX 200, with its slight IR sensitization. Can't think of any more right now, but they're not that unusual I guess?

>should've went for tri-x: more speed and less grain.
If I planned this shot before, I would have. :) But we were just relaxing after a day of walking around somewhat industrial places (in broad daylight too, picture related), and I took it more to see how the film would act in such conditions rather than with any serious intent. For what it is, I quite like it. :)

>its pricy though, maybe consider a "local" brand LOL. a friend of mine that lived in Belarus until a while ago used Fortepan.
I guess Foma is such a local brand for me. :) I heard of Forte films, but never saw them in stock anywhere around here. Speaking of cheap films, someone is recently pushing the Chinese Lucky SHDs (http://www.luckyfilm.com/eng/products_2_1.html) on the market, I might just give them a try.

>souping in Rodinal sometimes made my eyes bleed
That's what you get for going the minimum hassle and cost way. :) I don't really mind the grain though, as said above. But when I move in a few weeks, I probably won't carry the half-empty bottles with me, and just get HC-110 there.

>I would've went with f/2 or even a bit wider, but dont know how a f/1.8 reponds to this. get a f/1.2 :)
I think>>69814is the same lens full-open. I'll get a f/1.2, but first I need to get a better job. ;)

>nothing wrong with low-key, it just lacks shadow detail badly. or it has too much base fog
I'll consider this when making a more planned attempt at it. :)

>>69970
>Now you're just being a dick.
www.deviantart.com
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>69994
Bergger BRF-200, too. Which I almost shot a roll of once.

(After I got to shot 40, though, I realized that I had loaded the camera incorrectly. That roll became my "Test out in the daylight how to load a roll of film into my film developing tank" roll)
>> Teus !QbSstcPD6U
     File :-(, x)
>>I think>>69814is the same lens full-open.
yah, I can tell by the bokeh, and I've seen quite some bokeh back in my days

>>and just get HC-110 there.
HC-110 is pure love for me. photos that come out of my tank barely need post-processing
>> Otherwise Anonymous !R09./old82
>>70002After I got to shot 40, though, I realized that I had loaded the camera incorrectly.
What exactly did you do? The worst I can imagine to come out from incorrectly *loading* the film is just that it wouldn't advance. But nothing that would fubar it.

>>70003HC-110 is pure love for me. photos that come out of my tank barely need post-processing
My brain can't quite process what's going on in this photo, but tonality seems delicious. Did you get European or American concentrate? I don't understand what Kodak's problem is, making them different between the markets.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>70389
True. Except I then rewound it back into the canister like a moron.