FILM! series of 4 (get ready to laugh)

lizzard_nyc · January 24, 2011

ok, I blame Damon!
I processed these myself---obviously.
I dug out my old Minolta x370 w/ a 28mm lens (last shot in 1989) had to take it to the shop and then on the way back to work from the shop, I shot the whole roll (this was Friday)

I couldn't remember how to load the film, took me a bit. Then everytime I shot, I chimped (very disconcerting not to see my image). I didn't know if I was getting anything or how to adjust the settings.
The whole roll went by in a blur. Then I got home and I couldn't do 1 hr black and white processing anywhere, I know I looked. :rofl.

So I contacted Damon for some tips on developing. I had some of the equipment already, I had purchased the chemicals over the summer and borrowed some of the tools from others.

Turns out I process like I cook--this is not a good thing.

Here is my first roll.

1.

2.

3.

4.How not to open a film canister. THis was on my practice roll--I can't believe I managed to use a black bag--not easy.

Ok what's with the split images--the scanner? or my film not winding properly in camera? Or no way to know.

My last 8 shots did not come out--don't know if it was the processing or because I was shooting with 400ISO film in the subway.

Damon--I don't know if processing is for me.

Next time I will pay more attention to subject matter. I was too excited on this go round.

Flyinggina · January 24, 2011

What fun, Liz!! I like #2 quite a bit. And I didn't laugh at all. I was too fascinated by your efforts.

Virginia

damonff · January 24, 2011

Ditto for #2. Also, the lens you are using looks very sharp. The dog looks amazing. The "top" of #3 is kind of cool. Stick with it Liz! You will get into a flow and for your first go at it, I think you did well. When you scanned, did you use a negative holder? I'm not sure what's up with the double imagery. Shoot another roll. They do go fast, don't they? How are you scanning? Also, some cameras have a "leader out" option so that you don't have to murder the can. See if your camera does this. It makes that step a whole lot easier.

lizzard_nyc · January 24, 2011

Flyinggina wrote: »

What fun, Liz!! I like #2 quite a bit. And I didn't laugh at all. I was too fascinated by your efforts.

Virginia

Thank you Virginia.
I am feeling a little naked out here, but truth be told, I am loving my images, if only because it's film and I processed them with my hands. I hope to get better.

I love the reflection in shot #2 (on the floor). There is something about film that you just can't get from digital.

My majority of shots will still be digital, but I will continue to play with film. You had to see me with my black bag. My husband was on the floor watching me trying to take the film out of the canister, wind it on to the spool, cut the ends, etc. He couldn't believe I was pulling it off. He helped quite a bit with the mixing of the ingredients and ran around opening windows (it reeked).

It was a very good experience.

lizzard_nyc · January 24, 2011

damonff wrote: »

Ditto for #2. Also, the lens you are using looks very sharp. The dog looks amazing. The "top" of #3 is kind of cool. Stick with it Liz! You will get into a flow and for your first go at it, I think you did well. When you scanned, did you use a negative holder? I'm not sure what's up with the double imagery. Shoot another roll. They do go fast, don't they? How are you scanning? Also, some cameras have a "leader out" option so that you don't have to murder the can. See if your camera does this. It makes that step a whole lot easier.

Thanks Damon--I'm still on a high from it.

I have another roll in the camera, but I"m taking it easy with this one.

i am using a scanner I got on ebay last year, an epson and it comes with negative holders.

I did get a couple of shots that only have one image in them--like this one.

I think it's how I scanned it--It took me about 2 hours to figure out how to scan film, it's not the regular way I scan photos.

I will keep at it, it's a whole new world.

I also know now that I have to get much closer to my subjects with this lens.

Thanks for your help.

damonff · January 24, 2011

You're welcome Liz.

saltydog · January 24, 2011

Liz, I actually think these photos are awesome. I even like the split frame #1, it's like a winter collage. Whatever happened must have happened in the scanner, as the film is not double exposed. My guess is that the strip moved in the holder, simple as that.

When I first started photography, there was only film and as excited I was at first, I soon got really tired of developing and printing. And I still don't understand why anyone would want to mess around with chemicals and water temperature and and standing around your kitchen shaking a metal container for minutes on end. And everyone who's ever made a darkroom print will know what an eternity just those 30 seconds before you can turn on the light to check your print in the fixer can be, lol.

But you are right about one thing - there's nothing like the excitement of checking your developed negatives, which you couldn't see beforehand and where you couldn't check your histograms, or delete all the crappy stuff. There is a very unique sense of adventure to film that your post made me remember. I feel a roll of Kodak Tri-X coming my way

As for opening that film canister - all you need is a flat ended bottle opener and you should be able to pop that thingy open as easy as a bottle of bud, even inside the loading bag!

konomaniac · January 24, 2011

lizzard_nyc wrote: »

. . .I am feeling a little naked out here. . .

That's because you gave your coat to the dog

I never got into developing my own shots, but still get the urge to give old faithful a workout. Then I realize that I'm too hooked on the instant gratification of digital.

I like #3 - the Boston Terrier (probably the only thing from Boston allowed in NY

) trying not to walk in the snow.

Patti · January 25, 2011

This is great Liz! I love love love the dog in #1. I'm still gathering gear to begin souping at home. Cost of film is going up next week b/o the increase in silver prices. Stock up!!

lizzard_nyc · January 25, 2011

saltydog wrote: »

Liz, I actually think these photos are awesome. I even like the split frame #1, it's like a winter collage. Whatever happened must have happened in the scanner, as the film is not double exposed. My guess is that the strip moved in the holder, simple as that.

When I first started photography, there was only film and as excited I was at first, I soon got really tired of developing and printing. And I still don't understand why anyone would want to mess around with chemicals and water temperature and and standing around your kitchen shaking a metal container for minutes on end. And everyone who's ever made a darkroom print will know what an eternity just those 30 seconds before you can turn on the light to check your print in the fixer can be, lol.

But you are right about one thing - there's nothing like the excitement of checking your developed negatives, which you couldn't see beforehand and where you couldn't check your histograms, or delete all the crappy stuff. There is a very unique sense of adventure to film that your post made me remember. I feel a roll of Kodak Tri-X coming my way

As for opening that film canister - all you need is a flat ended bottle opener and you should be able to pop that thingy open as easy as a bottle of bud, even inside the loading bag!

Thanks for commenting Salty Dog.

I'm a pretty impatient person so I don't know how I'll continue to fair with film and the developing. When I first took it out of the film can (developer) I didn't see images and I thought none came out. It was almost unbearable. I like the immediate gratification of digital, but maybe it's human nature, I'm appreciating the uncertainty of film and the need to be more careful and thoughtful before pressing the shutter. I have to work harder, lol.

I opened the can with a Swiss Army opener, it wasn't very good for this. I just got a cheap old can opener, thanks.

lizzard_nyc · January 25, 2011

konomaniac wrote: »

That's because you gave your coat to the dog

I never got into developing my own shots, but still get the urge to give old faithful a workout. Then I realize that I'm too hooked on the instant gratification of digital.

I like #3 - the Boston Terrier (probably the only thing from Boston allowed in NY ) trying not to walk in the snow.

It's true, the dog does look like it's almost tiptoeing on the side:)

I'm enjoying this film resurrection here, so hope you join too.

lizzard_nyc · January 25, 2011

Patti wrote: »

This is great Liz! I love love love the dog in #1. I'm still gathering gear to begin souping at home. Cost of film is going up next week b/o the increase in silver prices. Stock up!!

Patti,

I love your film shots so I can't wait to see what you do when you develop your own. Just don't ask me any questions--I still dont' quite know how I did it.

Also the dog's jacket in #1 cracks me up--it has a hood! The owner also told me it was the dog's first day out in the dog park, his first outting.

Thanks for the tip.

rainbow · January 26, 2011

Thanks for sharing your experience and shots. I like #2 best. And I would never go back to the hassle of film developing. I like downloading much better.

bdcolen · January 26, 2011

lizzard_nyc wrote: »

ok, I blame Damon!
I processed these myself---obviously.
I dug out my old Minolta x370 w/ a 28mm lens (last shot in 1989) had to take it to the shop and then on the way back to work from the shop, I shot the whole roll (this was Friday)

I couldn't remember how to load the film, took me a bit. Then everytime I shot, I chimped (very disconcerting not to see my image). I didn't know if I was getting anything or how to adjust the settings.
The whole roll went by in a blur. Then I got home and I couldn't do 1 hr black and white processing anywhere, I know I looked. .

So I contacted Damon for some tips on developing. I had some of the equipment already, I had purchased the chemicals over the summer and borrowed some of the tools from others.

Turns out I process like I cook--this is not a good thing.

Here is my first roll.

Ok what's with the split images--the scanner? or my film not winding properly in camera? Or no way to know.

My last 8 shots did not come out--don't know if it was the processing or because I was shooting with 400ISO film in the subway.

Damon--I don't know if processing is for me.

Next time I will pay more attention to subject matter. I was too excited on this go round.

Oh, all you 'old school' people!

I suspect your problem may lie with your film advance rather than your processing. But that aside...I love the dog image in # 1 and the dog walking image in the last one - really nice. Crop them and post them without the other partial images.

And I do like #2 - something interesting happening there, "but I don't know what it is..."

Patti · January 26, 2011

Liz,
Getting film developed is like opening presents Christmas morning. It's always exciting. You don't know if it's going to be something you really wanted or another tacky gift from old Aunt Eleanor. What I've found is that it makes me stop and consider what I'm shooting because of the cost involved (hard to believe for those who've seen my shots - why did she take that shot????).

pathfinder · January 26, 2011

You COULD just put black electrical tape over the LCD on the back of your DSLR, couldn't you???

That would give you the same thrill of discovery, with out the need for more chemicals.

ISO 400 is probably not fast enough for subway I suspect.

ISO 1600 really rocks at times, and it is pretty tough to yank ISO 1600 out of Tri-X with out dunking it in boiling Dektol:hide

Interesting assortment of images, Liz.

Patti · January 26, 2011

Try some Ilford 3200 in the subway. Slap a red filter on it outdoors to take it down to 400. You'll get good high contrast with that filter which will be right up your alley Liz. ;0)

Richard · January 27, 2011

pathfinder wrote: »

ISO 400 is probably not fast enough for subway I suspect

What did Walker Evans use in the 1930s?

aj986s · January 27, 2011

Cool shots! I sometimes think about the good ol' days of Ilford B/W, and the hours working in my bathroom converted to darkroom.

As far as the half frames, I have to believe the scanner is causing the problem. What do the negatives look like? Unless they were cut into individual frames, you should be able to tell. Does the scanner advance the frames one-by-one automatically? Perhaps the sprocket holes on the film have broken. Or maybe the scanner's not grabbing the sprocket holes correctly (if that's how its supposed to function).

FWIW, be wary when using an old film camera, that may have been ignored for some long period. I let my son use an old Canon FTb of mine, that hadn't been used for years, for a photography class. Halfway thru the class, the shutter curtain separated. Not worth fixing. Fortunately, he'd already done the darkroom work, so the teacher let him finish the class using my digital camera.

M38A1 · January 28, 2011

I just love the dog and jacket. What a great capture!

Don't worry about the chimping.... it'll never go away.

lizzard_nyc · January 28, 2011

Thanks all--the dog seems to be the winner:)

I got some high iso shots--thanks Patti, I didn't know they made film with that high ISO!
Pathfinder, I think you are right, ISO 400 won't work, none of the ones I shot with it in the subway came out.

aj986s--I think it was the scanner because when I removed the scans they didn't seem like they were in the same exact place I had them. I don't know how exactly a scanner works but I"m starting to figure it out.

I have some film on order high and low ISO--can't wait to see what happens.

Eddy · January 29, 2011

Hi All:
I luv these pics, Also thanks for bringing up the topic on film, i have the leica 8.2 and the 7 , and would dearly luv to do some test developing. am not that savy but info is good, thansk alot...btw those turned out very nice wit that lens and camy

bdcolen · January 29, 2011

Richard wrote: »

What did Walker Evans use in the 1930s?

Was Super X around then? I don't know if there was a 400 asa film between 1938 and 41, which, I think, is when he shot them. Of course it could have been 200 asa pushed a stop.

bdcolen · January 29, 2011

Patti wrote: »

Try some Ilford 3200 in the subway. Slap a red filter on it outdoors to take it down to 400. You'll get good high contrast with that filter which will be right up your alley Liz. ;0)

Actually, shoot the Illford 3200 at 1600, which, I used to hear, is it's true ISO - much better that way. And isn't there a Fuji 1600?

damonff · January 29, 2011

bdcolen wrote: »

Actually, shoot the Illford 3200 at 1600, which, I used to hear, is it's true ISO - much better that way. And isn't there a Fuji 1600?

Ditto to BD's suggestion. I'm doing a test this weekend shooting TMZ p3200 at 1600 and Tri X 400 at 1600.

FILM! series of 4 (get ready to laugh)

Comments