I Tried Some Old Film

Lakesailor

Lakesailor

Well-Known Member
Joined
15 Feb 2005
Messages
35,233
Location
Near Here
Visit site
Out of date in 2004. I put it in my old Nikon F90 proX when I went to do some shots of the Yacht Racing.

This is from the digital Nikon (OK, it's not the newest camera, but it does provide very good results on a test chart)

Classboatrace_15.jpg


and this is from some old Ekatchrome I've had since 2002

ClassYachtsfilm01a.jpg
.
​
Just a process and scan (not a terrific scan to be honest). But still not bad at all and and easier to get a pleasing colour from it.
To be honest I think it's sharper. When you consider I'm using a £500 16-85mm Vibration Reduction lens on the dslr and an old Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 lens on the film camera I think it does very well indeed.
And the full-size viewfinder on the old camera is a joy.
That's why I'm not replacing the Nikon dslr at the moment as there should be a replacement for the D700 later this year and I don't want to buy that as it's an outgoing model.

There's still a bit of breath left in film :D
 
anyone know how many pixels per inch, or however it's measured, there are in good quality transparency film please ?
 
I don't get involved in the nitty gritty these days but it's to do with resolving power. How many lines per millimetre it will display.
This depends on the lens being better than the media of course.

(the scans of the 35mm trannies were 18mb, but are a bit jaggy. I think much better scans would be possible)
 
ta. I think I am a little bit wiser. But then you say a better than 18 MB image can be obtained; crikey !
 
Interesting post. I miss the impact, grittiness and contrast of black and white negative film and have just invested in bundle of HP5; I know you can fiddle about with digital images in Photoshop, and I'm not very good at it anyway, but the results after conversion to B&W always seem a bit bland compared to the real thing.
 
Last edited:
Ah (nice to hear from you BTW) you may find that the obvious method of converting to monochrome in Photoshop is not very good.
The best way is to go to Image>Adjustments>Channel Mixer.
Check the box at the bottom left that says Monochrome and you can then use the colour channel sliders to adjust the tonal range.
I've just done that to the film pic from above (although of course it was a digital file)

ClassYachtsfilm01mono.jpg
 
Factoid: Sales of 35mm film and 120mm actually rose by about 8% last year according to Harman Technology the company which bought Ilford after it collapsed. Independent camera shops confirm this resurgence of interest in traditional film processsing amongst younger people. (Source: Daily Telegraph Saturday May 21st 2011)

Its a bit like my father in law going back to making custom made split cane fly rods well over 40 years after he stopped making them and moved onto thin wall fibre glass and then carbon fibre. They are selling quite well again, particularly in America. Its the nostalgia market partly, but they are fine rods to use in any case I am told.

Tim
 
sarabande said:
ta. I think I am a little bit wiser. But then you say a better than 18 MB image can be obtained; crikey !
Click to expand...
Top quality drum scanners or Flextight scanners can produce massive files from images. The problem with 35 mm film is the natural curvature of the film base.
Drum scanners (and Flextight scanners which put curve into the film and account for that in the scan) don't have as much problem as scanners which try to hold the film flat.
Not many people use drum scanners these days as the technology is a bit old hat. I don't even know if they are still being made.

The lab that did my process will provide 56MB files from the film but as I say the edge artefacts on the 18MB scans were a bit blocky.
 
Not quite what you are talking about here, but, as a 12 yr. old. skooler I had a 2 1/4 square Agfa. 2 stops & 2 speeds. Did my own processiing in B&W and Ferrania-Colour. Moved on.. Much later I picked up the camara and found it still had some film in. Developed it and it was pretty good after 10+yrs in tha camara.
Anybody else remember Farrania? Loads of steps and chemicals.
A
 
My reference was to the latent image once a film has been exposed. The image will begin to form over time. Developer really just accelerates the image forming process.
Unfortunately the slow process of forming the image cause migration of the chemicals which tends to reduce the contrast ("fog" the film) to a point at which the image is not visible.
However, if stored well (low humidity, cool and dark) the film should be fine for ages.
Storing film near aerosols, and chemicals like anti-perspirant has detrimental effects on undeveloped film.
 
Good point. I was a bit lazy in describing it. It is really the blocky effect due to the scanning passes.
Look on the edge of the forestay at 100% It's also a bit noisy which I can filter out but is one of the drawbacks with low contrast images scanned from film.

29570004.jpg
 
I will attend a wedding on Saturday. I intend to get a roll of 35mm in to my ancient T-80 and take a few pics of my own. I dare say that the bride will show up better in mine than the (expected) digital official ones.

all to do with what is no colour.
 
Nostalgia

All this nostalgia is encouraging me to get my old Canon T90 out again. Was always my favourite camera. As an enthusiastic but totally amateur photographer it did all I ever wanted.
 
A very interesting post, thanks Lakesailor. To be honest I prefer the digital image. The film colour looks a bit false but it is sharper if I compare the building visible in both towards the right hand side.
 
Colour is amazingly subjective. I've changed the colour balance in the smaller pics, and if I return to them in 2 weeks time I'll probably change them again.

Frankly, these days, you can produce the result you want.

Even the sharpness is difficult to compare as we don't know the point of critical focus in each shot and haven't any shutter/aperture data for the film camera.
In a direct comparison the film shots should display less depth of field. But that is why lab tests and real-world photography are miles apart.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top