Have we talked about film cameras lately?

Glad it went to people who will use it!

Just called Process One to check on my C41 order.  Sounds like they've got a ton of orders in house.  Apparently, film is not dead yet.

My very first roll of 120 film is in processing!!! I will post photos in the next day or two, as soon as I receive the scans.

In reply to Recon1342 :

Excellent! I hope the Flexaret doesn't disappoint.

If anyone's interested, I've posted some of my recent photos here.

02Pilot said:

In reply to Recon1342 :

Excellent! I hope the Flexaret doesn't disappoint.

If anyone's interested, I've posted some of my recent photos here.

Cool photos. Thanks for sharing. And I still need to find time to go make some photos with film....

In reply to 02Pilot :

I really like the results you got from pushing HP5+. 
Yes, there's grain, but it's the kind of grain that film geeks are obsessed about. Beautiful work!

In reply to californiamilleghia :

You can do the equivalent by mounting classic manual lenses on a digital body.  If you have Nikon glass, many of their current digital bodies are fully functional with their beautifully built manual lenses going back to the 1950s.  In fact the Nikon Df body was built for just this idea.  And of course Leica builds their M bodies with digital sensors now, if you have six or seven thousand to spend...  
 

Thanks guys. Recon, the grain you see is the result of a hybrid (film/scan) process - it's very likely that in wet prints would appear rather differently. I don't do anything to fundamentally alter the look (it's not fake digital grain), but it's never going to be quite the same as in a full traditional process. Oh, and for the record, it's stand developed in Caffenol C-L for 85 minutes @ 20C.

Photos are in, will upload a few from the laptop after work.

Spoiler Alert- They turned out beautifully!!!

Got my film back from Process One today.  Three weeks and 30 bucks and nothing but disappointment.  I must have overexposed everything on the 120 roll.  Only two prints were identifiable, and they were baby pics of my first kid, so taken nearly sixteen years ago.

The rest was disposable 35mm cameras of unknown origin.  Few pics of my kids on there from maybe 10 years ago.  They came out well enough.

I'm going to take some more B & W with the Seagull TLR.  The roll I processed a couple weeks ago came out very nice. 

Here are a few of my first roll of 120 film-

Logan, Utah Temple

I.B. Perrine Bridge over the Snake River canyon

Mountains at the Idaho/Utah Border

No lightmeters were harmed (or used) in the making of these images...

Very nicely done. What film did you use? It seems to have good midtones and handled the highlights well too. The simple little triplet in the Flexaret produces very little distortion, which suits your work quite well.

In reply to 02Pilot :

Ilford HP5+. It's the first time I've used it...
 

I've read several articles where it has been pushed or pulled multiple stops to influence the tonality. These were all taken at f/11 or f/16, and shutter speeds of 1/100 or 1/200, and then processed at box speed. It handles quite well, I think.

In reply to Recon1342 :

That was my suspicion. I've shot a lot of HP5+. My usual approach to B&W is to shoot at half box speed to get more in the shadows, but that's as much about the developer as it is about the film. It's a lot more midtoney than TriX, and can be a bit flat in soft light without filtration or a push. A two-stop push will bring the contrast up without too much additional grain (again, depending on the developer), especially in 120.

In reply to 02Pilot :

TriX is one of my favorites for B&W. Color is definitely Ektar.

In reply to Recon1342 :

Agreed on Ektar, especially through uncoated lenses. If you want more contrast out of HP5+, deep yellow and orange filters are a good starting point.

I haven't shot any film in a while, but since we're sharing...

Kodak C41BW

Tmax

Ilford SFX200 (was trying to do IR but failed)

In reply to slowride :

SFX is sort of a near-IR film. What sort of filter did you use with it?

I was never really a fan of TMax except in half-frames. It tends to be very low-contrast and almost grainless - if I want that I'll shoot digital.

A red R2 is what I used with the SFX. So not quite a IR filter (I think I had read that the Hoya R72 is the recommended filter). And I agree on the Tmax, when I got that roll developed I thought it looked almost exactly like digital shots I had converted to B&W.

02Pilot said:

In reply to Recon1342 :

Agreed on Ektar, especially through uncoated lenses. If you want more contrast out of HP5+, deep yellow and orange filters are a good starting point.

This photo is the one that made me fall in love with Ektar as a color film. It was the first roll of it I'd tried...