Do these look like they were shot with film?

[Derrel]

>SNIP>As I said, it's up to you whether you want a preset that makes your pictures look 'film-like, in a sort of vague, advertising executive sort of way' (which is OK if that is what you want) or more authentic, and less likely to trigger howls of derisive laughter from people who actually know what the respective films look like (but thanks for the amusement). If the former is your aim, then why not drop the imaginary film descriptions, or at least accept that they are imaginary by calling them 'Fake Portra 800' for example?

Best,
Helen

Hey, did I just hear a balloon pop? It sure sounded like that to me...

 

[DiskoJoe]

Canon EOS 1N:
Canon EOS 1N 35MM SLR AUTO FOCUS CAMERA BODY - KEH.com

$120 for BGN grade (might have cosmetic wear, functions perfectly)
$200 for EX grade (basically looks brand new)

I buy from KEH a lot - BGN grade is usually really good.

Another one with the battery pack for $84:
Canon EOS 1N WITH BATTERY PACK BP-E1 SURFACE STICKY 35MM SLR AUTO FOCUS CAMERA BODY - KEH.com

edit
That last link says 'surface sticky'... May want to skip that one unless you can live with a sticky camera, or change the grips.

My canon is similar to these. Good cameras for the price. For testing you can always take your digital with you to do test shots. Then take final shots with the film after you have setting your comfortable with.

 

[Josh66]

Knowing that Shwetty is plenty competent with a camera, I don't really expect him to have any problems shooting film. If anything, film will be easier, with the greater exposure latitude - there is more room for error. Color negative film is pretty hard to blow out... If in doubt on the right exposure, lean towards overexposure.

And a modern camera, like the ones I linked to, will be pretty much the same as the cameras he's used to using - minus the LCD. The meter is good though, so you shouldn't really need the LCD. Just meter where you need to meter.

I don't expect him to develop his own film just yet, but hey - he may decide that he likes it and might want to feel that route out.


If you don't expect to shoot a lot of film, sending out to a lab is probably more economical. If you think you'll be shooting more than 20 rolls a year - I would start looking into learning to do it yourself. It's easy, and C-41 is not as hard as everyone makes it sound. I wish I started doing my own C-41 years ago - I bought the "color is hard" thing that gets repeated over and over on forums for too long. Color is easy. Maybe even easier than B&W.


Film is more fun than digital to me... Plus, if the 'film look' is something you want every now and then - nothing will get you better results than the real thing.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Kodak T-Max 3200

LOL again with the guesswork, why not just shoot TMAX 3200?:

Seriously though, shooting film is a hell of alot easier than digital most of the time in daylight situations. if shooting color neg film, just meter at half-box speed and for the shadows. Easy peasy.
If you use a really good lab like RPL or NCPS(enhanced scans), it's just about point-and-shoot easy.

 

[unpopular]

What was that developed in, lith developer?

I seem to remember TMAX 3200 being a bit less contrasty... not that it's bad, but I am unsure that it's typical.

 

[Derrel]

What was that developed in, lith developer?

I chuckled!!! I really did!

 

[unpopular]

^^ am I wrong, it's been a while...

I know it's a contrasty film and all, but at the same time, iirc, that was when I was even washing my underpants in pyrocat.

 

[Derrel]

I knew what you meant! How about, "What was that developed in, Rodinol diluted 1 to 5 at 75 degrees?". It's got some gnarly grain!!

 

[unpopular]

LMAO. I was going to go with Rodinol 1:5, really I was ... but I figured if I was going to make a point, I might as well go all the way to Arista A/B Litho.

Though seriously, what was that developed in?

 

[Sw1tchFX]

LOL developed with D76 at the recommended time and temp, than scanned off a Frontier

 

[Derrel]

LOL developed with D76 at the recommended time and temp, than scanned off a Frontier

Recommended time and temp would be 19 minutes with 5 sec. agitation every 30 sec., at 76 degrees, right??? Lol...

Merry Christmas man!! And a happy New Year. Twenty-twelve comin' up!! zOMG.

"/./\\x.x.c.c,w'.,as;vlc,q's;,c;dLVMS'd v;ds V!!!! "

 

[skyy38]

If you want these to look like 35mm film from the 1970's, you need to add some obvious film grain to the images. The large, plain side of the white house..if that had been shot on film, we'd likely see some grain there. Same with the sky in that frame...too smooth, no grain,looks digital. In another vein, the tonality looks very "digital"...these look digital. Low noise, smooth broad areas with NO visible grain, and compressed tonal range. Film images that were shot on ASA 125 to 400 B&W film and developed in almost anything, anything at ALL,would show grain in the sky,and on larger, smooth-toned expanses.

Funny, I thought "noise" according to these boards, was the "enemy"...is it..or is it *not*....?

Adding "grain" or "hairs" or "scratches" or "whatEVER" to pictures, moving or not, is NOT a solution...to making anything look like film,.....

That's like saying adding "pops" and "hiss" and "distortion" to digital audio recordings will make them sound MORE like "analog".....

Like saying..adding Angelina Jolie to Derrel's photo will make *him* look like Brad Pitt.......

Well , Derrel gets off easy on this one.........because Brad Pitt is obviously *OLDER* than Darrel.......

 

[unpopular]

 

[tevo]

the reason im staying away from Nik is that it is photoshop based. My workflow would be way too slow if I have to use photoshop almost every image. I rather stay inside LR.

I believe you can open images from LR as a smart object in PS, make changes, save them and then return to LR and continue working. I haven't personally used this since my workflow generally remains within LR, but I have heard that the two work together seamlessly.