street photography (kind of..)

[zandman]

shot with tri x 400 in nikon f2a.

c&c welcome.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

thanks for looking.

 

[DSPhotography]

I like the contrast of that film (namely in the first and third photos). I'm very biased towards Ilford Delta (100 ISO) but I may have to try a couple rolls of that if I feel the need to shoot at 400 ISO.

Oh and numbers 1, 3 & 4 are my favourites. Great composition, great contrast (though the sky in #4 is a little bright IMO) and excellent tones.

Were these scanned from negatives or prints? And were any filters used?

 

[zandman]

I like the contrast of that film (namely in the first and third photos). I'm very biased towards Ilford Delta (100 ISO) but I may have to try a couple rolls of that if I feel the need to shoot at 400 ISO.

i use kodak tri x and ilford hp5, they have the same process of developing.
they said its a newbie film but i like it.

Oh and numbers 1, 3 & 4 are my favourites. Great composition, great contrast (though the sky in #4 is a little bright IMO) and excellent tones.

thanks. my meter isn't working, i've thought of doing double exposure on blown out sky but eh, i haven't tried it before really and i dont know if i can pull it out smoothly.

Were these scanned from negatives or prints? And were any filters used?

i used red filter on some of the image, i can't remember which ones.
and negatives were scanned and edited with photoshop.
like i stated, my meter is not working so my metering happens to my eyes. i always make the image overexposed for it to be easier to fix in the dark room.
thats why i need to edit them in photoshop. did some curves to bring the darker dark, lighter light and midtone.
its really hard to work on a camera with a broken meter especially if you haven't mastered ur camera. but it really helps me. like they always say, "ur eyes are the best meter you can use."

thanks.

 

[DSPhotography]

I can definitely understand the pain of a non-working meter. I've got an analog Sekonic meter that I use more so for portraits as a back-up to the built-in meter on my N75's (nice to see another Nikon user, btw), but I imagine it'd come in handy if the built-in ever went pfft.

I've never heard HP5 called a "newbie" film. I've shot it a few times and have never liked the results. It's contrast is too "punchy" to me, which is why I've been hesitant to try the FP4, which is a 125 speed HP5. That's why I switched to the Delta 100. Nice deep blacks, and wonderful midrange that gives a nice tonal range all the way into the white. I'm gonna check out the Tri-X though as I'm always looking to try different film (that's one of the fun parts of shooting film IMO). I recently picked up a roll of Efke ISO 25 and a roll of Fuji Neopan ISO 1600 (that I'm going to shoot at 800 or even 400). Have you tried the Ilford Pan F before? The only person I've talked to that's used it said he didn't like the results but said it was because he pulled it down to a 6 (crazy, I know).. I'd like to know how it is as a 50 ISO.

 

[zandman]

i've only used those two, and some cheap "not so b&w film", the fake ones before i learn how to develope films.

i usually use hp5 to push develop, but most of the time, when i use film camera, i go tri x.
try t-maxx too, its a pro level film i think. comes in 400 and 100 speed.

they have this arista premium film, its like a repacked tri x and its cheaper. (seen it in the film thread in the forum back then.)
haven't tried it myself though.

yea i shoot nikon since i started, i did it backwards. started with digital then went film, just thought films gives more dramatic results than digital.
and digital photography is overrated imo..
when i use my digital, most of the time i dont really think of the setting that will suit the scene, but with film, i analyze everything first, the condition, light direction, if the subject will look nice in b&w etc.

i'll try the pan f, (i'm sure not anytime soon, i'm a really busy kid lol) i'll let you know bout the results.