This is part 3 of a series. Click this if you missed part 2!
Today I received the results of my developed and scanned film. While I am pleased by the overall result, I was expecting something a bit different. First of all, the film was slightly older and thus the grain was much more visible than I had anticipated. Additionally, I had been using a dark orange filter and was expecting a significant amount of darkening of the sky, yet due to me stupidly metering through the lens, the camera adjusted for the filter and I ended up with washed out skies. In future, I will go back to using an external light meter and possibly try underexposing for a bit more contrast. Additionally, I didn't make any requests at my lab regarding the scanning procedure and thus the scans were done using standard settings.
Overall, the high level of grain makes the images look a lot older than they actually are and I quite like the effect. It's always interesting to see the result of what one photographs on film and how it differs from what one expected. After seeing these results, I am inclined to follow the advice of @ocrdu and try slower speed film such as Ilford FP4+ or Pan F, just to have some images for direct comparison.
Apart from some minor cropping on the first two images, the following images are unedited and the way I received them from my lab after scanning:
Camera: Contax RTSII
Lens: Carl Zeiss Distagon 28mm f/2.8 and Carl Zeiss Planar 50mm f/1.4.
Filter: Contax 056 (02) MC (Orange)
Film: Ilford HP5+
I may edit a couple of images for contrast slightly, as I received them with the standard scanning settings the lab uses. Should I do so, I will post some side by side comparisons. This has been an interesting experiment, allowing me to get a feeling for how my new lab will handle my negatives. Overall I'm very pleased with the professionalism the lab has shown and will be discussing the results the next time I am there. It's very important to develop a relationship with a single lab, so the lab can attune to your specific style and needs and help you get the most out of your images.
Nice Pictures! Crazy to look in your own eyes. :D
Thanks, I really like the way your portrait turned out.
This post was resteemed by @resteembot!
Good Luck!
Learn more about the @resteembot project in the introduction post.
This post received a 2.3% upvote from @randowhale thanks to @gentbynature! For more information, click here!
@racing-richard got you a $0.95 @minnowbooster upgoat, nice! (Image: pixabay.com)
Want a boost? Click here to read more!
Great slow photography.
Curious about the HP5 film, do you enjoy the added grain?
I was expecting slightly less grain. I have shot HP5 before and the grain wasn't as extreme. The film was a couple of years old, so that may be the reason for the more pronounced grain.
meep
Ok that's actually pretty funny :-D
Your blog is so deep and filled with information ;-)
Good to see some people with a sense of humour around.
meep
I had a lab develop some ilford 25 and they ended up using HC-110 developer. The grain was over the top and left me questioning the lab more than the film. Thanks for the info.
Will definitely be getting back to my lab and discussing the results. I received a number of different rolls today, some medium format, some 35mm and a roll crossed from E6 to C41. Overall the results were as expected and the owner of the lab is very professional. Don't really know why this particular roll shows so much grain, but the film was sitting unrefrigerated for 2 years before shooting.
This nice guy!!! @racing-richard
I love this pics Felix! Looking forard for the next tour ;)
Come mess up my camera settings because those pictures look great!
Thank you very much. I guess as photographers we are always a lot more critical of our own work. Often when I look at an image, all I see is what went wrong, when other people are telling me how great the picture is.
I'm actually quite happy with the pictures but was a bit disappointed because the fantastic clouds in the sky didn't come out as I wanted them to. This was basically down to metering through the filter, which was a stupid mistake. When you shoot film you become very critical of your results because all images cost you money, so you only take one or two shots and have to get that right.
Congratulations! This post has been upvoted from the communal account, @minnowsupport, by gentbynature from the Minnow Support Project. It's a witness project run by aggroed, ausbitbank, teamsteem, theprophet0, and someguy123. The goal is to help Steemit grow by supporting Minnows and creating a social network. Please find us in the Peace, Abundance, and Liberty Network (PALnet) Discord Channel. It's a completely public and open space to all members of the Steemit community who voluntarily choose to be there.
If you like what we're doing please upvote this comment so we can continue to build the community account that's supporting all members.