EddieB Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Yellow, orange and red filters will only darken blue skies, you'll find they increase contrast generally, but won't add much to a typically British overcast, grey day. Red filters are also useful to "cut through" haze or mist. Of course a polarising filter is useful for darkening blue skies in colour or black and white. A "warming" (straw) filter (81A/B/C) deepens a blue sky without significant loss of exposure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 I forgot that the Sun never shines on the righteous (British)! Actually I preferred the Red filter when it was partly cloudy for best results, but what do I know? Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PhilH Posted December 18, 2012 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted December 18, 2012 After a frustrating wait for someone to get over man flu I finally got my hands on the Rolleiflex. For an almost exactly 50 year old camera it's in remarkably good condition, everything seems to work as it should, and smoothly too. Of course the proof will be in the pictures taken with it, but I am confident it will be ok. Even though this is the mid range Rolleiflex, the T model, as far as I can see the build quality and material is first class.It has a leather case too, again which is superbly crafted. Putting aside the picture taking aspect of the thing, I am quite taken with it as an object, it really is quality. Anyway, thought I'd post some pics (of the camera, not by it!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bibby Line Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Have you taken any photos yet Phil? We are all looking forward to seeing the results. Cheers Eddie Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xerces Fobe2 Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 You can convert colour photos to black & white in one click by using the Photoshop Elements application. Below is an example XF Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PhilH Posted January 3, 2013 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted January 3, 2013 Have you taken any photos yet Phil? We are all looking forward to seeing the results. Cheers Eddie Hi Eddie Before I use the camera I have sent it away to a specialist to service, clean and lubricate it. That way I will know for sure that all the cock ups are down to me, not the camera.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tornado64 Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 a few years ago i would have said film all the way !! but today and being blunt ... it is cheap for a reason !! digital as film in black and white doesn't work on all subjects and also has to be shot correctly on either medium for an example nikon D40 dslr , shot in RAW format tripod mounted adjusted in RAW format in photoshop ellements 7 before being adjusted in normal photoshp for cropping etc http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7110/7719105454_32f05fd458_k.jpg the biggest thing that drew me away from film was the many hours i spent developing and printing in my own darkroom in both colour and mono including chemicals the fact is that yes they are cheap now but at the same time harder to obtain digital is more expensive to initialy set up there is no denying that but once set up everything is permanently reuseable and it is far friendlier editing with a beer and friends with no danger of hours of work being ruined because someone switched a light on even though setting up in film seems initialy cheap running costs will soon pass digital Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tornado64 Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 most folks that say " you can't do good mono with digital " are almost always talking pants !! it is just getting used to difrent ways of doing things http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7129/7719228324_2253d74d7c_k.jpg yes film was good just as sailing ships were , and steam trains they were good at the time there can be no denying the fun aspect of the skill behind film and once unafordable cameras are now affordable but personaly give me digital all the way ( unless of course you wish to try infra red photography ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PhilH Posted January 5, 2013 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted January 5, 2013 I am one of those who is not convinced by the way digital does black and white - I have (what was) a couple of grands worth of Nikon digital body and lenses which are absolutely superb for most of my photography. But, and these things are obviously highly subjective, for me there is just something about the way film does black and white. It could well be that there is something that film lacks compared to digital which attracts me, I just don't know. Another aspect is that as objects, in the format which I have chosen to adopt, the cameras and accessories which go with them are simply very nice to own. Superbly engineered, made from (shock horror) decent metal, to me they are highly collectible even before I start using them. So much so that I have my eyes on a Rolleiflex 2.8F Planar , the Rolls Royce of the range......... I don't mind living on baked beans on toast without the baked beans for the next six months! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
37255 Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 I'd suggest not getting bogged down too much with kit, but beg/borrow any old 35mm SLR and run some Ilford XP2 film though it. XP2 is a B&W film, but is processed on a C41 colour line (Boots, Happy Snappy). A bit late now, but particular thanks for this post - I had no idea this was available! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tornado64 Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 as i said for decent mono in digital it is wise to forget some of the film techniques ( they just don't work ) you get much better results thinking about what you are shooting and setting the camera up right in the first place , for me digital can easily match anything done with film it is a matter of learning how it does it http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2012/06/13/achieve-the-perfect-mono-setup/ i'll never deny film was good and the cameras were superb i loved all my olympus OM system set ups right from the OM10 to OM40 and my nikon F gear and also enjoyed the use of a mamiya whilst working at my friends studio !! i can also understand the fascination even though i have to wonder , why ?? when digital is pretty much on a par and less hassle to use Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tornado64 Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tornado64 Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 Have you taken any photos yet Phil? We are all looking forward to seeing the results. Cheers Eddie i'll second that !! just because i'm baffled why people still use it doesn't mean i don't enjoy seeing the results , it's just difrent methods to get simmilar results Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bibby Line Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Very interesting to read the comments about digital shots in B&W. I agree that the photos shown in the above posts are really good. BUT I don't think they have the appearance of film. I can't explain why but there must be someone out there who can provide a technical explanation. Eddie Ps. Phil's initial post caused me to search for my B&W negatives (mid 60's southern). I'm tempted to get some printed as a trial. Can anyone recommend a decent print service. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tornado64 Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Very interesting to read the comments about digital shots in B&W. I agree that the photos shown in the above posts are really good. BUT I don't think they have the appearance of film. I can't explain why but there must be someone out there who can provide a technical explanation. Eddie Ps. Phil's initial post caused me to search for my B&W negatives (mid 60's southern). I'm tempted to get some printed as a trial. Can anyone recommend a decent print service. trouble is that yes film probably does have a minute edge but it is getting minuter by the day those shots came from a many years old nikon D40 dslr of i think six mega pixels the thing is money is being spent improving digital and it is a mass market so things can only improve film however is shrinking by the day the advantages for me are too many to list my main photography is airshows now for me on digital i shoot an average of 500 frames per airshow even at todays cheap film and developing prices that works out at about £150.00 before any enlargements digital is free or thereabouts i always found the home darkroom to be very wastefull in chemicals , paper and time , often papers fogged merely because the date was out and that included chemicals and that was before darkroom screw ups were even factored in like switching lights on etc etc a lot of mono results especialy moody stuff would be printed on high contrast papers but again as in digital you realy do have to work out if the shot warants being in mono in the first place ( some shots just do not suit it ) add to this the priceless addition of being able to shoot HDR in digital in conflicting exposure shots such as contre jour photography gives many more options that are far easier to work with than film ever was sure film does teach you to know what to do to get good results but digital with its view option there's just no getting away from it given the on site option to view what you are shooting is priceless , even the top photographers in film used a polaroid back on a studio camera to preview results the whole fact is that yes film was a thing of beauty but jeez how i wish i had digital when i worked at my friends studio and darkroom the hours saved would be astronomical vs quality lost minimal if i'm fully honest i do admire those that like to punnish themselves still shooting on film personaly to myself the results are minimal if indeed worth bothering about the big question is would i go back ??? ( i guess that ones worked out !! ) but i view photo's not being intrested in what equipment took them but on thier individual merit as a shot !! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tornado64 Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 I don't think they have the appearance of film. I can't explain why but there must be someone out there who can provide a technical explanation. Eddie . the simple answer is that they are two difrent methods to arrive at the same place essentialy yes pretty much the same mono effects are open to the digital photographer with such minute difrences it is hardly worth all the shouting , just as if you know what you are doing with film many digital photoshop tricks can be used in the darkroom such as sandwiching negs etc film vs digital will always be a never the twain shall meet thing ,,, at the end of the day one isn't better than the other in reality what is important is what stands behind, a camera never took a good shot by itself !! food for thaught i once won a weekly photo comp with a colour popped mono i was up against DSLR's of all price groups inc pro models , i took 1st place with a 3 mp 20 quid camera that was well known to be fujis worst bridge camera ( go figure !! ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xerces Fobe2 Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Using s photo editing program such as Photoshop it easy to adjust a B/W to obtain the the look the viewer desires. All photos taken withn film on this Forum have been converters to Digital format when they are posted! My own opinion is that I think that high resolution digital photos win hands down over film every time as increasingly photos are viewed in the digital worlld where photographic ageing is a thing of the past. This thread reminds me of the steam versus diesel debates of the past! XF Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tornado64 Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Using s photo editing program such as Photoshop it easy to adjust a B/W to obtain the the look the viewer desires. XF and therein lies the key , but it is a little more complex often people buy a DSLR then ruin results by shooting jpegs as such a jpeg is a very limmited file ( i call it boots 1 hr processing ) shooting in RAW is ( your darkroom and chemicals ) shooting in jpeg i never once produced a decent mono they always lacked something however i now shoot in nothing but RAW it gives so many more editing options for exposure and contrast etc that it is unreal i also like to do subtle colour tints on mono sometimes also that give a nice 40s 50s feel then once sattisfied in the raw editor it is over to photoshop for any other effects i wish to add http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8429/7719296960_69d4794594_h.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PhilH Posted January 9, 2013 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted January 9, 2013 As I stated before the camera is away being cal'd at the moment (as am I, I'm in Germany at the mo) This thread was never meant to be film v digital, as I said I get my digital fix from the Nikon. I tried the digital b&w route + photoshop route but it doesn't do it for me, so I'm going to try film.I'm not now really asking for opinions on whether or not it's the way to go, for me it is. The other thing for me is the fact that it's what's between my ears will determine whether I get good shots or not (technically speaking, not just the composition, subject etc. which is obviously necessary for any kind of photography), so it's been fun reading through the Ansell Adams books and books on the Zone exposure system - proper old school. The point about it is not the ease of taking digital photographs it's the challenge of getting it right without any artificial aids - I don't want to have to use photoshop to make a bad photograph acceptable for instance. To start with I will get the films developed at my local pro shop then scanned onto a disc for ease of storage, but would hope to get the best ones printed. Maybe later on I will set up a dark room, a nice retirement project perhaps. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
28XX Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Snip! the advantages for me are too many to list my main photography is airshows now for me on digital i shoot an average of 500 frames per airshow even at todays cheap film and developing prices that works out at about £150.00 before any enlargements digital is free or thereabouts Snip! And this is precisely the point. Thanks to modern technology, everything is almost too easy. We know the price of everything and the value of nothing. Sometimes pleasure is to had by doing things the hard way, just because you can. For instance build a kit, rather than buy RTR. Climb a mountain rather than look on Google Earth. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold 4630 Posted January 9, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 9, 2013 The other thing for me is the fact that it's what's between my ears will determine whether I get good shots or not (technically speaking, not just the composition, subject etc. which is obviously necessary for any kind of photography), so it's been fun reading through the Ansell Adams books and books on the Zone exposure system - proper old school. In addition to looking at some of his books, you might also want to visit the exhibition of some of Ansel Adams original prints which is on at the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich until 28th April. I visited last month with Mrs 4630 and can thoroughly recommended it. Details are available here; http://www.rmg.co.uk/visit/events/ansel-adams Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PhilH Posted January 9, 2013 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted January 9, 2013 Thanks for the heads up, that looks very interesting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tornado64 Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 And this is precisely the point. Thanks to modern technology, everything is almost too easy. We know the price of everything and the value of nothing. Sometimes pleasure is to had by doing things the hard way, just because you can. For instance build a kit, rather than buy RTR. Climb a mountain rather than look on Google Earth. totaly disagree !! if digital had been available ansel adams etc would have used it !! for years photographers have always chased better exposure methods including using polaroid backs to check it would come out correct on film ( so what is the difrence of digital giving you instant previews ???) to be honnest i have simmilar debates on art forums most say for painting you are better using totaly han and eye drawn begginings da vinci used the camera obscura to begin some works , da vinci artist or not discuss !! there are many almost too many negatives ( no pun intended ) to shooting film , film almost always ran out at the point a good shot came along it was missed because of a change , often in the rush to change films it was all too comon to open without rewinding film my film usage rate for an airshow was about 100 t0 150 frames ( price was a factor back then ) otherwise my motor drive would have been on more and i would have shot 500 just as on digital patrick lichfield was well known to shoot up to the high hundreds of shots a day whilst working on callendar shots ( so where's the difrence ???) simple it comes down to money plain and simple it is not liked by the money ellement in the UK particularly that poorer enthusiasts now have the abillity to shine through because of the huge price barrier of materials that once stopped that it is now an art open to all and that realy miffs a lot of the uk society 5-700 is not an unusual volume for airshows other shots i take in one all of the mill shots were taken in one shot because i knew what i wanted before the shutter was released often coming home with only 3 shots , jet fighters moving across skies are a totaly difrent deal two shots taken in one shot fully manual including focus http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8467/8117109534_9c2762c092_b.jpg http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8452/8012307135_bc63439fe4_b.jpg the point is digital is used as much like as when i used film and without getting into the huge film versus digital thing it is a much more user friendly thing it still works pretty much the same but has had much of the " black arts mystery " taken away and if you get down to nity grity that realy sticks in the throats of many old film photographers that won't move on no insult intended as i think yes film can produce some stunning images but most old school togs never admit digital can do the same when proof provided ( it can ) as i say i enjoy results from both mediums even if i can't understand why people want to subject themselves to so much pain punnishment and inconvenience as i say i enjoy all aspects of photography but at the same time if a remark that film is better than digital is made i will remark yes it was probably true ten years ago but today i seriously doubt it and as said i am more than happy to view the OPs work and happily view unbiasedly !! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim V Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 The idea that someone could be having fun shooting on film seems to have escaped the notice of those who seem hell bent on "persuading" us that digital is better than film. Quite honestly I couldn't give a hoot. I'm actually having fun using 1950s cameras (a Retinette, an Agfa Silette among others) with film. The results may or may not be better. But that isn't the point. If I'm enjoying myself, then I've achieved something. In fact digital can't deliver - because it's too easy. So arm yourself with a Weston exposure meter. Understand the Zonal system of exposure. Maybe a holiday in Yosemite to test the Rollei? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Oldddudders Posted January 9, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 9, 2013 The idea that someone could be having fun shooting on film seems to have escaped the notice of those who seem hell bent on "persuading" us that digital is better than film. Quite honestly I couldn't give a hoot. Exactly. Digital and film are different media that produce similar, but not necessarily identical, results. Handling a Rollei is an experience in itself, just as a Leica would be. SLRs, digital or film, are marvellous at certain jobs - and sports and action photography come high on their list of qualities. So, yes, on a Le Mans weekend I can shoot 2000 pics with little effort - but the concentration that you might put into one landscape with the Rollei isn't there, as I'm machine-gunning away at 7 or 8 frames per second. Having used Nikon SLRs since 1970, a decade or so ago I bought a couple of Voigtlander rangefinder film cameras. Discreet, slow - but equipped with rather good optics. Ideal for certain tasks. Photography can be fun on many levels, and PhilH is embarking on a very straight, broad path to having a good time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.