You said something very precious: You shoot film because you like the grain, if you wanted a grainless print, you'd shoot digital, thanks for saying that!
Well, you can obtain grain with digital phots as well, by rising the ISO's to very high levels. But it's not the same thing. That's rumor, not grain. Having digital rumor means your photo is dirty. Film and paper grain, otherwise, is just part of the photo itself. It's not something that's bothering the esthetic of the picture, it's more like a "trait" of the picture itself. That's why we like film grain.
I know you produced this video more than 2 years ago, and I've been a fan before that. Somehow, RUclips brought this video to my attention. I have a grey Pellican case, containing a Canon 35 mm film camera, with 6 prime lenses, ranging from 24-200 mm. I was going to take the case, camera, and lenses to a thrift shop, to donate them to a charity. After seeing your video, I've happily changed my mind. I found some old 35 mm rolls, and will go shooting this weekend. Thanks, Steve, for all your excellent, and restful videos. They are a breath of fresh air!
Fascinating as always Steve. I’ve got a digital print on my wall shot at ISO 8000. It looks superb at a normal viewing distance. As you say in the video, get close up and the noise is clearly visible. It’s just like the good old film days. Hoping to collab in the near future. I’m so looking forward to shooting film again.
Thanks Gary. I don’t see noise/grain as detrimental to an image as long as it is appropriate to the scene. I also like high ISO digital especially in B&W.
Thanks once again, Steve, for an inspiring video - Your emphasis on film is refreshing, not only for the memories it brings back, but for the tactile experience film gives one as well. You, sir, are an old soul - the best kind! Cheers!
I have a Canon 35mm system with a case full of prime lenses. Your video has proven to me that 35mm is a still a viable option for photography, even when compared to 120 format images. The cost of a similar 120 format collection of cameras and lenses would be prohibitive for me. Well done, and thanks, Steve!
Steve, thank you for showing us what is possible with limited equipment! I have a 'vintage' Minox 35 camera, modified to use 4 watch batteries, it's extremely sharp, and does well using Ilford low speed B&W film. Your examples demonstrating extreme enlargements, provides some options I had never anticipated before. I have some shooting to do!
Thanks for sharing this video Steve, I still miss the beautiful grain of Tri-X developed in Rodinal. Grain in a photograph is like brushstrokes on a painting, it adds to the expression of the image.
Great Video Steve!!! I like what you are doing, because today amateur photographers believe that they need a full frame or medium format digital camera to get quality and big prints. No difference from my time when I became a Photo Lab Technician. I saw many wonderful poster size images from 35 mm cameras, it was the norm, only pros where able to afford the cost of medium and large format.
Yup-did this for a living back in the 70s. Nikon F2, Ilford 64 ASA monochrome film developed in a high acutance developer made up using a standard formula from the raw chemicals. Could produce razor sharp images 24x36 inches.
@@burntoutelectronics just so you know back in the day film on average was slower 32-64 was standard in most countries 100-150 was available but not often used 200-400 was pretty much unheard of
Brilliant video, Steve, and I agree with everything you've mentioned in this video. I have used Ilford HP5+ 400, pushed it to ISO 3200 in the development stage, and printed it using an enlarger with traditional dodging and burning techniques to enhance certain details. On A3 paper, with your nose right up against the print, you can't even tell the difference between paper texture and grain. I've done the same with digital images, and, again, I find grain/noise for most cameras I've used to be largely irrelevant when printing, and I don't even sharpen or apply noise reduction.
Totally agree Michael, I did a series of wet prints a few years ago from different films and was hard pushed to tell the difference. I actually like a little bit of grain as it adds atmosphere and apparent sharpness.
Really interesting point of view! I was always in the opinion a sharp picture should be either without or only small grain, but as you presented here that works very well with grain! Thank you for presenting this idea!
Great video Steve. Lovely reminiscing of days gone by when camera and lens imperfections were thought of as creating character and loved for them. Your prints look beautiful.👌
@Bobby Brady Well it was my opinion which I am entitled too and you should also know that Art is Subjective. Back then we chose film for its apparent flaws because we had come to love them and use them for effect, Grain - Contrast - Colour. We did not just put up with them because that wouldn't have been a very enjoyable process at all.
@Bobby Brady Oh that's ok then is it? You don't agree with someone, so they are wrong. That is an arrogant and rude attitude. I left a positive and kind comment on Steve's video. If you don't agree that is fine, it is your opinion. But there is no need for the 'You are wrong' rudeness.
I think it is fair to say that opinions differ here and it it obviously an emotive subject. I agree that by most technical measures film is inferior to digital but Andy’s original comment was around imperfections adding something to an image and that is true. The pictorialists of the late Victorian/Edwardian era selected often selected lenses that contained aberrations because they introduced an artistic look to their images. The recent popularity of the likes of Petzval lenses is partly due to people wanting a break from the sterility of oversharp and highly corrected optics. At the end of the day I have one measure for an image, do it like it. It rarely if ever comes down to the sharpness and noise levels. I personally like the look of film but completely understand people who don’t. I am not a film fanatic and love my Micro 4/3 cameras (having also shot with a lot of full frame digital models).
@@SteveONions Insightful and eloquently said. I very much agree with your comment regarding the sterility of over-sharp lenses. And sometimes images. Monsters of our own creation (demand) maybe? Thank you Steve
Great video Steve. I like that you emphasise that you print for the viewing distance. Also great to keep encouraging people to print even if they only have access to basic equipment.
It reminds me of an interview I watched some years back of Sam Abell. He was talking about his preference of using a tripod whilst working. When asked why he doesn’t often use a large or medium format camera, since he carries a tripod everywhere he replied by saying he didn’t feel he needed a “big camera” to make “big pictures”. I think at the time he was shooting an Olympus OM model of some description. I was wondering if you sometimes intentionally make small prints, maybe certain subject matter lends itself better to a more intimate image? I sometimes feel that smaller prints like an 8x10 or 5x7 have their own kind of beauty, drawing the viewer in to study them more closely.
I do like the smaller prints Michael and have recently setup a darkroom again with the intention of standardising on 8x10. There is something very appealing in smaller prints and of course the technical quality of 35mm film is more than capable of delivering superb quality at this size.
Interesting watch Steve. You have quite some collection of old cameras and lenses for sure and this adds something different to the landscape shooters we normally see on you tube - keep it up.
Great video Steve. I had been waiting to see this one and it reminded me that I need to get out with the XPan and some black and white film. I also loved the Portra shot from Liverpool. It has a wonderful depth to it.
Nice video. I have the same scanner (in addition to a few others) and I think the Minolta does a fantastic job with 35mm film. I made some inkjet prints from Ektachome and Kodacrome 35mm film (lens was a Leica 50 mm Summacron) that were 18x24 inches and the quality was impressive. At that size you could not see any pixelization. None. I also made a few images in the 36 and 44" wide and if you got close you could see I was pushing the format, but in reality it was far better than I expected. At normal viewing distances it was completely acceptable. I also saw some work from Ellitot Erwitt in a gallery, actually met him at the open. He (darkroom) prints very large, and shoots 35mm Tri-X with a Leica. The images were so incredibly sharp I couldn't believe it. I think there's a common misconception with the 35mm format and large printing, but with careful process and using prime lenses, the results can be quite surprising.
I agree Joe, the poster sizes prints I’ve made from 35mm are all the proof I need that the small negative is capable of great things providing care is taken. I’m very jealous that you got to meet Elliot Erwitt too 🙂
E X T R E M E L Y calming vid, as usual. o/ Really gotta figure out how to use that old Minolta camera I got lying around. Using film really seems to be a rather interesting endeavour to play around with~
Thanks so much Steve. Would you be willing to show us how you managed upping the resolution in photoshop. I’d be really interested in seeing how that works.
Impressive results. Have you done any video on your scanning process? I have tons of negatives laying around, and they ask to be digitalized. And I watched your video on prints with M4/3. It is interesting to me, that the results with the small sensor are sharper than with 35 mm film (which is full frame size).
I steer clear of scanning videos as the technology is always changing (and so is my approach). In terms of sharpness Micro 4/3 is superior to 35mm, film just doesn’t compare until you get to the larger sizes.
Very nice presentation (came upon by accident). My brother was going to donate Canon F1, with beautiful lenses, to Goodwill. I couldn't let him part with them. I hope to shoot with them and try some new images. I miss my old Tri-X grainy pictures. I miss the feel and size of the old film camera and lenses in general.
Steve O'Nions Indeed, but the disposables seem to be having their moment (all over again - some RUclips mega stars having even created their own apps that uh, supposedly mimic the disposable look) but I'm also finding it's a great way - with actual disposable cameras, not apps - to introduce folks to film... Anyway, with crossed fingers, I'll leave thought with you ...
I'm of the same mind Steve. Big prints with lots of grain. My preference would be for HP5 in 35mm, enlarged to 20 inch. printed hard at grade 4 or 5. Might give a bigger print a go if I swivel the enlarger head. Great vlog as well. Cheers, Diz
Very interesting video. Have you ever considered using an enlarger projected onto silver gelatin resin coated paper? Always wondered how large those prints can get
I’ve done a few large darkroom prints but they cannot compare for sharpness with a large inkjet. Optical projection is very good but sharpness does drop off a lot with the increased distance needed for a large print.
I was very impressed. I am looking to get into 35mm film photography (starting from scratch). I am looking for something mechanical without autofocus etc. The cameras are all capable enough, but how do I find a sharp lens from 40 years ago? Not really sure where to begin looking...
Hi Tim. You’ll be fine with older mechanical lenses if you stick to fixed focal length models. Very few zooms from 40 years ago will give good results today. If you chose a camera system that supported modern lenses right up to the digital age (basically Canon or Nikon) then you’ll be able to use some excellent optics.
This video popped up in my youtube feed for no apparent reason, and although I know next to nothing about cameras, I did find it quite fascinating. One quick question, what is the little greed doodad on the FG hotshoe? It's something I've never seen before.
That was very good, thank you. I love your print, especially your cropping. That Portra print was lovely. I shot Velvia for years, and Porta is more gentle somehow. Do you agree? How large do you print in the darkroom? Having learned from Adams' books, I felt grain was somehow a flaw for landscapes. Adams didn't say that, of course. I've since expanded my vision, and indeed have become a bit of a pictorialist. Thanks for your videos, they're very helpful, inspiring and fun.
Porta is quite soft Michael but also fine grained and good for detailed work even in 35mm. I used to do everything to reduce grain but since digital does that a lot better I now appreciate film for what it is and that includes the texture of grain. I will go to 20"x24" in the darkroom and will happily make 35mm enlargements at that size.
My workflow is very similar in this case. I use Acros with X-Tol stock developer for excelent results. But my Gear is the Pentax 645 and the scanner is the Epson V 700... Compliments for the amazing prints.
Thank you. I still use my 13 year old v700 on a regular basis and despite the drawbacks I find it an excellent all round workhorse. As the film size increases it really comes into its own and large format is extremely impressive.
well done, i've been obsessed with my medium and large format and ignoring my f-100. i have many lenses i used while a digital shooter, gonna regroup. thank you
Steve, thanks for next great video. I understand that you wanted to see the possibilities of some regular 35mm film, but do you plan to try what are the capabilities of some more specialized film? For example ADOX CMS II 20 claims to be the film with highest resolving power ever (up to 800l/mm in Adotech developer).
I have often thought about trying the document films but they are very slow and need specialist developers. It may be interesting to compare something shot with CMS 20 in 35mm with Delta 100 in 120 and 4x5.
Do you get updated Minolta scanner drivers. I know sometimes the older film scanners can no longer be connected to the newer versions of Windows because drivers aren't available. I'm impressed with the Epson printer output. I didn't realize it could make large prints. Thanks for all the info.
You may try and purchase the SilverFast scanning software for your particular scanner. It is not on the cheap side, but the results are great-and it comes with their own driver for your scanner. That is why you'd have to purchase a separate version for each scanner model. Again, the results I get from both my Epson 4990 and my Nikon LS5000 are significantly better than with the original drivers. Hope this is helpful.
Thanks for making this video Steve! How much impact do you think the scanner makes on the process? Do you think similar results could be achieved on a flatbed with some ANR glass?
Too many photographers obsessed with pixel peeping. Photography is about creating an image that tells a story, mood and imagination. I just focus on three simple things, light, composition and subject matter. Everything else is secondary, including bokeh, noise, etc.
Nerds, not photographers. I’ve never known a serious photographer to knock anything being shitty quality, many love it as long as it has a feel or feels like it’s that was on purpose
Hi to you to Cleo. Fantastic point 135 format does not take nearly the investment of medium or especially large format. Plus, amazing how large a black and white can be taken to, makes me wonder how big a 4x5 can be taken. :O
PS Looked up the print DPI for my printers, both are 1200DPI using photography paper. I'm shocked a HP be higher than an Epson considering the latter geared for photography and of very high quality.
Another interesting video I also like to see grain on prints from film cameras it makes the image seem more real to me. I do also like the crisp prints you can get from digital at least these days we can have both. Thank you for sharing :D Teddy PS, I took my old pentax k 1000 ( my first serious camera back in early 80s) on hoiday to Scotland recently and still have a few frames to finish off before I get to see the results.
Thank you Steve. It is funny how my approach to film has changed since digital photography became available. I would never have come back home with an unfinished film before digital cameras were available ! However now due to the cost etc... I am much more likely to consider what is worth shooting on film :D I hope you images came or come out well too :D I really loved that video you did of your Scotland trip I have watched it severel times :D
I think that since the whole film v digital debate died down nobody expects them to compete directly. People now embrace the look of film rather than trying to make it look clean and sharp all the time.
Sadly, Fuji discontinued Acros 100. I used it once and was very pleased with the results. Your shot shown here comes across very well in the video, I'm sure it looks perfectly fine on the wall!
@@jebemligashta Are you referring to this one - www.thephoblographer.com/2019/06/10/fujifilm-neopan-acros-100-ii-is-reportedly-coming-this-fall/ ? This would be great!
Thanks for this video! Sorry if I didn't get it - would you say it is better to shoot landscape with a prime lens? Or does it not matter when using a tripod? Thanks for helping and sharing :)!
It doesn’t really matter Silke, the tripod is needed due to the slow shutter speeds, if it was brighter I could handhold. Generally primes are sharper and less prone to flare than zooms but a lot of modern glass is superb regardless of it being prime or zoom.
One question, a bit out of subject, i have ISO 200 Kodak film, and i put ISO 400 on my Praktica MTL 50, what happens? a: Blank b: To Grainy c: Need to fix shutter speed? d: Other
Hi Steve: Great videos' I am looking for some very grainy B&W 35mm film. Back in the day I used Agfachrome 1000, but off course that's been discontinued. Any advice? Thanks..
Well I’d say the grainiest available is probably Delta 3200. Best exposed at 1600 and developed for 3200, this film will give modest contrast and a lot of grain.
You said something very precious: You shoot film because you like the grain, if you wanted a grainless print, you'd shoot digital, thanks for saying that!
Thanks Mark.
Well, you can obtain grain with digital phots as well, by rising the ISO's to very high levels. But it's not the same thing. That's rumor, not grain. Having digital rumor means your photo is dirty. Film and paper grain, otherwise, is just part of the photo itself. It's not something that's bothering the esthetic of the picture, it's more like a "trait" of the picture itself. That's why we like film grain.
However, Digital doesn't have infinite scalability. You are limited by the pixels. In film, you can enlarge and you won't have any issues.
Very refreshing blog, when most are drooling over 100 megapixel camera's well done Steve
"Yes, there is grain and noice in there, but that's film." Word!
Yep, sorry but photoshopping film is being fake af
Great to hear someone actually not ranting about how sharp and clean an image has to be to be accepted. Thank you A breath of fresh air
I know you produced this video more than 2 years ago, and I've been a fan before that. Somehow, RUclips brought this video to my attention. I have a grey Pellican case, containing a Canon 35 mm film camera, with 6 prime lenses, ranging from 24-200 mm. I was going to take the case, camera, and lenses to a thrift shop, to donate them to a charity. After seeing your video, I've happily changed my mind. I found some old 35 mm rolls, and will go shooting this weekend. Thanks, Steve, for all your excellent, and restful videos. They are a breath of fresh air!
Looks like the Canon had a lucky escape there, like Woody from Toy Story 😊. I hope your have fun shooting with it for many years to come.
Fascinating as always Steve. I’ve got a digital print on my wall shot at ISO 8000. It looks superb at a normal viewing distance. As you say in the video, get close up and the noise is clearly visible. It’s just like the good old film days. Hoping to collab in the near future. I’m so looking forward to shooting film again.
Thanks Gary. I don’t see noise/grain as detrimental to an image as long as it is appropriate to the scene. I also like high ISO digital especially in B&W.
Those prints are incredible. The black and white light standard and wires is an absolute classic.
Thank you 😊
Your videos are a breath of fresh air.
Excellent to see and hear about the quality and size of print you can create with basic gear.
Thanks once again, Steve, for an inspiring video - Your emphasis on film is refreshing, not only for the memories it brings back, but for the tactile experience film gives one as well. You, sir, are an old soul - the best kind! Cheers!
Thanks Robert, film is certainly more tactile than digital.
Steve, I always enjoy your videos. Keep up the good work!
Steve I would really be interested in a dedicated video on your work flow you used within LR on that first shot of the pier.
I may make one someday Anthony. 🙂
One of my favorite sources form film and print inspiration. Thank you.
You’re welcome Darius.
Ooh.. the one with portra is just stunning 👍🏽
Fantastic vlog Steve. Please keep producing these superb, detailed, informative videos.
Will do Paul.
I have a Canon 35mm system with a case full of prime lenses. Your video has proven to me that 35mm is a still a viable option for photography, even when compared to 120 format images. The cost of a similar 120 format collection of cameras and lenses would be prohibitive for me. Well done, and thanks, Steve!
There’s are lot of life left in old camera systems, lenses were very well made and have superior mechanicals to modern plastic designs.
Steve, thank you for showing us what is possible with limited equipment! I have a 'vintage' Minox 35 camera, modified to use 4 watch batteries, it's extremely sharp, and does well using Ilford low speed B&W film. Your examples demonstrating extreme enlargements, provides some options I had never anticipated before. I have some shooting to do!
Thanks Shaun.
Thanks for sharing this video Steve, I still miss the beautiful grain of Tri-X developed in Rodinal. Grain in a photograph is like brushstrokes on a painting, it adds to the expression of the image.
Took the words out of my mouth.
See my post.
- Passageyank-
Steve, you brought back memories of the late Galen Rowell, as he shot with Nikon's and 35mm film, and made some spectacular images.
Very true Richard and he also liked basic models that were small and light.
Thank you for making videos like this! Clearly a LOT of work and thought goes into them. I also enjoyed the added humor with the lens!
Great Video Steve!!! I like what you are doing, because today amateur photographers believe that they need a full frame or medium format digital camera to get quality and big prints. No difference from my time when I became a Photo Lab Technician. I saw many wonderful poster size images from 35 mm cameras, it was the norm, only pros where able to afford the cost of medium and large format.
Good point Sammy, even though I also shoot the larger formats I like the look of big 35mm prints.
Wow! You’ve motivated me to pull out my old Pentax from the back of the closet.
Have fun Kent 🙂
This video is EXACTLY what I was looking for for a long time! Thank you so much!
I laughed at the "extremely big" slo-mo part haha
😀
I'm definitely a fan of the grain! Well done
Yup-did this for a living back in the 70s. Nikon F2, Ilford 64 ASA monochrome film developed in a high acutance developer made up using a standard formula from the raw chemicals. Could produce razor sharp images 24x36 inches.
kipling1957 what Ilford film was that? I’ve never heard of a 64 iso film
@@burntoutelectronics maybe it was FP4 that was pulled one stop.
@@matteovrizzi or maybe selochrome but I'm not sure what iso it had
@@burntoutelectronics just so you know back in the day film on average was slower
32-64 was standard in most countries
100-150 was available but not often used
200-400 was pretty much unheard of
I love that print! So beautiful!
Not surprised you're a pro ! Great pics and maybe film is heading for a revival.
Brilliant video, Steve, and I agree with everything you've mentioned in this video. I have used Ilford HP5+ 400, pushed it to ISO 3200 in the development stage, and printed it using an enlarger with traditional dodging and burning techniques to enhance certain details. On A3 paper, with your nose right up against the print, you can't even tell the difference between paper texture and grain. I've done the same with digital images, and, again, I find grain/noise for most cameras I've used to be largely irrelevant when printing, and I don't even sharpen or apply noise reduction.
Totally agree Michael, I did a series of wet prints a few years ago from different films and was hard pushed to tell the difference. I actually like a little bit of grain as it adds atmosphere and apparent sharpness.
A sharp 3ft print from a 35mm negative cropped to half its size. Nice!
Really interesting point of view! I was always in the opinion a sharp picture should be either without or only small grain, but as you presented here that works very well with grain! Thank you for presenting this idea!
You’re welcome Mathias. 😊
Great video Steve. Lovely reminiscing of days gone by when camera and lens imperfections were thought of as creating character and loved for them. Your prints look beautiful.👌
Thank Andy.
@Bobby Brady Well it was my opinion which I am entitled too and you should also know that Art is Subjective. Back then we chose film for its apparent flaws because we had come to love them and use them for effect, Grain - Contrast - Colour. We did not just put up with them because that wouldn't have been a very enjoyable process at all.
@Bobby Brady Oh that's ok then is it? You don't agree with someone, so they are wrong. That is an arrogant and rude attitude. I left a positive and kind comment on Steve's video. If you don't agree that is fine, it is your opinion. But there is no need for the 'You are wrong' rudeness.
I think it is fair to say that opinions differ here and it it obviously an emotive subject. I agree that by most technical measures film is inferior to digital but Andy’s original comment was around imperfections adding something to an image and that is true. The pictorialists of the late Victorian/Edwardian era selected often selected lenses that contained aberrations because they introduced an artistic look to their images. The recent popularity of the likes of Petzval lenses is partly due to people wanting a break from the sterility of oversharp and highly corrected optics.
At the end of the day I have one measure for an image, do it like it. It rarely if ever comes down to the sharpness and noise levels. I personally like the look of film but completely understand people who don’t. I am not a film fanatic and love my Micro 4/3 cameras (having also shot with a lot of full frame digital models).
@@SteveONions Insightful and eloquently said. I very much agree with your comment regarding the sterility of over-sharp lenses. And sometimes images. Monsters of our own creation (demand) maybe? Thank you Steve
Great video Steve. I like that you emphasise that you print for the viewing distance. Also great to keep encouraging people to print even if they only have access to basic equipment.
Thanks Michael, I find myself drawn to basic equipment and love using it to get high quality images.
It reminds me of an interview I watched some years back of Sam Abell. He was talking about his preference of using a tripod whilst working. When asked why he doesn’t often use a large or medium format camera, since he carries a tripod everywhere he replied by saying he didn’t feel he needed a “big camera” to make “big pictures”. I think at the time he was shooting an Olympus OM model of some description.
I was wondering if you sometimes intentionally make small prints, maybe certain subject matter lends itself better to a more intimate image? I sometimes feel that smaller prints like an 8x10 or 5x7 have their own kind of beauty, drawing the viewer in to study them more closely.
I do like the smaller prints Michael and have recently setup a darkroom again with the intention of standardising on 8x10. There is something very appealing in smaller prints and of course the technical quality of 35mm film is more than capable of delivering superb quality at this size.
Superb quality prints! Excellent demonstration. And a really high quality production video too. Thank you for sharing.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Interesting watch Steve. You have quite some collection of old cameras and lenses for sure and this adds something different to the landscape shooters we normally see on you tube - keep it up.
Thanks Alan, I do like old cameras.
Steve
Excellent video and a ton of food for thought
Peter
Great video Steve. I had been waiting to see this one and it reminded me that I need to get out with the XPan and some black and white film. I also loved the Portra shot from Liverpool. It has a wonderful depth to it.
Thanks Robin, I need to dig out more of the old negatives from our urban trips.
Your images came out absolutely wonderful. like in all your videos. I always enjoy watching them. Greetings from Munich.
Thank you 😊
Nice video. I have the same scanner (in addition to a few others) and I think the Minolta does a fantastic job with 35mm film. I made some inkjet prints from Ektachome and Kodacrome 35mm film (lens was a Leica 50 mm Summacron) that were 18x24 inches and the quality was impressive. At that size you could not see any pixelization. None. I also made a few images in the 36 and 44" wide and if you got close you could see I was pushing the format, but in reality it was far better than I expected. At normal viewing distances it was completely acceptable. I also saw some work from Ellitot Erwitt in a gallery, actually met him at the open. He (darkroom) prints very large, and shoots 35mm Tri-X with a Leica. The images were so incredibly sharp I couldn't believe it. I think there's a common misconception with the 35mm format and large printing, but with careful process and using prime lenses, the results can be quite surprising.
I agree Joe, the poster sizes prints I’ve made from 35mm are all the proof I need that the small negative is capable of great things providing care is taken. I’m very jealous that you got to meet Elliot Erwitt too 🙂
Excellent video, and you're right about that Kiron lens. Just got one and it's a gem.
Feels as good as a real Nikkor Mark 👍
Wow, all very impressive and beautiful.
Thanks Merlin.
Beautiful, just beautiful.
Excellent video, Steve. Always interesting to view.
Excellent Steve as ever.
Once again great teaching and a great learning curve. Appreciate it. Thank you
A good demonstration. Thanks for sharing.
Awesome Video - I'm more confident now that I can get some good prints from 35MM. Thank You!!
When you've pushed Tri-X to 3200 shooting night time footie under crap floodlights, grain isn't even a thing! Enjoyed this mucho.
E X T R E M E L Y calming vid, as usual. o/ Really gotta figure out how to use that old Minolta camera I got lying around. Using film really seems to be a rather interesting endeavour to play around with~
Excellent video, excellent work - thanks!
Super informative and useful! Great shots, buddy!
Thanks so much Steve. Would you be willing to show us how you managed upping the resolution in photoshop. I’d be really interested in seeing how that works.
I’ll definitely cover that in a future video Bill.
Another great video Steve - you make me miss film!
Thank you, Steve, this was very helpful! 👍🌈
Top video, so much different from everyone else.
Impressive results. Have you done any video on your scanning process? I have tons of negatives laying around, and they ask to be digitalized.
And I watched your video on prints with M4/3. It is interesting to me, that the results with the small sensor are sharper than with 35 mm film (which is full frame size).
I steer clear of scanning videos as the technology is always changing (and so is my approach).
In terms of sharpness Micro 4/3 is superior to 35mm, film just doesn’t compare until you get to the larger sizes.
Very nice presentation (came upon by accident). My brother was going to donate Canon F1, with beautiful lenses, to Goodwill. I couldn't let him part with them. I hope to shoot with them and try some new images. I miss my old Tri-X grainy pictures. I miss the feel and size of the old film camera and lenses in general.
Thanks Jimmy and I hope you get out with that lovely Canon outfit soon 👍
Steve, might you think about taking one of the disposable cameras (eg. Kodak FunSaver) and experimenting with print sizes...? ...
That would be a challenge Cat 😊
Steve O'Nions Indeed, but the disposables seem to be having their moment (all over again - some RUclips mega stars having even created their own apps that uh, supposedly mimic the disposable look) but I'm also finding it's a great way - with actual disposable cameras, not apps - to introduce folks to film... Anyway, with crossed fingers, I'll leave thought with you ...
Thumbs up and followed. Really liked this video and looking forward to the next ones!
Thank you 🙂
Steve, thanks for another informative video.
I'm of the same mind Steve. Big prints with lots of grain. My preference would be for HP5 in 35mm, enlarged to 20 inch. printed hard at grade 4 or 5. Might give a bigger print a go if I swivel the enlarger head. Great vlog as well. Cheers, Diz
Totally agree Diz, I have made large wet prints from fast film and the grain really adds something.
Excellent video.
Very inspirational! Thank you very much for sharing your results. The images look great, well done!!
Thanks Emmanuel.
I agree with Cleo - that was a very nice large print.
Thanks Craig 👍
Very interesting video. Have you ever considered using an enlarger projected onto silver gelatin resin coated paper? Always wondered how large those prints can get
I’ve done a few large darkroom prints but they cannot compare for sharpness with a large inkjet. Optical projection is very good but sharpness does drop off a lot with the increased distance needed for a large print.
Cool vid and superb prints my friend!
Love that image. It would not be the same if it were digital. Thanks for sharing
Thanks Tony.
I was very impressed. I am looking to get into 35mm film photography (starting from scratch). I am looking for something mechanical without autofocus etc. The cameras are all capable enough, but how do I find a sharp lens from 40 years ago? Not really sure where to begin looking...
Hi Tim. You’ll be fine with older mechanical lenses if you stick to fixed focal length models. Very few zooms from 40 years ago will give good results today. If you chose a camera system that supported modern lenses right up to the digital age (basically Canon or Nikon) then you’ll be able to use some excellent optics.
Nice job, thank you for taking the time! Started shooting 35mm and 120 film recently, and am dying to see those shots enlarged.
Thanks Jonathan.
Great images. Love the B&W.
This video popped up in my youtube feed for no apparent reason, and although I know next to nothing about cameras, I did find it quite fascinating.
One quick question, what is the little greed doodad on the FG hotshoe? It's something I've never seen before.
It's just a little spirit level Paul, so much easier to get my horizons straight :)
@@SteveONions Ahh thanks for that. I didn't think about that with so many digital cameras having them built in.
Amazing！！I can't believe 35mm film can print so much sharp photo!
Great video, just got back into film and loving the look on prints so far not gone huge yet just 18x12 but going to push and get some printed.
Glad your enjoying your return Doug.
like print videos
thanks steve
another great episode
That was very good, thank you. I love your print, especially your cropping. That Portra print was lovely. I shot Velvia for years, and Porta is more gentle somehow. Do you agree? How large do you print in the darkroom? Having learned from Adams' books, I felt grain was somehow a flaw for landscapes. Adams didn't say that, of course. I've since expanded my vision, and indeed have become a bit of a pictorialist. Thanks for your videos, they're very helpful, inspiring and fun.
Porta is quite soft Michael but also fine grained and good for detailed work even in 35mm. I used to do everything to reduce grain but since digital does that a lot better I now appreciate film for what it is and that includes the texture of grain.
I will go to 20"x24" in the darkroom and will happily make 35mm enlargements at that size.
My workflow is very similar in this case. I use Acros with X-Tol stock developer for excelent results. But my Gear is the Pentax 645 and the scanner is the Epson V 700... Compliments for the amazing prints.
Thank you. I still use my 13 year old v700 on a regular basis and despite the drawbacks I find it an excellent all round workhorse. As the film size increases it really comes into its own and large format is extremely impressive.
well done, i've been obsessed with my medium and large format and ignoring my f-100. i have many lenses i used while a digital shooter, gonna regroup. thank you
Glad you found it useful Bill.
First one to leave a like today;)) happy Sunday greetings from Poland Steve !
Steve, thanks for next great video. I understand that you wanted to see the possibilities of some regular 35mm film, but do you plan to try what are the capabilities of some more specialized film? For example ADOX CMS II 20 claims to be the film with highest resolving power ever (up to 800l/mm in Adotech developer).
I have often thought about trying the document films but they are very slow and need specialist developers. It may be interesting to compare something shot with CMS 20 in 35mm with Delta 100 in 120 and 4x5.
Thank you for another great video, really enjoyed it!
Do you get updated Minolta scanner drivers. I know sometimes the older film scanners can no longer be connected to the newer versions of Windows because drivers aren't available. I'm impressed with the Epson printer output. I didn't realize it could make large prints. Thanks for all the info.
You may try and purchase the SilverFast scanning software for your particular scanner. It is not on the cheap side, but the results are great-and it comes with their own driver for your scanner. That is why you'd have to purchase a separate version for each scanner model.
Again, the results I get from both my Epson 4990 and my Nikon LS5000 are significantly better than with the original drivers.
Hope this is helpful.
I use Vuescan Erich, it drives the Minolta really well and when I had a problem the author got back to my email in under 30 minutes - fantastic!
a bit scrambled my watching order for your videos ,yet love watching your work!
Brilliant stuff, Steve! Beautiful imagery, and anything that can make me lust after medium format (even just a little) less is nice too :-D
Glad you liked it 🙂
Steve, your images are wonderful.
Thank you 🙂
Thanks for making this video Steve! How much impact do you think the scanner makes on the process? Do you think similar results could be achieved on a flatbed with some ANR glass?
The scanner makes a huge difference, more so than that lens on the camera. ANR glad is useful only if the film cannot be kept totally flat.
@@SteveONions I see. Thanks for your response!
Nice video, Steve. Your images were quite good, lovely character and atmosphere to them.
Too many photographers obsessed with pixel peeping. Photography is about creating an image that tells a story, mood and imagination. I just focus on three simple things, light, composition and subject matter. Everything else is secondary, including bokeh, noise, etc.
t Lim great points...and one more...a bad or average image is generally not improved just by making a big print 😀
Nerds, not photographers. I’ve never known a serious photographer to knock anything being shitty quality, many love it as long as it has a feel or feels like it’s that was on purpose
Hi to you to Cleo.
Fantastic point 135 format does not take nearly the investment of medium or especially large format. Plus, amazing how large a black and white can be taken to, makes me wonder how big a 4x5 can be taken. :O
PS Looked up the print DPI for my printers, both are 1200DPI using photography paper. I'm shocked a HP be higher than an Epson considering the latter geared for photography and of very high quality.
4x5 can go to 40” wide with superb quality in my experience.
I always shoot 35 mm ! Wondering if you have a video about your sharpening process in LR and PS...
I’ve not made such a video yet, the constantly changing technology renders them obsolete quite quickly.
Fantastic video. Earned yourself a new subscriber!
Thank you 👍
Another interesting video I also like to see grain on prints from film cameras it makes the image seem more real to me. I do also like the crisp prints you can get from digital at least these days we can have both. Thank you for sharing :D Teddy
PS, I took my old pentax k 1000 ( my first serious camera back in early 80s) on hoiday to Scotland recently and still have a few frames to finish off before I get to see the results.
Fingers crossed for the Pentax shots, I also used 35mm film on a recent trip to Scotland.
Thank you Steve. It is funny how my approach to film has changed since digital photography became available. I would never have come back home with an unfinished film before digital cameras were available !
However now due to the cost etc... I am much more likely to consider what is worth shooting on film :D
I hope you images came or come out well too :D I really loved that video you did of your Scotland trip I have watched it severel times :D
I think that since the whole film v digital debate died down nobody expects them to compete directly. People now embrace the look of film rather than trying to make it look clean and sharp all the time.
Hi Steve, great video! I was wondering which printer you're using? And what kind of paper?
Thank Puck. I usually use an Epson 3880 but also get larger prints made online, there are so many good companies doing this nowadays.
Cool. Again, grain is good.
Sadly, Fuji discontinued Acros 100. I used it once and was very pleased with the results. Your shot shown here comes across very well in the video, I'm sure it looks perfectly fine on the wall!
Thanks Christian, the prints always look better in person than when I show them on the video.
Christian Augustin Look again. :)
@@jebemligashta Are you referring to this one - www.thephoblographer.com/2019/06/10/fujifilm-neopan-acros-100-ii-is-reportedly-coming-this-fall/ ? This would be great!
very good news abouft the film analog , coool.
Thanks for this video! Sorry if I didn't get it - would you say it is better to shoot landscape with a prime lens? Or does it not matter when using a tripod? Thanks for helping and sharing :)!
It doesn’t really matter Silke, the tripod is needed due to the slow shutter speeds, if it was brighter I could handhold. Generally primes are sharper and less prone to flare than zooms but a lot of modern glass is superb regardless of it being prime or zoom.
Thank You for this video. It's the person behind the viewfinder that makes the image, not the camera..
Thanks Larry.
Very Nice image Steve i agree it does look better than the digital version 👍
One question, a bit out of subject, i have ISO 200 Kodak film, and i put ISO 400 on my Praktica MTL 50, what happens?
a: Blank
b: To Grainy
c: Need to fix shutter speed?
d: Other
Hi Steve: Great videos' I am looking for some very grainy B&W 35mm film. Back in the day I used Agfachrome 1000, but off course that's been discontinued. Any advice? Thanks..
Well I’d say the grainiest available is probably Delta 3200. Best exposed at 1600 and developed for 3200, this film will give modest contrast and a lot of grain.