The magenta cast has likely come from cocksfoot grass, which is the grass that you show at the start. This grass has a purple hue to the flowers that isn’t that obvious to the naked eye. Look at the grass at the start of the film! It’s in a shady spot and hadn’t opened yet but you can still see the purple if you look at the tips.
You're right about the Cocksfoot (Dactylus glomerata) earlier in the video and the colour tinge of the inflorescence. There does appear to be some Cocksfoot in Thomas' photo to the mid-right and left, but I think most of the grass is a different species, it looks a bit like Yorkshire Fog (Holcus lanatus), but I can't be sure from this resolution. However, the inflorescence often does have a similar purple hue as Cocksfoot.
Stephen Barlow I had thought about old foggy but I generally see that as being more red with my ageing eyes...we could discuss the NVC communities of Toms videos 👍
It may be you need an infrared filter. Some plants can bounce it around pretty wildly. Judging from the other mentions of inflorescence, this may help. If you dabble into BW with these, you'll see tones you'd have never noticed before.
@@SimonBoothPhotography I was going by the overall form of the inflorescences, the way they are all drooping over so they are more or less horizontal and curved, typical of Yorkshire Fog. Yes, it's often a reddish colour tinge but this tinge is quite variable. Overall, there's definitely a colour cast, and I was quite glad to say goodbye to film because of all the problems with colour casts, reciprocity failure and colour temperature. I'm a bit rusty on NVC classifications to say the least, although I did study under John Rodwell.
Generally, a purple-magenta cast would be from contaminated developer, but appearing only on frames from that one scene would rule that out. The other possibility is fog (raw light hitting the film), but you would see plus density in the clear spaces between frames, unless if it happened while the film was in the film back (a.k.a. magazine), such as when pulling the dark slide while the back was off camera. Commenter here, Simon Booth, wrote that it could be the purple hue of the "cocksfoot grass." That makes a lot of sense, given that our eyes continuously compensate for "normal" and you might have missed it. If you want color accuracy, put a gray card in the scene. If you print for the gray card (to make it look gray), then any "off-color" would be in the subject or light source. (You'll waste a shot, and a print, but it's worth it... and don't forget to retrieve the card after your test shot.) Speaking of gray cards, they also work exceptionally well with spot meters for exposure. If you don't have a gray card with you, or don't want to use it, you could try spot metering the underside of clouds. In this video, you were not locking-up the mirror before releasing the shutter. That big chunk of glass flopping around does make a difference that you can easily see in enlargements, especially at shutter speeds slower than 125. A lens shade also makes a discernible difference, if you're going for "sharpness." You can always diffuse it later if you want a softer look (although not with a neg in an enlarger, because the shadows will move into the highlights in the print, instead of vice verse). A Swedish photographer whose work I've admired for years, Dan Lindberg ( danlindberg.com ), has a similar "eye" as yours, and I think you'd enjoy his work. I first saw his photography on a forum called GetDPI.com.
yep.....I do think that scene is a fit for Black and White.....also the composition needs to capture more, hopefully to include a bit more of the trees and create a perspective.
I shot Hasselblad using film professionally for over 20 years and have a few suggestions. 1.This sounds like a possible lab issue, the grain and the poor color quality. 2. Kodak Porta 400 has extremely low film grain as do almost all of the color films, even at 800 ISO. My last suggestion and it's very basic, are you using a UV filter? Film is a bit susceptible to color shift from UV light, making images go slightly blue/violet. You’re a good photographer and I know you’ll get this straightened out.
There are definite issues with the development here. The lighthouse image has visible vertical streaking that's surely caused by improper agitation. Same with the grain. I just checked several frames of Portra 400 in 120 and they don't show nearly that much grain. I even checked some T Max P3200 that I shot at 3200 and even that doesn't show as much grain as the lighthouse frame does.
Hasselblad Hint: Find the EV number from your spot meter that you want to use for the exposure. Then on the right side of the lens there is an orange triangle. Rotate to align the triangle under the EV number. Now you have set the Aperture/Shutter Speed combination. Push the black button down and rotate the A/SS together to the desire setting. Click.
I see a lot of these types of videos outlining struggles with film and the answers are usually fairly simple. Portra 400 is probably the easiest film to shoot, you really have to do something very wrong to muck it up. There's no problem going 2-3 stops over and even further...always, always err on the side of over-exposure. It's the same idea as digital but instead of saving the highlights, you're saving the shadows. You have a few options to look at find the cause of any issues. Firstly are you getting your film developed at a reputable lab? These days smaller shops aren't getting the quantity of film they used to so the chemicals don't get changed when they should be and hence the potential issues. Plus the machine might have issues with temperature control but because of the cost of fixing it, it gets left as is. Many years ago I was beating myself up over the colours coming back from my negs only to eventually realise that the "pro" lab I had been using was bought out by someone else who was trying to save on costs and therefore was looking after the chemicals and the machines - it makes massive difference when C41 must be processed within a tolerance of half a degree before colour shifts start to appear. Use a proper lab - there's plenty to choose from in Europe - someone like Carmencita Film Lab does a great job. After that comes the scanning. Flatbed scanners are very hard to work with in terms of getting the right colour. The Negative Color Pro plugin in Lightroom makes this much easier these days but it still won't match a Noritsu or Fuji Frontier for colour. I eventually bought my own Fuji Frontier and it changed my film-shooting life. No more messing about with colour - shoot, dev, scan and file away. I think there's a tendency to over think film shooting - personally I find it much simpler than digital. Shooting slide film is of course much more difficult but the same rules apply just within much narrower constraints. I'd suggest sticking your incident meter in the shadows, grab the SS and Aperture and taking the picture. Try that for a roll and send it off to a proper lab with someone who knows how to scan. Also I should mention that it is a good idea to check your negs with your phone too. Put them on a lightbox, triple-click your iPhone's (if you have one) home button to invert the screen colours (this can be set in the Accessibility setting) and use Lightroom Mobile's camera app to view the negs. This will give you a truer indication of what the actual neg looks like AND more importantly it will show you what the exposure on each frame is in relation to each other.
I love the “rule of centers” in the light house photograph! Remember, if you’re not making mistakes you’re not stretching yourself and you’re not learning.
Love the pic of St Mary's from the north side, even though the purple field looks like lavender it looks good. I got your book this week, enjoying it very much!
We learn more from failures than we ever do from successes. So even though it might feel shitty at times to have something fail, you always gotta realize that it is actually useful and helps us improve. I really enjoyed the lighthouse image though, it's a kind of photography style you don't see so often. Breath of fresh air.
I really appretiate your honest/down to earth view about photography. Thanks for uploading, sometimes we forget to screw up in order to improve certain skill.
I love the lighthouse shot, the minimal composition and starkness of the sky and sea. I have been watching quite a lot of James Popsys videos recently and in one he says if the photo is bad because it isn't technically perfect, then is it a good photo? Which I think is a very good point!
I'm very glad you brought back film. We always have to remind ourselves to go back to basics. I have both 35mm and 120mm. I still shoot with them regardless of my SLR. I love the honesty and simplicity of your videos.
Hi Thomas, what you have experienced with the film is exactly why I love digital. Processing mistakes, different film batches,push processing,no flexibility over iso. Film was never as forgiving as digital and also the ability to react immediately makes it so superior. I have been shooting for 50+ years give me digital thank you. I might play with black & white film but that's it. Thanks for your show,
That’s the beauty of film it can be grainy gritty very real and timeless. I used to shoot sport for a local paper way back in the 80s / 90s they gave me one roll of 24 exp ilford HP5 and in the depth of a northern winter I was given Tmax 3200 man I hated the grain back then but looking back they were real photos. Great vid mate glad ur not cov positive ✊🏻
Your comments on lighthouse interesting. We are so used to that clinical perfection we try to seek with digital photography that we forget about the photography. I wondered how lighthouse would look in mono. A greatt video thanks Thomas, good food for thought.
Considering that there are so many different films stocks available, and that Portra is on the expensive end of that range, it is a really valuable lesson to learn that it isn't perfect for everything. Personally, I don't put Portra400 in the camera unless there will be a person in front of it. Portra is mainly amazing at handling skin tones, whether in bright direct sunlight overexposed by a stop or two, metered for the shadows, or even in more indirect daylight pushed a stop. For me, nature is Ektar100, or slide film. If you want that clean, no-noise feeling, shoot the new Ektachrome100. If you want the latitude, while keeping the colours, Ektar100 gives you the dynamic range of negatives that slide films lack. And this is more written for anyone looking through the comments wondering, than Heaton, as I'm sure you've already gotten some heads up about this - but most of all, I really appreciate videos like this, pointing out how things might look when they're "wrong", not just showing things when they go right! Whether it's photography or baking, you don't get better unless you understand _what_ you're doing wrong
Welcome to the world of "using the right developing shop". .. hard to find excellent shops these days . (Glad to see you enjoying the light meter tool as well.) of course, have wide exposure differences in the same develop batch helps create unexpected results :) I use Richard PhotoLab ... I only shoot Ektar and Portra (all speeds). They work with you to create a color profile and after that, my results have been drop dead gorgeous - they do the developing and scanning for me. Real conscientious artists.
Where I live, it seems like there are no good shops. When I scan my Dad's old negatives, I can get great sharpness and color. But when I scan the ones I've had developed at the few remaining local labs, the colors are often terrible.
Is there that much variation in developing with C-41 other than push and pull? There doesn’t seem to be as much variation for recipe as B&W where you need to really test your film in your developer to find out all it can do.
Adrian Parkinson - I've used Richard Photo Lab. A bit expensive, but drop dead gorgeous results w C-41 and Kodak Ektar and Portra. I don't used local shops anymore
Phillip Cedoz - enough that I've taken to sticking as close as possible to an EV RANGE with each roll as large swings and differing dates produce very different results otherwise.
I would highly recommend trying Fuji Acros 100 B&W film for drab days like those, It is also one of the best films around for long exposures as it has decent reciprocity failure rates ! good luck, always take notes too!
From my own experience, Thomas, you need to be in control of the whole process to get exactly the result you want. i.e. your own darkroom. The paper you choose is just as important as the film, and the development process too. Developing the film (neg or chrome) is also a skilled process. Labs will use a simple process unless you pay for speclised development. I loved working with chrome (which is superior for colour work) and Ilford Cibachrome for prints. B&W is different again. The enlarger, the lens even the enlarger light type is very important. Its mega hard work to get right, and over time, incredibly expensive, but the results have wow factor. BUT, unless you have super expensive high end digital transfer kit, you'll never get the results (not even close) to prints created in the darkroom. High end Digital camera files work obviously in the digital domain i.e. there's no analogue to digital conversion taking place. Every pixel is accounted for in post, and results can get very close to the best of film, and in some cases, surpass it.
When you take a shot then immediately wind the film to the next frame, I am thinking you are also recocking the shutter . If I am right, then the shutter spring is under tension. It is Swedish steel, but would it not last longer if you were to advance the frame just before taking the picture? That way when you store the camera the spring is at it's most relaxed state.
Good point, i only advance the film on my Pentax MX immediately before taking the shot. Been doing it that way for 50 years. Even do the same thing with the expensive XTR derailleurs on my mountain bike, springs are not under tension when I'm not riding.
Hamilton S. Rink Attaching and removing the lens from a Hasselblad film body requires it to be in the wound position. Hasselblad has always recommended storing their film cameras and lenses in the wound position. It makes no difference to the longevity of the spring, but it helps to avoid accidentally attaching the lens to the body when it's unwound. Anyone that's owned a Hasselblad and has jammed their camera doing this knows what a pain this is. Once you've done this a couple of times you quickly get into the habit of winding the film immediately after the shot.
Back in the days of film I used to use Kodak Portra 160 colour negative film, for beautiful and natural skin tones, the clue is in the name, i.e. Portra. It also gives natural colours for all subjects, so as you have discovered, it is great for high key work. For woodlands, and in fact for everything else, I used Fuji Velvia 50 ISO transparency film. It gave rich colours and fantastic blues, greens and reds. It was perfect for woodland. Sadly it is no longer with us. For transparencies of humans and wildlife I used Kodachrome 25. It gave lovely natural results and no grain. The ISO of 25 was very challenging for shots of humans and butterflies!
Tom I hope you feel better soon! I love how honest you are in this video! I am new to photography and I am making a ton of mistakes. I am not going to lie, but it is hard not to get discouraged. In my head I see this beautiful image, but after it I look at it, it looks terrible. Thanks for being you!
In the 70s, I shot a lot of weddings on Kodak Vericolor film. It was optimized, or color balanced, for immediate use. It required refrigeration until use. Portra is its successor. I think you might have gotten a roll that has had some serious temperature change prior to use. Do you refrigerate your film? If the film got too warm before use or was in elevated environments for extended periods, it will experience color shifts. Some lessons from my old film days...
Enjoying your adventures in film immensely. I liked the images, the composition of them especially. If there really was a strong magenta cast in one image but not others, I would probably question the scanning. How the scanning is done can make a big, big difference. A lot of labs have their scanners pretty much set to auto, sometimes the results aren't great. Btw. Quick and easy way to tell if you have significantly under or overpexposed is to look at the negs. A dark dense neg .... overexposed, a pale wishy washy neg ... underexposed. Keep up the good work.
I'm glad you're trying out 4K. On larger monitors 1080p unfortunately looks very modest. I noticed this especially with your videos. Don't ask me why with your videos. When I was still filming with the EOS M6 it looked similar. From others 1080p looks much better. I switched to 4K about a year ago, filming with the Sony a6400. The power consumption for editing is already higher, but the result is definitely worth it. Can't wait to get your book, pre-ordered it from Germany :-D
Have you tried the Cafenol thing? A friend and I are considering doing a little bit of Film photography, just to enjoy the process. If you have could you say something about your experience?
Hey Thomas, I do appreciate the increased video resolution! It displays at the native 1440p resolution on my display, which looks perfectly crisp, a really noticeable improvement over 1080p. P.S.: I like the lighthouse photograph a lot, the gritty look.
One of the joys of shooting film the the wide array of film stocks you can use, each one with it's one "preset look". I love all 3 images you showed here and thanks for sharing them.
I just sent out a roll of Portra 400 where I shot fog, so now I'm worried lol. Maybe try a warming filter? And honestly, some of the oddities you come across shooting film is part of the fun. You always get something interesting.
Thomas, I'm curious to what your exposure time was? Sometimes, film will have some interesting properties if the exposure time was less than 1/30th. So, yeah, it will color shift as it's underexposed. It's called reciprocity, and it's something I've dealt with in the 70s and 80 while shooting film. Okay, add the 90s to that as well. There is a specific chart for portra-400 and it shows a sizable drop in effective ISO as the shutter gets slower than 1/45th - so much so that at 1/15th needs an extra 3 stops.
Two words Thomas: 'Negative Lab Pro' alright that's three, but that seems to be the best way of turning a colour neg into a positive with the least amount of voodoo magic stuff going on.
I'd suggest bracketing maybe a stop either way, particularly if you're unsure about an exposure or you have a tricky scene with wide dynamic range. Would also suggest reading up on the zone system, keeping in mind it kind of works in reverse for digital and slide film. With your light meter it should be possible to take a few different readings of shadows, mid-tones, and highlights to assess the dynamic range of your scene.
The clue is in the film name PORTRA. Low contrast, balanced for warm tones. Just to deal with the overcast you're probably looking at 05Y or 81C and the only way to add contrast is to push the film a stop or more.
Got my book here in Michigan, USA yesterday. It's great! I make plenty of mistakes to learn from. Somehow my mistakes aren't as beautiful as your "mistakes", but I'll keep shooting. Hope you feel better.
This seems to come back to one lesson I learned early on: don't aim for every shutter press to be a keeper. While the cost of error is certainly much greater with film, it's no less valuable in the long run.
The way I like to choose film is to first think of the contrast the scene has or the contrast I want. For that kind of day I would have chosen a punchier film like Provia or Velvia. I then think about color, is the color the most important part of the scene or is it mostly lack luster? If color is important then choose that if not I grab a roll of B&W film. Also for someone who likes the crispness of digital all the film I regularly shoot is 200 iso or less to keep the grain down. I always have HP5 or Portra 400 around if I need the sensitivity or want a grainy look. Hope that helps.
Dear Thomas, wonderful to make mistakes popular. What lenses do you please use on the Hasselblad? I seem to see a longer focal length in the beginning of the video? Tx, Peter
I really like the lighthouse image. It's true, it's honest. Like you've said: the inappropriate film, the gray day, the 'ugly' side make it work, paired with the square format and the center placement of the subject.
Have you considered shooting black and white film? I’m coming from a different direction, where I had been shooting B&W film landscapes and just started shooting digital a few years ago. I find that B&W makes me concentrate on light, composition, and especially shapes in an entirely different way than color. You also have to be aware of how certain colors render differently with B&W films. You can also control the film development by processing the film in your kitchen. It takes about an hour. Kodak Tri-X (ISO 400) film with D-76 developer is a reliable combination. Nice grain and detail in medium format. There is a certain satisfaction when you first see a beautiful image for the first time a few weeks after you shot it.
Back in the day , one carried a set of Wratten #81 (warming) filters - to knock back the slight bluish cast from overcast and foggy days. You may need a colour temperature meter in your kit!
In addition to what's already been said, if the exposures were long, say more than a couple of seconds, you may have just seen the onset of reciprocity failure which can give some crazy colors (but usually it also results in images with less exposure than you expected given your aperture and shutter speed).
Did you check the date on the film? We used to keep film in the back of the fridge, and a few hours in the sun on the dashboard could mess up the color rendering.
Try using Capture One Pro to bring the brightness down. Don't use the 'exposure' slider but 'brightness' slider instead. Assuming you are scanning in Tiff, of coarse! I am talking about the second shot in the woods.
Also I had a 500C way back. passed it on with little use after 3-4 years. If the advance crank mechanism hasn't changed (hope for you it has, much $ to fix!) I'd loose that crank for the knob. On mine it was too easy to overstress the gear mesh.
I know exactly why. But before I do can I say that without trying to be all indignant I can quantify my answer. I used to run a successful advertising and fashion studio, the largest in the southwest of UK and the only one with approval from Fujifilm and Kodak. I had a complete prolab on site, E6 dip and dunk which filled a room, Devere 5x4 enlargers, a Cibachrome printer etc. We had Sinar 5x4 cameras and of course Hassy 6x6 as well as others, and naturally we did our own printing up to 20" X 16". Every day my darkroom staff would check temps of the dev in all the backrooms, run test prints which would be sent off to Fuji and Kodak and they would mix the chem on site before cooking with light. I have been a pro shooter for 30 odd yrs and used film up until quite recently. The problem is most definitely a flaw in the dev solution or processed at the wrong temp. Of course it can be fixed digitally but in the old days that would certainly have scrambled some brains in our studio - adjust the magenta a bit in post and all will be well. It is unlikely to the film itself but it might be..... Have a fairly frank and not too awkward chat with the Dev'rs.....now there is one other possibility - and no matter how unlikely; it is still a possibility - get yourself a UV-A1 - I noticed your lens was a bit naked. All good in the end.
With all color films, there's the reciprocity effect to contend with it you're shooting exposures longer than a second or two. I don't know if you were, but in those conditions, I wouldn't be surprised. That can create color shifts like this. Your data sheet that comes with the film will help you compensate for it or avoid it. It's worth checking into, anyway :-)
Incidentally, if you haven't already tried shooting with color positive films (Fuji Velvia 50 was usually my favorite for landscape work), since they're made with dyes, you don't get the grain that you do with a negative film, and Velvia gives you gorgeous greens and blues. The trade off is that slide films have a really low exposure latitude and are sometimes more contrasty than you'd like. You also have to remember to expose for the highlights instead of the shadows... more like digital.
@Bobby Brady the Velvia will have much finer grain than the Portra for two reasons; 1) It's a transparancy/positive which natively have finer grain than color negatives (which have the largest grain) 2) The ISO. In other words a transparency film at 400 ISO will have a tighter grain than a color negative film at 400 ISO. I am not positive about scanning color neg, but back in the day, you really couldn't print color neg on regular B&W paper because the grain was so big and mushy. You actually needed a special paper called Panalure. Velvia is a beautiful film, but exposure must be precise. Ask your lab if they do 'clip tests.' If so, you may want to consider this, they'll explain it... for processing chromes.
To my eyes that’s similar to allowing something like Epson Scan near my negs. Auto WB a warm digital file from a green location and cooler tones may beer towards purple. Did you scan yourself?
I find it curious how younger photographers are drawn to the romanticism of film. I worked with medium and large format film for years and would never go back to it. I find that much of the craft of working with film cameras can be retained in the digital age, for example, by working with a carefully chosen set of prime lenses methodically and deliberately from a tripod, while taking advantage of the improved resolution, colour and dynamic range of digital capture. But I wish you luck with your exploration of medium format film. Well worth adding a second film back to your Hasselblad system. This was always one the system's strengths.
Pretty well done. Thx for mixing film with digital photography. That's for knowing the big difference to shoot film. Digital is cool, but really is another thing about photo.1. Purple image seams to be ultra violet frequency. Use filters for correcting that.2. Film like to be underexposed. 1 stop, 2 stops...depends what kind of negative film or chrome film you using for. Don't be afraid, this is analog, durt, bright and moog can came on the film. All the best.
All those scenes would have worked nicely on PanF film Tom. With no grain too. I suspect the purple tint is under exposure in the first image. You will introduce more grain when you vary your exposures too. An extra film back is a good investment.
Thomas I’ve been shooting and processing film for 45 years and I would bet that the magenta cast on the first image is a lab error. Did the lab do your scanning because it sure looks like an incorrect setting in the scanning process. Sometimes those foggy images make scanning a challenge which is why I do my own, because I know what the scene looked like. You can use a lab but scenes like this take a very experienced operator.
Magenta hue in shadows or light gray areas is usually under exposure.. pushing and pulling film affects the highlights not shadows. Negative film the SOP is expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights. Really use a lens shade or bellows hood. It will increase the resolution on those fine details far away. Your second exposure @ 1/15 may have benefitted from locking the mirror up and letting the camera and tripod settle first. Multiple backs is key. If they still make it the portra 100NC is right up your alley it has a soft fairly neutral color palette and great contrast range.
This has done it’s job... you are out and shooting not thinking of why not!!! And moreover you have made me go out and get my 500cm shooting again!!! Thanks Tom
Thomas, I started doing photography in 1976; learned photography on that format. Digital is here now to stay, I understand that, and I went kicking and screaming into digital. It was necessary. But if you will, please keep doing a video every now and again on film photography. I, and I am certain others, still dig film.
The gritty side of the lighthouse works - as you noted it's not all perfect and "Instagrammy", but that is OK. My book arrived a couple of days ago (US) and I have been enjoying looking through it. It's nicely done and even though I have seen most of these images before on the Vlog, the book presents them in a different light, allowing more time to soak in the image than the 5 second clip in the videos. I don't know if you reprocessed specifically for the book, but they look more "painterly" to me than the on-screen versions.
Did shoot multiple frames and change the exposure between shots? Even Ben and Nick shoot multiple frames with all their experience. I think that would be helpful when you just wind up killing the rest of the roll anyway, and a great learning experience. I'm starting on my own film journey (Superia 200 and Ilford 400) 35 mm and I've made sure to try a couple of frames for decent subjects. Learning experience and it's fun but now I'm in the interminable period waiting to get the film and scan backs. I should have pre-ordered the book, it looks fantastic. I appreciate this video, between the bit of confusion and the not-great images. Helps remind us non-professionals that even professionals have off days.
Having used a Mamiya twin lens many years ago and experienced some of the same issues, digital came as a revelation. The one thing landscape photographers always struggle with is weather but in the film days it was more than just that - the right film to shoot the conditions. Digital seems to give back control over everything (apart from the weather).
Have you tried the Lomography 400? It's a cheaper film but very colourful and yet very close to natural, especially on skin tones. It works really well in forests (although you have to overexpose 1-2 stops. Portra 400 is great (and an honourable mention should go to the Fujifilm Pro 400H), but I love the look of the Lomo 400.
I've been shooting *lots* of Portra 400 over the past 6 months or so. I've been metering it at 50 (overexposing it by 3 stops) which removes the purple cast from shadows / darker areas, but the film has such amazing latitude that the highlights maintain details. This works really well in green and foggy landscapes too.
I've got to ask... what are you using to capture sound? Not just the ambience of the wind or birds in the background -- that all seems very deliberate and it's fantastic -- but even just the snap of the tripod legs, the subtle clicks of the aperture ring. I've commented before, but worth doing again: the efforts you've taken towards moving your vlogs in a more cinematic direction have not gone unnoticed and I think most viewers -- myself certainly -- really enjoy. Thanks, as always.
you probably already figured this out by now but color negative for those conditions that would have worked better is either Ektar 100 or Portra 800, both of these are more saturated. Portra 160 and 400 like more light for sure and have a warmer tone to them that doesn't really jive with foggy or overcast day color temp. Provia or Velivia also would have been good choices but Provia would probably give blue cast in the shadows that you'd want a 81A/B warming filter to correct.
With regard to the first image (nice composition, btw), you don't say anything about how you metered, but the scene was quite hi-key, i.e. primarily bright tones, no shadows, nothing remotely middle-gray (except possibly the trees?). What spot did you meter with your Sekonic, and what zone did you assign to that spot? Did you meter other areas of the subject, and what was the range of brightnesses? Without any of that information, the best guess is that the negative was underexposed. Looking at the negative on the lightbox would help with this determination. You don't say how the negatives were scanned. Looking at the scanned, digital image doesn't provide much information on correct exposure, because scanner software tries to spread out the brightness range of the final scanned image so that it fits the full 0-255 range, no matter how under- or over-exposed the negative. This can cause color casts and muddiness. Your problem with images two and three was grain, which was even visible in the video. Again, you don't say how these negatives were scanned (or metered, for that matter). Grain is much more noticeable in flatbed scans (Nick Carver has some very useful videos on this subject), less so with dedicated film scanners like the Braun FS120, even less with drum scanners. The tiniest bit of Gaussian blur might soften that grain, without much loss of detail, in relatively small prints like the ones you showed. Hope you feel better soon!
Thomas: A few reflections from my medium format pre-digital days: - I shot a lot of Kodacolor and a bit of Fujicolor in the 80's with the Hasselblad, and often got the tint you describe, along with low contrast and generally flat, disappointing results. - Switching to the Bronica with Nikkor lenses, kodacolor images improved in terms of color, and saturation, BUT... When I switched to Kodachrome and and started doing Cibachrome enlargements, Wow! Prints became gobsmackingly gorgeous compared to the Hasse and color print film. Might I suggest Thomas, that you try some color transparency film, and shoot the transparency it with a digital camera or drum scan and see what you think. Projected Medium format transparencies or viewing them with a loupe can be very rewarding as well. And if you want to try the old school experience consider doing your own wet prints. fatali.com/cibachrome-photographs/ www.douglasvincent.com/ilfochrome/ Printing in the Darkroom with Ilfochrome (Cibachrome) ruclips.net/video/UnxxHS6msDE/видео.html
I really like your videos. Regarding your first picture of the foggy area, I have a question...did you have a UV filter on the camera? I believe the issue is NOT the film but the light. You have to understand that in fog, all those water particles will act like a prism too. I'm speculating that there is a lot of UV light mixed with all the fog. I don't recall seeing a UV filter on the lens, but I could be wrong. It might help there. Regarding the picture of the trees, it was much better. So, I would suggest you use a circular polarizer filter. You can see the degree of removal of polarized light and it probably would have helped. Just remember to apply the filter factor (+1.3 compensation). Also, bracket with the filter just to see. Regarding the lighthouse, I think that that "bad" side actually gives it character. It tells the duration of it's existence. Just my thoughts here.
If your scanner can, I'd do multiple scans with multiple exposures and color corrections. Then, merge them (judiciously) in Photoshop. I've done this with dedicated film scanners which are basically just cameras themselves. Not sure how flatbeds handle things. Also, Kodak films are known for showcasing magentas, reds and yellows. Fuji is more into greens and cooler shades.
I think you should try Portra 160 for Landscapes, or even try Fuji 400H PRO, which is the film I'm using right at the moment in my blad. Both with great results in landscape. Maybe the Fuji abuse the green tint as Portra do so with purpel
Love the clockwork noises it makes and that clicky aperture ring on the lens. Not sure I could live with the variability of the results, but very interesting, or at least you have made it so.
Thomas, it's just imperfect scanning job and color balancing. Color negatives are notoriously difficult to scan and get the colors accurate. Tolerances in color curves are very narrow and vary picture-by-picture. But if you spend some time color-correcting, you'll be rewarded with great colors. One of the quick fixes that I found helping with getting rid of some magenta cast - 'color defringe' in lightroom. Dial the magenta defringe all the way to the right. I don't think your magenta cast has anything to do with film choice. I shoot many different films and it's a common problem in all of them, slide film as well. Film is meant to be printed on paper or projected, digitizing it is not always easy. I definitely feel your pain, I was sitting until 4am yesterday battling same color problems with a roll of 35mm Kodak Colorplus 200 and Gold 400 a day before. I was almost desperate when after spending hours correcting every pic in the scanning software and seeing horrible colors. Then I took care of that in Lightroom and it worked well, in the end I'm happy with the results. BEST OF LUCK! KEEP BEING CHALLENGED AND CREATIVE!!!
DenisJust Thomas-I think this man is right-this first shot issue is related to the challenges of getting color balance right as you scan a color negative and then convert it to a positive image to edit is LR/PS. There’s various products on the market that claim to tame this issue to a degree.
The magenta cast has likely come from cocksfoot grass, which is the grass that you show at the start. This grass has a purple hue to the flowers that isn’t that obvious to the naked eye. Look at the grass at the start of the film! It’s in a shady spot and hadn’t opened yet but you can still see the purple if you look at the tips.
You're right about the Cocksfoot (Dactylus glomerata) earlier in the video and the colour tinge of the inflorescence. There does appear to be some Cocksfoot in Thomas' photo to the mid-right and left, but I think most of the grass is a different species, it looks a bit like Yorkshire Fog (Holcus lanatus), but I can't be sure from this resolution. However, the inflorescence often does have a similar purple hue as Cocksfoot.
Stephen Barlow I had thought about old foggy but I generally see that as being more red with my ageing eyes...we could discuss the NVC communities of Toms videos 👍
Nice thought process but notice in the unedited version of the image the trees turn purple too?.. hmm
It may be you need an infrared filter. Some plants can bounce it around pretty wildly. Judging from the other mentions of inflorescence, this may help. If you dabble into BW with these, you'll see tones you'd have never noticed before.
@@SimonBoothPhotography I was going by the overall form of the inflorescences, the way they are all drooping over so they are more or less horizontal and curved, typical of Yorkshire Fog. Yes, it's often a reddish colour tinge but this tinge is quite variable. Overall, there's definitely a colour cast, and I was quite glad to say goodbye to film because of all the problems with colour casts, reciprocity failure and colour temperature. I'm a bit rusty on NVC classifications to say the least, although I did study under John Rodwell.
Generally, a purple-magenta cast would be from contaminated developer, but appearing only on frames from that one scene would rule that out. The other possibility is fog (raw light hitting the film), but you would see plus density in the clear spaces between frames, unless if it happened while the film was in the film back (a.k.a. magazine), such as when pulling the dark slide while the back was off camera. Commenter here, Simon Booth, wrote that it could be the purple hue of the "cocksfoot grass." That makes a lot of sense, given that our eyes continuously compensate for "normal" and you might have missed it.
If you want color accuracy, put a gray card in the scene. If you print for the gray card (to make it look gray), then any "off-color" would be in the subject or light source. (You'll waste a shot, and a print, but it's worth it... and don't forget to retrieve the card after your test shot.) Speaking of gray cards, they also work exceptionally well with spot meters for exposure. If you don't have a gray card with you, or don't want to use it, you could try spot metering the underside of clouds.
In this video, you were not locking-up the mirror before releasing the shutter. That big chunk of glass flopping around does make a difference that you can easily see in enlargements, especially at shutter speeds slower than 125. A lens shade also makes a discernible difference, if you're going for "sharpness." You can always diffuse it later if you want a softer look (although not with a neg in an enlarger, because the shadows will move into the highlights in the print, instead of vice verse).
A Swedish photographer whose work I've admired for years, Dan Lindberg ( danlindberg.com ), has a similar "eye" as yours, and I think you'd enjoy his work. I first saw his photography on a forum called GetDPI.com.
Am I alone in loving the really zoomed in woodland image? The intricate detail of the vines around the tree is lost in the zoomed out photo.
I agree. I think the zoomed in image is very good
I agree too.
Yes that was a fine shot.
yep.....I do think that scene is a fit for Black and White.....also the composition needs to capture more, hopefully to include a bit more of the trees and create a perspective.
I shot Hasselblad using film professionally for over 20 years and have a few suggestions.
1.This sounds like a possible lab issue, the grain and the poor color quality.
2. Kodak Porta 400 has extremely low film grain as do almost all of the color films, even at 800 ISO.
My last suggestion and it's very basic, are you using a UV filter?
Film is a bit susceptible to color shift from UV light, making images go slightly blue/violet.
You’re a good photographer and I know you’ll get this straightened out.
There are definite issues with the development here. The lighthouse image has visible vertical streaking that's surely caused by improper agitation. Same with the grain. I just checked several frames of Portra 400 in 120 and they don't show nearly that much grain. I even checked some T Max P3200 that I shot at 3200 and even that doesn't show as much grain as the lighthouse frame does.
Love your honesty. Re: the purple hue, is it possible that the developer over-processed it a bit? That would be my first thought.
X2
don't think so as the other images were fine
Hasselblad Hint: Find the EV number from your spot meter that you want to use for the exposure. Then on the right side of the lens there is an orange triangle. Rotate to align the triangle under the EV number. Now you have set the Aperture/Shutter Speed combination. Push the black button down and rotate the A/SS together to the desire setting. Click.
Yeah, sometimes *shrug*
My advice: carry multiple magazines with different film stocks! Use the stock that is most suitable to the situation.
Agreed. A second film back is a must!
@@theoswinscow and a third!
I see a lot of these types of videos outlining struggles with film and the answers are usually fairly simple.
Portra 400 is probably the easiest film to shoot, you really have to do something very wrong to muck it up. There's no problem going 2-3 stops over and even further...always, always err on the side of over-exposure. It's the same idea as digital but instead of saving the highlights, you're saving the shadows.
You have a few options to look at find the cause of any issues.
Firstly are you getting your film developed at a reputable lab? These days smaller shops aren't getting the quantity of film they used to so the chemicals don't get changed when they should be and hence the potential issues. Plus the machine might have issues with temperature control but because of the cost of fixing it, it gets left as is.
Many years ago I was beating myself up over the colours coming back from my negs only to eventually realise that the "pro" lab I had been using was bought out by someone else who was trying to save on costs and therefore was looking after the chemicals and the machines - it makes massive difference when C41 must be processed within a tolerance of half a degree before colour shifts start to appear.
Use a proper lab - there's plenty to choose from in Europe - someone like Carmencita Film Lab does a great job.
After that comes the scanning. Flatbed scanners are very hard to work with in terms of getting the right colour. The Negative Color Pro plugin in Lightroom makes this much easier these days but it still won't match a Noritsu or Fuji Frontier for colour. I eventually bought my own Fuji Frontier and it changed my film-shooting life. No more messing about with colour - shoot, dev, scan and file away.
I think there's a tendency to over think film shooting - personally I find it much simpler than digital. Shooting slide film is of course much more difficult but the same rules apply just within much narrower constraints.
I'd suggest sticking your incident meter in the shadows, grab the SS and Aperture and taking the picture. Try that for a roll and send it off to a proper lab with someone who knows how to scan.
Also I should mention that it is a good idea to check your negs with your phone too. Put them on a lightbox, triple-click your iPhone's (if you have one) home button to invert the screen colours (this can be set in the Accessibility setting) and use Lightroom Mobile's camera app to view the negs. This will give you a truer indication of what the actual neg looks like AND more importantly it will show you what the exposure on each frame is in relation to each other.
What model of the Frontier you bought mate?
@@freemanslim I have the SP500, which I got about 6 years ago when they were going for about US$500.
@@bebox7 Fantastic!! lucky mate!!! Thank you for the great tips! Where can I check some of your work / photos?
@@freemanslim Yeh was very lucky to get in before the crazy prices. You can find me at @camerafilmlens on IG and same on Flickr.
I love the “rule of centers” in the light house photograph! Remember, if you’re not making mistakes you’re not stretching yourself and you’re not learning.
I haven't exposed film in many years but I used to love Kodak films for sunrises/sunsets and people shots. Fuji films for woodlands and seascapes.
Totally agree. Fujichrome 50 was my all time favorite (slides) film back in the day.
Love the pic of St Mary's from the north side, even though the purple field looks like lavender it looks good. I got your book this week, enjoying it very much!
We learn more from failures than we ever do from successes. So even though it might feel shitty at times to have something fail, you always gotta realize that it is actually useful and helps us improve.
I really enjoyed the lighthouse image though, it's a kind of photography style you don't see so often. Breath of fresh air.
I would have been pleased with those photos. Great video yet again. By the way, loved the Thom Yorke impression on the f4 deleted scene.
The lighthouse image is good, Thomas. The minimal red color and smooth water is nice, and as you say, the grain works.
I really appretiate your honest/down to earth view about photography. Thanks for uploading, sometimes we forget to screw up in order to improve certain skill.
I love the lighthouse shot, the minimal composition and starkness of the sky and sea. I have been watching quite a lot of James Popsys videos recently and in one he says if the photo is bad because it isn't technically perfect, then is it a good photo? Which I think is a very good point!
I'm very glad you brought back film. We always have to remind ourselves to go back to basics. I have both 35mm and 120mm. I still shoot with them regardless of my SLR. I love the honesty and simplicity of your videos.
Hi Thomas, what you have experienced with the film is exactly why I love digital. Processing mistakes, different film batches,push processing,no flexibility over iso. Film was never as forgiving as digital and also the ability to react immediately makes it so superior. I have been shooting for 50+ years give me digital thank you. I might play with black & white film but that's it. Thanks for your show,
That’s the beauty of film it can be grainy gritty very real and timeless. I used to shoot sport for a local paper way back in the 80s / 90s they gave me one roll of 24 exp ilford HP5 and in the depth of a northern winter I was given Tmax 3200 man I hated the grain back then but looking back they were real photos. Great vid mate glad ur not cov positive ✊🏻
Your comments on lighthouse interesting. We are so used to that clinical perfection we try to seek with digital photography that we forget about the photography. I wondered how lighthouse would look in mono. A greatt video thanks Thomas, good food for thought.
Considering that there are so many different films stocks available, and that Portra is on the expensive end of that range, it is a really valuable lesson to learn that it isn't perfect for everything.
Personally, I don't put Portra400 in the camera unless there will be a person in front of it. Portra is mainly amazing at handling skin tones, whether in bright direct sunlight overexposed by a stop or two, metered for the shadows, or even in more indirect daylight pushed a stop.
For me, nature is Ektar100, or slide film. If you want that clean, no-noise feeling, shoot the new Ektachrome100. If you want the latitude, while keeping the colours, Ektar100 gives you the dynamic range of negatives that slide films lack.
And this is more written for anyone looking through the comments wondering, than Heaton, as I'm sure you've already gotten some heads up about this - but most of all, I really appreciate videos like this, pointing out how things might look when they're "wrong", not just showing things when they go right! Whether it's photography or baking, you don't get better unless you understand _what_ you're doing wrong
I like your Lighthouse Thomas. It looks quite Indie rather than Mainstream and it's absolutely fine for film photography.
I honestly love the lighthouse image, so unique!
I loved the lighthouse shot! A lighthouse shouldn’t be “pretty” as they are battered by the elements. This shot shows the character of the lighthouse.
Verlene Lewis Agree 100% The lighthouse shot is fantastic!
I thought the lighthouse was my favorite of the three as well.
It was by far my favourite of the photos! 🙌🏻✨
I'd certainly ask some questions to my lab after that
Welcome to the world of "using the right developing shop". .. hard to find excellent shops these days . (Glad to see you enjoying the light meter tool as well.) of course, have wide exposure differences in the same develop batch helps create unexpected results :)
I use Richard PhotoLab ... I only shoot Ektar and Portra (all speeds). They work with you to create a color profile and after that, my results have been drop dead gorgeous - they do the developing and scanning for me. Real conscientious artists.
Where I live, it seems like there are no good shops. When I scan my Dad's old negatives, I can get great sharpness and color. But when I scan the ones I've had developed at the few remaining local labs, the colors are often terrible.
@@AdrianParkinsonFilms Might be time to try DIY. It's not difficult at all.
Is there that much variation in developing with C-41 other than push and pull? There doesn’t seem to be as much variation for recipe as B&W where you need to really test your film in your developer to find out all it can do.
Adrian Parkinson - I've used Richard Photo Lab. A bit expensive, but drop dead gorgeous results w C-41 and Kodak Ektar and Portra. I don't used local shops anymore
Phillip Cedoz - enough that I've taken to sticking as close as possible to an EV RANGE with each roll as large swings and differing dates produce very different results otherwise.
Keeping it real as always Mr. Heaton. I love that about you. I hope you feel better soon. Take care and stay safe
"Not everything has to look pretty to be a nice image"! Great point!!
Thanks for this video
I’m so sick of lockdown etc. This video really helped
and thank you so so much for this
I would highly recommend trying Fuji Acros 100 B&W film for drab days like those, It is also one of the best films around for long exposures as it has decent reciprocity failure rates ! good luck, always take notes too!
I suggest always moving the mirror up with the tab below the winding knob for landscape. Less camera shake after composition.
From my own experience, Thomas, you need to be in control of the whole process to get exactly the result you want.
i.e. your own darkroom. The paper you choose is just as important as the film, and the development process too. Developing the film (neg or chrome) is also a skilled process. Labs will use a simple process unless you pay for speclised development.
I loved working with chrome (which is superior for colour work) and Ilford Cibachrome for prints. B&W is different again. The enlarger, the lens even the enlarger light type is very important.
Its mega hard work to get right, and over time, incredibly expensive, but the results have wow factor. BUT, unless you have super expensive high end digital transfer kit, you'll never get the results (not even close) to prints created in the darkroom.
High end Digital camera files work obviously in the digital domain i.e. there's no analogue to digital conversion taking place. Every pixel is accounted for in post, and results can get very close to the best of film, and in some cases, surpass it.
What you have outlined with respect to film photography and control of the process is why so many of us happily moved from film to digital.
I agree. Transparency film and B&W gave you more control.
When you take a shot then immediately wind the film to the next frame, I am thinking you are also recocking the shutter . If I am right, then the shutter spring is under tension. It is Swedish steel, but would it not last longer if you were to advance the frame just before taking the picture? That way when you store the camera the spring is at it's most relaxed state.
Good point, i only advance the film on my Pentax MX immediately before taking the shot. Been doing it that way for 50 years. Even do the same thing with the expensive XTR derailleurs on my mountain bike, springs are not under tension when I'm not riding.
Hamilton S. Rink Attaching and removing the lens from a Hasselblad film body requires it to be in the wound position. Hasselblad has always recommended storing their film cameras and lenses in the wound position. It makes no difference to the longevity of the spring, but it helps to avoid accidentally attaching the lens to the body when it's unwound. Anyone that's owned a Hasselblad and has jammed their camera doing this knows what a pain this is. Once you've done this a couple of times you quickly get into the habit of winding the film immediately after the shot.
The quality of the video footage has improved immensely. I normally watch the videos on a 65" 4k TV and I really enjoy the new 'look'. Thanks!
Back in the days of film I used to use Kodak Portra 160 colour negative film, for beautiful and natural skin tones, the clue is in the name, i.e. Portra. It also gives natural colours for all subjects, so as you have discovered, it is great for high key work. For woodlands, and in fact for everything else, I used Fuji Velvia 50 ISO transparency film. It gave rich colours and fantastic blues, greens and reds. It was perfect for woodland. Sadly it is no longer with us. For transparencies of humans and wildlife I used Kodachrome 25. It gave lovely natural results and no grain. The ISO of 25 was very challenging for shots of humans and butterflies!
Tom I hope you feel better soon! I love how honest you are in this video! I am new to photography and I am making a ton of mistakes. I am not going to lie, but it is hard not to get discouraged. In my head I see this beautiful image, but after it I look at it, it looks terrible. Thanks for being you!
I like purple. It’s my favorite color. It made for a different and unusual photograph in that field.
In the 70s, I shot a lot of weddings on Kodak Vericolor film. It was optimized, or color balanced, for immediate use. It required refrigeration until use. Portra is its successor. I think you might have gotten a roll that has had some serious temperature change prior to use. Do you refrigerate your film? If the film got too warm before use or was in elevated environments for extended periods, it will experience color shifts. Some lessons from my old film days...
Enjoying your adventures in film immensely. I liked the images, the composition of them especially. If there really was a strong magenta cast in one image but not others, I would probably question the scanning. How the scanning is done can make a big, big difference. A lot of labs have their scanners pretty much set to auto, sometimes the results aren't great. Btw. Quick and easy way to tell if you have significantly under or overpexposed is to look at the negs. A dark dense neg .... overexposed, a pale wishy washy neg ... underexposed. Keep up the good work.
Loved the Hasselblad I had years ago. But, it never left the studio. I also loved developing the B&W film and making prints in my darkroom. Stay well.
As I mentioned last time Steve O"nions might be worth asking for help he is also pretty local ,at least get you on the right track .
Love watching Steve
I'm glad you're trying out 4K.
On larger monitors 1080p unfortunately looks very modest. I noticed this especially with your videos.
Don't ask me why with your videos. When I was still filming with the EOS M6 it looked similar. From others 1080p looks much better.
I switched to 4K about a year ago, filming with the Sony a6400. The power consumption for editing is already higher, but the result is definitely worth it.
Can't wait to get your book, pre-ordered it from Germany :-D
Just use black and white. Stand developing at home with rodinol is easy, cheap, and rewarding.
Agree, only for landscapes, Ilford's Perceptol would be better, in my opinion...
Have you tried the Cafenol thing? A friend and I are considering doing a little bit of Film photography, just to enjoy the process. If you have could you say something about your experience?
Jaime Duncan I’ve seen the results. It looks like someone chose to replace perfectly good developer with coffee.
Hey Thomas, I do appreciate the increased video resolution! It displays at the native 1440p resolution on my display, which looks perfectly crisp, a really noticeable improvement over 1080p.
P.S.: I like the lighthouse photograph a lot, the gritty look.
the phots are stunning! who cares about the noise? it's the feel the composition delivers and it does DELIVER!!!
One of the joys of shooting film the the wide array of film stocks you can use, each one with it's one "preset look". I love all 3 images you showed here and thanks for sharing them.
I just sent out a roll of Portra 400 where I shot fog, so now I'm worried lol. Maybe try a warming filter? And honestly, some of the oddities you come across shooting film is part of the fun. You always get something interesting.
Thomas, I'm curious to what your exposure time was? Sometimes, film will have some interesting properties if the exposure time was less than 1/30th. So, yeah, it will color shift as it's underexposed. It's called reciprocity, and it's something I've dealt with in the 70s and 80 while shooting film. Okay, add the 90s to that as well.
There is a specific chart for portra-400 and it shows a sizable drop in effective ISO as the shutter gets slower than 1/45th - so much so that at 1/15th needs an extra 3 stops.
Two words Thomas: 'Negative Lab Pro' alright that's three, but that seems to be the best way of turning a colour neg into a positive with the least amount of voodoo magic stuff going on.
I'd suggest bracketing maybe a stop either way, particularly if you're unsure about an exposure or you have a tricky scene with wide dynamic range.
Would also suggest reading up on the zone system, keeping in mind it kind of works in reverse for digital and slide film. With your light meter it should be possible to take a few different readings of shadows, mid-tones, and highlights to assess the dynamic range of your scene.
Your current set of vids are some of the best you’ve done Mr Heaton.
That's the colour of the grass seeds!! Different grasses, different colours, nothing wrong with the colour Tom.
The clue is in the film name PORTRA. Low contrast, balanced for warm tones. Just to deal with the overcast you're probably looking at 05Y or 81C and the only way to add contrast is to push the film a stop or more.
Got my book here in Michigan, USA yesterday. It's great! I make plenty of mistakes to learn from. Somehow my mistakes aren't as beautiful as your "mistakes", but I'll keep shooting. Hope you feel better.
This seems to come back to one lesson I learned early on: don't aim for every shutter press to be a keeper. While the cost of error is certainly much greater with film, it's no less valuable in the long run.
Your B roll is always fantastic. Not easy running up and down, then act and breath natural. Well done.
I agree...Portra 400 is good film. I use it a lot. Take those pics again on a brighter day and you will be pleased.
The way I like to choose film is to first think of the contrast the scene has or the contrast I want. For that kind of day I would have chosen a punchier film like Provia or Velvia. I then think about color, is the color the most important part of the scene or is it mostly lack luster? If color is important then choose that if not I grab a roll of B&W film. Also for someone who likes the crispness of digital all the film I regularly shoot is 200 iso or less to keep the grain down. I always have HP5 or Portra 400 around if I need the sensitivity or want a grainy look. Hope that helps.
Lighthouse image has a timeless beauty IMHO
Thank you, dear Thomas, once again for an inspiring video of yours! Wishing you both health and safety! Best Regards from Sweden
Love the lighthouse image, might even be better in black and white.
I love the honesty in this video.
Dear Thomas, wonderful to make mistakes popular. What lenses do you please use on the Hasselblad? I seem to see a longer focal length in the beginning of the video? Tx, Peter
I really like the lighthouse image. It's true, it's honest. Like you've said: the inappropriate film, the gray day, the 'ugly' side make it work, paired with the square format and the center placement of the subject.
Great honest video of learnings from trial and error. We all need those encouragements in any part of life. Hope you’re felling better now too.
Have you considered shooting black and white film? I’m coming from a different direction, where I had been shooting B&W film landscapes and just started shooting digital a few years ago. I find that B&W makes me concentrate on light, composition, and especially shapes in an entirely different way than color. You also have to be aware of how certain colors render differently with B&W films. You can also control the film development by processing the film in your kitchen. It takes about an hour. Kodak Tri-X (ISO 400) film with D-76 developer is a reliable combination. Nice grain and detail in medium format. There is a certain satisfaction when you first see a beautiful image for the first time a few weeks after you shot it.
Back in the day , one carried a set of Wratten #81 (warming) filters - to knock back the slight bluish cast from overcast and foggy days. You may need a colour temperature meter in your kit!
In addition to what's already been said, if the exposures were long, say more than a couple of seconds, you may have just seen the onset of reciprocity failure which can give some crazy colors (but usually it also results in images with less exposure than you expected given your aperture and shutter speed).
Did you check the date on the film? We used to keep film in the back of the fridge, and a few hours in the sun on the dashboard could mess up the color rendering.
Try using Capture One Pro to bring the brightness down. Don't use the 'exposure' slider but 'brightness' slider instead. Assuming you are scanning in Tiff, of coarse! I am talking about the second shot in the woods.
Also I had a 500C way back. passed it on with little use after 3-4 years. If the advance crank mechanism hasn't changed (hope for you it has, much $ to fix!) I'd loose that crank for the knob. On mine it was too easy to overstress the gear mesh.
I know exactly why. But before I do can I say that without trying to be all indignant I can quantify my answer. I used to run a successful advertising and fashion studio, the largest in the southwest of UK and the only one with approval from Fujifilm and Kodak. I had a complete prolab on site, E6 dip and dunk which filled a room, Devere 5x4 enlargers, a Cibachrome printer etc. We had Sinar 5x4 cameras and of course Hassy 6x6 as well as others, and naturally we did our own printing up to 20" X 16". Every day my darkroom staff would check temps of the dev in all the backrooms, run test prints which would be sent off to Fuji and Kodak and they would mix the chem on site before cooking with light. I have been a pro shooter for 30 odd yrs and used film up until quite recently. The problem is most definitely a flaw in the dev solution or processed at the wrong temp. Of course it can be fixed digitally but in the old days that would certainly have scrambled some brains in our studio - adjust the magenta a bit in post and all will be well. It is unlikely to the film itself but it might be..... Have a fairly frank and not too awkward chat with the Dev'rs.....now there is one other possibility - and no matter how unlikely; it is still a possibility - get yourself a UV-A1 - I noticed your lens was a bit naked. All good in the end.
With all color films, there's the reciprocity effect to contend with it you're shooting exposures longer than a second or two. I don't know if you were, but in those conditions, I wouldn't be surprised. That can create color shifts like this. Your data sheet that comes with the film will help you compensate for it or avoid it. It's worth checking into, anyway :-)
Incidentally, if you haven't already tried shooting with color positive films (Fuji Velvia 50 was usually my favorite for landscape work), since they're made with dyes, you don't get the grain that you do with a negative film, and Velvia gives you gorgeous greens and blues. The trade off is that slide films have a really low exposure latitude and are sometimes more contrasty than you'd like. You also have to remember to expose for the highlights instead of the shadows... more like digital.
@Bobby Brady the Velvia will have much finer grain than the Portra for two reasons; 1) It's a transparancy/positive which natively have finer grain than color negatives (which have the largest grain) 2) The ISO. In other words a transparency film at 400 ISO will have a tighter grain than a color negative film at 400 ISO. I am not positive about scanning color neg, but back in the day, you really couldn't print color neg on regular B&W paper because the grain was so big and mushy. You actually needed a special paper called Panalure. Velvia is a beautiful film, but exposure must be precise. Ask your lab if they do 'clip tests.' If so, you may want to consider this, they'll explain it... for processing chromes.
To my eyes that’s similar to allowing something like Epson Scan near my negs. Auto WB a warm digital file from a green location and cooler tones may beer towards purple. Did you scan yourself?
I find it curious how younger photographers are drawn to the romanticism of film. I worked with medium and large format film for years and would never go back to it. I find that much of the craft of working with film cameras can be retained in the digital age, for example, by working with a carefully chosen set of prime lenses methodically and deliberately from a tripod, while taking advantage of the improved resolution, colour and dynamic range of digital capture. But I wish you luck with your exploration of medium format film. Well worth adding a second film back to your Hasselblad system. This was always one the system's strengths.
Pretty well done. Thx for mixing film with digital photography. That's for knowing the big difference to shoot film. Digital is cool, but really is another thing about photo.1. Purple image seams to be ultra violet frequency. Use filters for correcting that.2. Film like to be underexposed. 1 stop, 2 stops...depends what kind of negative film or chrome film you using for. Don't be afraid, this is analog, durt, bright and moog can came on the film. All the best.
All those scenes would have worked nicely on PanF film Tom. With no grain too. I suspect the purple tint is under exposure in the first image. You will introduce more grain when you vary your exposures too. An extra film back is a good investment.
Thomas I’ve been shooting and processing film for 45 years and I would bet that the magenta cast on the first image is a lab error. Did the lab do your scanning because it sure looks like an incorrect setting in the scanning process. Sometimes those foggy images make scanning a challenge which is why I do my own, because I know what the scene looked like. You can use a lab but scenes like this take a very experienced operator.
Magenta hue in shadows or light gray areas is usually under exposure.. pushing and pulling film affects the highlights not shadows. Negative film the SOP is expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights. Really use a lens shade or bellows hood. It will increase the resolution on those fine details far away. Your second exposure @ 1/15 may have benefitted from locking the mirror up and letting the camera and tripod settle first. Multiple backs is key. If they still make it the portra 100NC is right up your alley it has a soft fairly neutral color palette and great contrast range.
I really love the forest image, WITH the grain, it is perfect to me. Nice work here !
This has done it’s job... you are out and shooting not thinking of why not!!! And moreover you have made me go out and get my 500cm shooting again!!! Thanks Tom
Thomas, I started doing photography in 1976; learned photography on that format. Digital is here now to stay, I understand that, and I went kicking and screaming into digital. It was necessary. But if you will, please keep doing a video every now and again on film photography. I, and I am certain others, still dig film.
The gritty side of the lighthouse works - as you noted it's not all perfect and "Instagrammy", but that is OK. My book arrived a couple of days ago (US) and I have been enjoying looking through it. It's nicely done and even though I have seen most of these images before on the Vlog, the book presents them in a different light, allowing more time to soak in the image than the 5 second clip in the videos. I don't know if you reprocessed specifically for the book, but they look more "painterly" to me than the on-screen versions.
Did shoot multiple frames and change the exposure between shots? Even Ben and Nick shoot multiple frames with all their experience. I think that would be helpful when you just wind up killing the rest of the roll anyway, and a great learning experience. I'm starting on my own film journey (Superia 200 and Ilford 400) 35 mm and I've made sure to try a couple of frames for decent subjects. Learning experience and it's fun but now I'm in the interminable period waiting to get the film and scan backs.
I should have pre-ordered the book, it looks fantastic. I appreciate this video, between the bit of confusion and the not-great images. Helps remind us non-professionals that even professionals have off days.
Having used a Mamiya twin lens many years ago and experienced some of the same issues, digital came as a revelation. The one thing landscape photographers always struggle with is weather but in the film days it was more than just that - the right film to shoot the conditions. Digital seems to give back control over everything (apart from the weather).
Have you tried the Lomography 400? It's a cheaper film but very colourful and yet very close to natural, especially on skin tones. It works really well in forests (although you have to overexpose 1-2 stops. Portra 400 is great (and an honourable mention should go to the Fujifilm Pro 400H), but I love the look of the Lomo 400.
I've been shooting *lots* of Portra 400 over the past 6 months or so. I've been metering it at 50 (overexposing it by 3 stops) which removes the purple cast from shadows / darker areas, but the film has such amazing latitude that the highlights maintain details. This works really well in green and foggy landscapes too.
I've got to ask... what are you using to capture sound? Not just the ambience of the wind or birds in the background -- that all seems very deliberate and it's fantastic -- but even just the snap of the tripod legs, the subtle clicks of the aperture ring. I've commented before, but worth doing again: the efforts you've taken towards moving your vlogs in a more cinematic direction have not gone unnoticed and I think most viewers -- myself certainly -- really enjoy. Thanks, as always.
you probably already figured this out by now but color negative for those conditions that would have worked better is either Ektar 100 or Portra 800, both of these are more saturated. Portra 160 and 400 like more light for sure and have a warmer tone to them that doesn't really jive with foggy or overcast day color temp. Provia or Velivia also would have been good choices but Provia would probably give blue cast in the shadows that you'd want a 81A/B warming filter to correct.
With regard to the first image (nice composition, btw), you don't say anything about how you metered, but the scene was quite hi-key, i.e. primarily bright tones, no shadows, nothing remotely middle-gray (except possibly the trees?). What spot did you meter with your Sekonic, and what zone did you assign to that spot? Did you meter other areas of the subject, and what was the range of brightnesses? Without any of that information, the best guess is that the negative was underexposed. Looking at the negative on the lightbox would help with this determination.
You don't say how the negatives were scanned. Looking at the scanned, digital image doesn't provide much information on correct exposure, because scanner software tries to spread out the brightness range of the final scanned image so that it fits the full 0-255 range, no matter how under- or over-exposed the negative. This can cause color casts and muddiness.
Your problem with images two and three was grain, which was even visible in the video. Again, you don't say how these negatives were scanned (or metered, for that matter). Grain is much more noticeable in flatbed scans (Nick Carver has some very useful videos on this subject), less so with dedicated film scanners like the Braun FS120, even less with drum scanners. The tiniest bit of Gaussian blur might soften that grain, without much loss of detail, in relatively small prints like the ones you showed.
Hope you feel better soon!
Thomas: A few reflections from my medium format pre-digital days:
- I shot a lot of Kodacolor and a bit of Fujicolor in the 80's with the Hasselblad, and often got the tint you describe, along with low contrast and generally flat, disappointing results.
- Switching to the Bronica with Nikkor lenses, kodacolor images improved in terms of color, and saturation, BUT... When I switched to Kodachrome and and started doing Cibachrome enlargements, Wow! Prints became gobsmackingly gorgeous compared to the Hasse and color print film.
Might I suggest Thomas, that you try some color transparency film, and shoot the transparency it with a digital camera or drum scan and see what you think. Projected Medium format transparencies or viewing them with a loupe can be very rewarding as well.
And if you want to try the old school experience consider doing your own wet prints.
fatali.com/cibachrome-photographs/
www.douglasvincent.com/ilfochrome/
Printing in the Darkroom with Ilfochrome (Cibachrome)
ruclips.net/video/UnxxHS6msDE/видео.html
I really like your videos.
Regarding your first picture of the foggy area, I have a question...did you have a UV filter on the camera? I believe the issue is NOT the film but the light. You have to understand that in fog, all those water particles will act like a prism too. I'm speculating that there is a lot of UV light mixed with all the fog. I don't recall seeing a UV filter on the lens, but I could be wrong. It might help there.
Regarding the picture of the trees, it was much better. So, I would suggest you use a circular polarizer filter. You can see the degree of removal of polarized light and it probably would have helped. Just remember to apply the filter factor (+1.3 compensation). Also, bracket with the filter just to see.
Regarding the lighthouse, I think that that "bad" side actually gives it character. It tells the duration of it's existence.
Just my thoughts here.
I liked it man! Growth is uncomfortable. Happy to see the journey.
If your scanner can, I'd do multiple scans with multiple exposures and color corrections. Then, merge them (judiciously) in Photoshop. I've done this with dedicated film scanners which are basically just cameras themselves. Not sure how flatbeds handle things. Also, Kodak films are known for showcasing magentas, reds and yellows. Fuji is more into greens and cooler shades.
I think you should try Portra 160 for Landscapes, or even try Fuji 400H PRO, which is the film I'm using right at the moment in my blad. Both with great results in landscape. Maybe the Fuji abuse the green tint as Portra do so with purpel
The lighthouse image is great!
Did you dial in any compensation for Schwarzschild effect when using a 10 stopper?
Love the clockwork noises it makes and that clicky aperture ring on the lens. Not sure I could live with the variability of the results, but very interesting, or at least you have made it so.
Thomas, it's just imperfect scanning job and color balancing. Color negatives are notoriously difficult to scan and get the colors accurate. Tolerances in color curves are very narrow and vary picture-by-picture. But if you spend some time color-correcting, you'll be rewarded with great colors. One of the quick fixes that I found helping with getting rid of some magenta cast - 'color defringe' in lightroom. Dial the magenta defringe all the way to the right. I don't think your magenta cast has anything to do with film choice. I shoot many different films and it's a common problem in all of them, slide film as well. Film is meant to be printed on paper or projected, digitizing it is not always easy. I definitely feel your pain, I was sitting until 4am yesterday battling same color problems with a roll of 35mm Kodak Colorplus 200 and Gold 400 a day before. I was almost desperate when after spending hours correcting every pic in the scanning software and seeing horrible colors. Then I took care of that in Lightroom and it worked well, in the end I'm happy with the results. BEST OF LUCK! KEEP BEING CHALLENGED AND CREATIVE!!!
DenisJust Thomas-I think this man is right-this first shot issue is related to the challenges of getting color balance right as you scan a color negative and then convert it to a positive image to edit is LR/PS. There’s various products on the market that claim to tame this issue to a degree.
Thank You! I got a new camera and like you still learning it. I received your book two days ago, I find the book of the utmost quality. Good Job!
One thing that also makes it work is the amazing sharpness of the Zeiss lens.