I have been getting into film more and more it seems like. I have really taken a liking to black and white photography. Also slide photography (more on that another time)

I just recently tried push processing my film and I'll admit I was nervous. First it is hard to find someone who will do the process for you (not hard to find so much as only a few seem to offer it) , and second, Its not cheap. So nothing like having money hanging on not knowing if something was going to turn out or not.

I shot a roll of Ilford HP5 400 at ISO 1600, no flash, on a Canon Rebel film camera with a 50mm 1.8 lens. I went on an adventure to a place I have been wanting to check out for sometime. I knew the stone building was there (its what drew my attention in the first place), but the barn was a really nice and total surprise. Could not even see it from the road. The lighting wasn't the best that day (cloudy) but still made for some awesome pictures.

I was told they use to butcher at this property. I'm guessing they must have gotten tired of it flooding (its in a bad flood zone) and quit using it.

Feedback welcome!

1. 000004120014 by Thomas Gibler, on Flickr

2. 000004120019 by Thomas Gibler, on Flickr

3. 000004120018 by Thomas Gibler, on Flickr

I was fascinated with the tv being on the wall like that. Too bad the screen got destroyed.
4. 000004120017 by Thomas Gibler, on Flickr

5. 000004120012 by Thomas Gibler, on Flickr

6. 000004120007 by Thomas Gibler, on Flickr

Yes I know this last one is dark but it did still retain some detail, which is surprising because of the lack of light.

7. 000004120006 by Thomas Gibler, on Flickr

Feedback? Anyone? Buehler?

Curious if there are any ways I could improve or things I could try.

I think the TV is definitely an interesting subject (#4).
The only film I do is with cameras that have little to no settings (I like that as a contrast to my digital super-tweaking), so I have no advise for you in the push developing department.
I'd only get into that if start developing black and white myself.
Thanks for the post.

Posted by skatchkins I think the TV is definitely an interesting subject (#4). The only film I do is with cameras that have little to no settings (I like that as a contrast to my digital super-tweaking), so I have no advise for you in the push developing department. I'd only get into that if start developing black and white myself. Thanks for the post.

Thank you for the reply!

The TV was a definite surprise. I figure it had to be mounted like that because of the flooding. When this area floods the only access to the houses down the road are by boat.

I do have a basic camera that I am wanting to try some expired film on. Maybe some black and white too.

I would also like to try the cafenol process for developing film that I have seen some others talk about here. I guess that would be an easy way for me to get my feet wet developing film.

First of all great work, not much I can critique. Is this look limited to film cameras or can it be achieved with a DSLR? Thanks.

Posted by That_Dude First of all great work, not much I can critique. Is this look limited to film cameras or can it be achieved with a DSLR? Thanks.

Thank you.

I suppose you could tweak with settings with Lightroom or something to try and achieve this with digital. A lot of people shoot film like this to achieve more or less contrast. Your basically intentionally under exposing your film and when they develop it, they develop it longer to achieve the correct exposure. I'm still fairly new to all of it myself.

Posted by That_Dude First of all great work, not much I can critique. Is this look limited to film cameras or can it be achieved with a DSLR? Thanks.

I could totally make my digitals look like this. A little grain, contrast, turn them B&W...

First of all, no offence, but for the cost and effort of shooting a roll (and pushing it 2 full stops) I don't feel like you fully utilized your ability here.

I'd like to see a wider lens, or something with more foreground / background action. Get something f/2.8 or faster for that camera and utilize that shit.. these photos don't have much DOF bringing my eye to anything in particular.

I like the second TV shot more than the first - because it's more square - though it's not perfectly square.... I'd have lined myself up perfectly. So the fact that you have two shots of one subject makes me think [and I write this having just exposed my first roll of film ever on a Nikon F80 over the last two weeks] that you might not have put as much thought into every frame as you could have. Film is expensive, and unless you're chill with just shooting a whole roll off in an afternoon, I prefer to slow down, and consider carefully every time I want to press the shutter.

I went on a full day's ski trip and took 5 shots I think. Anything I wasn't sure of, I just shot with my iPhone.

Your first shot is probably my favourite; personally I would have backed up and zoomed in some. Get some DOF / isolation on that subject, and with the other frames, play with some negative space and off-framing to add interest. Do not tilt the camera (lol) just don't always aim it at the single most interesting thing in the frame.

Okay lastly, please let UER resize the images to 800x600. If you really want, link to them on Flickr or something, but I despise scrolling to the right in my browser just to see the whole image.

Hope that helps! Here's one of the frames I shot on my first roll of film just because I mentioned it. Konica Centuria 200 expired Jun '02 exposed 1 stop over (still heavily underexposed). I also learned that film is easy to scratch and difficult to keep clean. Nikon F80, 20mm f/2.8.

Posted by flySparro I could totally make my digitals look like this. A little grain, contrast, turn them B&W... First of all, no offence, but for the cost and effort of shooting a roll (and pushing it 2 full stops) I don't feel like you fully utilized your ability here. I'd like to see a wider lens, or something with more foreground / background action. Get something f/2.8 or faster for that camera and utilize that shit.. these photos don't have much DOF bringing my eye to anything in particular. I like the second TV shot more than the first - because it's more square - though it's not perfectly square.... I'd have lined myself up perfectly. So the fact that you have two shots of one subject makes me think [and I write this having just exposed my first roll of film ever on a Nikon F80 over the last two weeks] that you might not have put as much thought into every frame as you could have. Film is expensive, and unless you're chill with just shooting a whole roll off in an afternoon, I prefer to slow down, and consider carefully every time I want to press the shutter. I went on a full day's ski trip and took 5 shots I think. Anything I wasn't sure of, I just shot with my iPhone. Your first shot is probably my favourite; personally I would have backed up and zoomed in some. Get some DOF / isolation on that subject, and with the other frames, play with some negative space and off-framing to add interest. Do not tilt the camera (lol) just don't always aim it at the single most interesting thing in the frame. Okay lastly, please let UER resize the images to 800x600. If you really want, link to them on Flickr or something, but I despise scrolling to the right in my browser just to see the whole image. :) Hope that helps! Here's one of the frames I shot on my first roll of film just because I mentioned it. Konica Centuria 200 expired Jun '02 exposed 1 stop over (still heavily underexposed). I also learned that film is easy to scratch and difficult to keep clean. Nikon F80, 20mm f/2.8. click to view

Thank you for the feedback! That's what I'm talking about.


I used a 50mm 1.8 lens, all of the rest of my glass is pretty Hodge podge, I am hoping to make the plunge into some nicer glass here soon. I was going to get a 70-200 2.8,but I am considering something wider.

I think that's why I get "good" pictures but not "great" pictures. I also understand that ability and composition have lot to do with it as well. Something else I am still learning.

I actually did downsize the pictures once, but apparently not enough, I will keep that in mind of next time.

As for the expense, yeah this was really expensive to have done and I still didn't get any actual prints, just scans. Film has definatly taught me some shutter discipline, I am still working on it though.

I think too it's easy to get caught up in the excitement of a find, that you forget to use shutter discipline and just go ham. Three may have been some of that here.

I will try my hardest to levee less on the table next time. Thank you again for the feedback.

Posted by tombombadom Thank you for the feedback! That's what I'm talking about.

Hey man, you're welcome!

The "nifty fifty" as it's often called is a great lens, and I would never push you to invest in a 50mm f/1.4. Those are kind of a waste of money IMO, unless you're gonna go for that look across all of your photography. Some do it, but it's just one niche style in a huge art form.

I own a 70-200 but I don't think I'd ever use it for exploring. It's just great for portraits. What I DO love is my 14-24mm f/2.8. It's expensive but if I'm not concerned about weight (exploring isn't hard work, you just don't want to be changing lenses. This is in comparison to a ski trip, where weight really matters), it's an amazing lens. See if you can score a 20mm f/2.8 or even wider, like a 18-35. If you don't have the budget for a $1,000+ lens, that's the best you'll get and it'll do just fine.

So for shooting this location, for example, you'd have to think really carefully about framing because you're locked at 50mm. That's why I liked the first shot. It feels considered and the framing is really good. So you gotta apply that principle to the rest of the explore.

Some people on my ski trip got just a *tiny* bit impatient waiting for me to take the film photo, but that *click-eek* of the shutter and roll advance was satisfying when I knew there was nothing more I could have done to make that photo better.

It may be more economical for you to scan your own film, if you have the means. Developing at London Drugs is about $13 if you don't order scans, and that roll I just shot was actually so underexposed, they couldn't scan it, so I had no choice. On the plus side, they didn't charge me for the "failed" roll of film. Haha!

Anyway, you're on the right track, take your time and don't bother pushing film for now unless you have to!

It's been fun chatting! All the best!

// Sparro

Posted by flySparro It's been fun chatting! All the best!

I think you have given me some tools to try for next time. I have some expired film in the fridge I'm going to mess with.

Also come tax time I think I'm gonna drop some money on some glass.

I have a 17-35 now but it isn't a 2.8. I think it's a 4.5-5.6. I would like to phase that one out and replace it with something like your talking. Either a 17-35 2.8 or a 20mm 2.8 prime. I also like the thought of a 24-70 2.8. I guess I really need to decide what I want. I don't think I would go wrong with any of those lenses though. I'm gonna hold off on the 70-200 though I'm pretty sure.

What kind of scanner do you use? Just curious. I was at my parents house tonight and found their old printer with a scanner. I thought they had thrown it out.

I'll save the film pushing for now. And just focus on honing my skills. I just had my digital cleaned so it should be good to go for a while. Time to get back on it.

Pleasure chatting with you as well.

Posted by tombombadom I think you have given me some tools to try for next time. I have some expired film in the fridge I'm going to mess with. Also come tax time I think I'm gonna drop some money on some glass. I have a 17-35 now but it isn't a 2.8. I think it's a 4.5-5.6. I would like to phase that one out and replace it with something like your talking. Either a 17-35 2.8 or a 20mm 2.8 prime. I also like the thought of a 24-70 2.8. I guess I really need to decide what I want. I don't think I would go wrong with any of those lenses though. I'm gonna hold off on the 70-200 though I'm pretty sure. What kind of scanner do you use? Just curious.

EDIT: I realized you use Canon. I'm a Nikon guy, but most of my opinions on these lenses will be relevant because A: focal lengths are the same always, and B: Most of these lenses have Nikon/Canon equivalents and will be similarly built.

EDIT 2: To scan film I actually shoot it with my 85mm and a +4, +2, AND +1 close-up filter attached, with a cardboard box with a film-sized hole cut in it, and glass fixed to the back. I slide the film between the glass and the cardboard so it appears in the hole, and light it from behind with a speedlight on a pocketwizard. Tutorial here. Shoot it raw and just fix it in Lightroom.

Okay, now time for some quick glass talk even though I'm Nikon and You're Canon. lol

Unless you're fighting ISO noise (who cares, it's urbex. let the noise fly) you don't need f/2.8 for anything wider than 24mm - you'll never really see / use the DOF on a wide lens.

If you can afford the 17-35 2.8 I'm sure it'd be a good go - it would be a good urbex lens cause you have that 35mm for non-wide-ass shots without changing lenses. You'd have wide, and normal, in one lens basically.

Now we're getting to lenses that I actually have, I'll give you a run down of my arsenal and thoughts from wide to zoom:

• Nikon 10.5mm f/2.8 DX Fisheye. Good for APS-C digital, good for parties, not much use for FX or film.
  
• Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 AF-S. Beauty, love it, take it on ski trips and urbexes and landscape days and hiking trips. Heavy but really accurate and sharp. The first of the holy trinity.
  
• Nikon 18-55mm f/4-5.6.... I think I threw it out.
  
• Nikon 20mm f/2.8 AF. Great small lens, great for film and lightweight walking around, though the 14-24 is more fun if I can afford the space, weight and am not worried about bashing the front element (that thing is huge). If I want something light that I can just toss in my bag and forget about, I take the 20mm.
  
• Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 AF-S. Standard lens for weddings and detail shots... The second in the holy trinity. Good for documenting things for normal people to look more at the subject (a ring, flowers, some shoes, a room) without thinking about how it was created. The f/2.8 is sharp and gets out of the way, but it will never be the *reason* someone says "wow" - that's up to the photographer finding the right light.
  
• Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art. My first non-nikon purchase. Love it, love the DOF, don't actually use it much. Good for fixed video, good for isolated portraits in an urban environment or night portraits cause it's so damn fast.
  
• Nikon 50mm f/1.8 AF. Compact, normal, and *affordable*. Enough said.
  
• Nikon 85mm f/1.8 AF. Kinda gritty wide open, bad chromatic aberration but stopped down, it's incredibly sharp and accurate. It's a cheap 85mm and serves as the "long" counterpart to my 20mm when I'm in semi-lightweight mode and want to just toss in the bag and forget. The 85mm is solid and trusty.
  
• Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 AF-S. Portrait lens. The third and final of the holy trinity. Weddings, models, birds, specific long-distance uses. Heavy, expensive, sharp, purpose-built.
  
  

So yeah, my top reccos are 20mm, 14-24 if you can find it cheap, or a 17-35, again, if it's a good price (look at used, look on Kijiji + craigslist, look on Photographer's Garage Sale on Facebook).

Cheers!

Wow, thank you so much for taking the time to explain all of that! I figured that the Canon and Nikon lenses were comparable.

It also shows me I have a lot to learn. Lol.

I'll look into those sites as well for glass.