Medium Format Photo Thread

Discussion in 'Medium Format' started by Ricochetrider, May 8, 2020.

  1. Iron Horse Rambles have returned! A former Reading Railroad Class T-1 is now operational after 5+ years and two+ million worth of restoration by the Reading, Blue Mountain& Northern. (I actually rode behind this 400 ton machine on some of the original Rambles back in the early 1960s.) _Y049_09_At_Crossing.jpg
    Taken in Jim Thorpe, Pennsylvania, on 400TX with Yashica Mat 124G
     
  2. Hasselblad 500 c/m, Planar 80 mm f2.8 CF, FP4+.

    mhmf.jpg
     
  3. Northwest Ohio Oilman 90309567_10216356015961375_4055203705933266944_o.jpg
     
  4. Mt. Rushmore, Black HIlls SD. Mamiya 645E 80mm f/3.5 Tri-X in Xtol

    Rushmore.jpg
     
  5. French Polynesia, Pentax 67, Velvia 50, 55-100 zoom. TBR39j (1400x1108).jpg
     
  6. Juneau, Alaska

    upload_2022-8-25_10-30-0.jpeg

    Bronica RF645, 65mm f/4 Zenzanon-RF, 100TMX in HC-110B
     
  7. ericphelps, danac, kmac and 1 other person like this.
  8. Boulder Falls, CO. Mamiya 645E 45mm f/2.8 on Tmax400 in Xtol

    Bldr Falls.jpg
     
  9. Here is an instant film shot I took today with my Hasselblad 500cm and the 80mm Planar lens. the film was Polaroid FP100c film that expired in September 2018.

    I metered the film at ISO 100 and shot one frame. I let the chemicals “cook” for about 5 minutes before peeling the photo, and as you can see it was pretty well washed out. IIRC the setting called for f/8 @ I think 250. (Edit: maybe 125?)

    I reset the aperture to f/11, and debated on changing the exposure time but in the end, didn’t.
    I took the 2nd shot and let the chemistry do its thing for a little over 4 minutes and voila.

    I also shot two other frames on another subject.
    This being my first time since I was like 9 for shooting Polaroid instant film, I made the first shot and peeled the pic out straight away. I then called a buddy of mine and asked how long I should have waited- he said at least 2 minutes and also said it wouldn’t hurt to let it cook for longer than normal considering the age of the film.

    Thankfully this film has lived its life in a freezer from purchase. I shot the 2nd frame and set the timer for 2 minutes. In the end I feel like it could have gone longer but feel it’s still OK (or better)

    Ultimately it was a fun venture, a lark. A somewhat expensive one at that- 80.00 IIRC for the film pack so 8.00 per exposure! Oh the Rexall sign photo was taken with the 250mm Sonnar.

    And I still have 6 frames to go yet! whee!

    F3B9CD0E-1CC6-4AA1-91E6-71F1BCC483F0.jpeg

    4F836692-B181-4B50-A5CE-A0A2FC1AAF1A.jpeg

    ADA71EDC-6FC9-4CA1-82D8-4FFC05B90CEA.jpeg
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2022
    danac, cameragary and kmac like this.
  10. AJG

    AJG

    If you did freeze this I'm surprised that it worked at all. Older Polaroid films could be refrigerated but freezing them would ruin the chemicals for developing the image.
     
    Ricochetrider likes this.
  11. Freezing was dicouraged because the liquid in the pod could/would expand and burst the pod, resulting in a terrible mess.
    I never heard that it would ruin the chemicals. Would it?
     
    Ricochetrider likes this.
  12. AJG

    AJG

    Perhaps I could have been more precise--if frozen, Polaroid sheet materials would not process correctly, something I know from a colleague who bought a lot of close dated sheet film and froze it to extend its life. He wasn't pleased with his results... The chemicals may not have been destroyed, but they no longer worked properly.
     
    Ricochetrider likes this.
  13. Meanwhile here’s today’s shot. Exposed correctly the first time!

    4DC982B8-02D9-4861-8F09-5A27D14CF743.jpeg Aha well
    I bought it from a friend who bought it. It must have only been refrigerated because the chemicals work OK. I know HE pulled it out of a fridge and not a freezer.
     
    danac likes this.
  14. AJG

    AJG

    Expensive Polaroid teaches you very quickly to get the exposure right!
     
    Ricochetrider likes this.
  15. No need for Polaroid these days a digital SLR ( even an agey one ) does a far better job.
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2022
  16. A recurring thing, this, but Polaroid was terrible as a substitute for a light meter. And far too expensive to use as such too.
    Digital cameras too are no good as substitutes for a light meter. It's the light meter inside these thingies that does a far better job.
    Figures that a light meter is the better light meter compared to things that are not a light meter.
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2022
  17. Funny I never mentioned NOT TO USE A LIGHT METER. Poloroid is mostly studio use anyway. Not just for exposure but checking lighting and composition. Digital SLR does all this FAR BETTER THAN ANY GARBAGE POLAROID.
     
  18. I never implied anyone suggested not using a light meter. I pointed out that Polaroid was a terrible tool to check up on exposure. And that the only reason a camera can do that is becPuse that thingy has a light meter. So just use that light meter, and there is no "far better job" to do.
    Polaroid was not mostly studio. It was mostly a the-art-director-is-present thingy. Before they sat around a monitor viewing every single shot, they wanted another vehicle to express their mistrust in the photographer's ability to understand and deliver what they said they wanted. The Polaroid was the thing that gave them something to look at.
    Checking composition was done in the viewfinder. Lighting was done using your eyes, either through the viewfinder or looking directly at the subject.
     
  19. Do'nt dissagree but a digital SLR image can check all three in an actual permantly not momentarily eyesight captured image. Exposure lighting and composition
     
  20. Hmmm, Well guys, Although I've been casually shooting pocket sized digital cameras for many years, I'm generally new (ish) to film AND to being more seriously interested in learning the mechanics of manual photography. I am 100% self taught with zero formal training, and have been shooting film since 2016 and learning to use manual settings on old film camers since about 2018. This is simply a part of my personal journey, but shooting these Polaroids was really more a lark than anything else- you know, for the fun of it. I like the "instant-ness" of it, and that's about as far as it goes with me.

    Furthermore, over the past few years, I have shot some expired film with wildly varying results. While that's not really a thing I'm serious about, I do like the desaturated colors and lo-fi vibe of these.

    Yes, it took me a minute to get the exposures right, but I was by no means using these to "get my exposures right".
    All in all, over the course of 5 or so days on holiday in Maine, I shot 5 rolls of 120 film and 7 frames out of 10 in Polaroid- 1 of which was underdeveloped, 1 of which was badly exposed, 1 of which was out of focus, and 4 of which came out well. Other than cropping, I've made no further edits. It's been a gas and now I have some stuff to look at until I get my film scans back from the lab, whenever that will be. I am currently awaiting scans from my trip to Greece in June- point being, it might be a minute til I see those shot in Maine!

    All that said, I present the final 2. Note that the pix I've posted thus far were shots of Polaroids I took with my phone, these two I just shot with my Olympus OMD Em-1. You guys can overthink it and debate it if you want, but I'm in it for fun- and am tickled pink over these!

    P1010008.jpeg

    P1010007.jpeg
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2022
    danac likes this.

Share This Page

1111