escuta

Thanks Steve, yes, exposed at 400. So if I shoot at 200 it may result in a finer grain? I don't have the option of adjusting the developing time just yet and I'll be continuing to get the lab to do the processing (although i plan to roll my own in the future). I like the grain too, but would be curious to see what a finer grain looks like with this film. So worth a try at 200 with standard lab development? I did ask the lab to make no level correction on the scans and I have to say that the exposures all looked correct to me, I don't think I made any level adjustment on the images above. Will shooting at 200 change that?

Nikon FE, 28mm f2.8 Ai-s, Kodak ColorPlus 200, Darktable. Woman making pamonha (corn dumplings): 3 string rabeca/fiddle: 105mm f2.5 pre-Ai, same film and camera:

Pirenópolis, Goiás, Brazil, Nikon FE, 28mm f2.8 Ai-s Trix-X 400: Sunday mass - Kodak ColorPlus 200 and perspective adjustment in Darktable:

A quick return on this - so far I've picked up up only a Y48 (K2) and a polarising filter and had the chance to use the yellow filter on B&W film the weekend before last in very clear weather. One of the better shots below and I think it helped make the church stand out more (Nikon FE, 28mm f2.8 Ais, Tri-X 400, Darktable perspective adjustment). Thanks again everyone for the suggestions.

Negatives scanned by a Noritsu machine in a photolab with no level correction. As I mentioned above I'm fairly certain the shots were exposed correctly. No cropping. The pie out-of-focus-ness was camera operator error I think

I'll ask if they're applying any sharpening on the scans. It's seems probable, thanks for the suggestion - as it stands, the lab's Noritsu scanner is my only option before I buy my own and that may be some time off. Thanks - I'm gathering that now that Tri-x is naturally grainy, this was my first roll of B&W and wasn't sure what to expect (excluding a roll I shot when i was a kid in 1980!). Yes, developing my own film is something I want to learn. Good idea - I'll try printing - any suggestions for paper types that are good with B&W? I tried having some of my colour neg scans digitally printed on standard Fuji paper and the results were OK. I then went to a fine art place and they printed on something called "Canson Rag Photographique" - much more expensive but the results were considerably better (the prints were biggish - 40cm wide). All the best!

Thanks, that's interesting, will look into this.

Early morning in Pirenópolis (Nikon FE, 105mm f2.5 pre-Ai, Kodak ColorPlus 200) Concrete football (soccer) field (Nikon FE, 105mm f2.5 pre-Ai, Kodak ColorPlus 200) "Empadão goiano" (Nikon FE, 28mm f2.8 Ai-s, Kodak Tri-X 400) Palms of the church Nosso Senhor do Bonfin (Nikon FE, 28mm f2.8 Ai-s, Kodak Tri-X 400)

Thanks Ben, Glen and Sandy. That's good to know that nothing went wrong. I quite like the graininess, but it came as a bit of a surprise after the Kodak colour film I've been using. The other options in B&W widely available here are Ilford HP5 and Fujifilm Acros 100 films. Haven't particularly liked what I've seen of the latter (perhaps because of the smaller grain, it leaves me a bit cold) but I've liked the Ilford and thought it looked similar to the Tri-X. Any comments on the difference between the two? In the future, I'm interested in developing my own B&W film. Ah, and I looked at the negatives, they look pretty balanced to me and apparently no correction was used during the scanning (nor did I adjust the scans). All the best!

Hello, I shot my first roll of Kodak Tri-X 400 on the weekend and got the film and scans back yesterday from the lab. I'd asked the lab not to make any level corrections on the scan as I've been doing recently with my colour films. While all the photos came back correctly exposed, I can't help thinking that they are overly grainy. I wonder if you agree? I've seen other Tri-X examples online that seem to have a much finer grain. I'll attach some examples below. Looking forward to hearing your opinions on what might have happened. My camera is a Nikon FE and the ISO was correctly set to 400. Thanks, all the best!

That's interesting. I remember now that you said above that the standard F3 has a high point distance of 20mm whereas the FE has only 14mm. With the FE I have to push the glasses into my head with the camera to get a decent view and even then I need to wiggle my head around to see the four corners of the frame. If that's not necessary with the F3, then perhaps it's the camera for me. Here in Brazil in the used market, standard F3s in decent condition can be had for as low as R$600 (US$1 = R$3.16), where as the HPs tend to gravitate towards R$1200, albeit for serviced examples.

Thanks for the great information everyone. I'm inclined to go for the F3 HP or T for the high eyepoint feature and because it looks similar to the FE in its operation (and I prefer physical dials etc to digital displays - I'm one of those people that still listens to LPs....). I need to visit a larger city where I can try one out before purchasing. I've only ever seen Fs and F2s for sale where i live. Hard to know if my problem is with magnification or "low eyepoint" issues. Will do some tests. All the best!

Hello all, I'm considering buying a second Nikon film body. I have an FE which I like a lot and I was initially thinking of getting an FE2 for the faster shutter speed. It occurred to me recently though that I should consider a camera with a better viewfinder. I now wear glasses, having entered middle age, and I notice I have some difficulty at times getting the focus right, especially with a 28mm lens. My FE has the "Type E" focusing screen and perhaps I'll do better with the Type K split focus screen. I wonder though if other models offer a more magnified field of view. Is that the case? The F3 looks interesting. How does the viewfinder on this compare to that on the FE? The F4 also looks interesting, especially for its advanced metering with Ai lenses, but I think I'd find it too bulky. My eyesight is not terrible, but it's not what it used to be. I don't at this stage want to go the auto-focus route as most of my lenses are manual anyway and I like manual focus. Please send suggestions! All the best!

Nikon FE, 105mm f2.5 Pre-Ai, Kodak ColorPlus 200: 28mm f2.8 Ai-S:

Beautiful detail in these last images, rick_drawbridge. A couple more photos with the new/old Nikkor-P 105mm 2.5. Nikon FE, Kodak ColorPlus 200, Darktable:

Trying out a new lens - Nikon FE, 105mm 2.5 pre-Ai (converted), Kodak ColorPlus 200, Darktable:

It does indeed. Thank you for saving me some $$! All the best!

Brilliant, thanks to you both!

Thanks AJG. The camera is a Mamiya C330, I have the parallax correction bracket too. I'll try and see if something is available for these. I wonder if there is an adaptor with a simple ball joint?

Hello, I have a 190D Manfrotto tripod. In order to splay the legs of the tripod as wide and flat as possible, it's necessary, of course, to remove the main shaft. On the end of the shaft, at the opposite end to the head, there is a detachable "grommet", which can be mounted on the "shoulders" of the tripod in place of the shaft with head as shown in the attached photo below. This piece has a threaded bolt protruding which I suppose must attach to some form of secondary (or the same?) tripod head. Can someone please explain what I can do to make use of this feature? I know I can upside-down mount the existing head/shaft, but I wish to use a TLR camera low to the ground. Thanks a lot!

Nikon FE, 28mm 2.8 Ais, Kodak ColorPlus 100, Darktable:

Hi, The topic of "Darktable", an open source alternative to Light Room, came up in another thread here and it was mentioned that there was no version for Windows. Turns out that there is a test version in development (Windows 64bit) which can be downloaded from here: darktable for Windows Darktable homepage is here: www.darktable.org I've not tried the Windows version but have started using it in Linux and it runs very well. Darktable also runs on MacOS All the best!