|
xen_monkey
Mar 15, 2002, 8:35 PM
Post #1 of 9
(1725 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2001
Posts: 217
|
I was wondering if anyone has gotten any interseting results with experimenting with film types. Like shooting with tungston film. I was thinking of experimenting this summer.
|
|
|
|
|
apollodorus
Mar 15, 2002, 9:38 PM
Post #2 of 9
(1725 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 18, 2002
Posts: 2157
|
WHOA. Tungston film? I'm shakin' in my boots just 'considering' taking my nice Canon A2E up on The Captain. How hardcore ARE you? What is Tungston film? I pay out the adze for tungsten carbide cutting bits to make my OW cams.
|
|
|
|
|
krustyklimber
Mar 15, 2002, 10:13 PM
Post #3 of 9
(1725 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 25, 2002
Posts: 1650
|
Tom,
Man, that's shameless advertising at it's best , I mean, Rich asks a perfectly good photographic question, and you somehow can use that to segway into a sales pitch about your Off-Width cams.
You my friend, are a most admirable capitolist pig! How many times do I have to mention your obviously bitchin'cams in my posts before I get one for FREE ?
Jeff
P.S. Rich the only "trick" photography I have ever done was to push 200 to 400. (we went bouldering in the woods by Curry Village, but my partner didn't tell me that's where we were going so I didn't have the right film) I haven't gotten them developed yet (I'm terrible about that stuff), so I don't know how they turned out. I have seen some interesting stuff done on infra-red (to light up a cave).
|
|
|
|
|
saltspringer
Mar 16, 2002, 12:17 AM
Post #4 of 9
(1725 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 12, 2001
Posts: 274
|
Tungsten shot in daylight usually looks like crap...infrared can be cool but it takes a lot of work to get the feel of it. Cross processing can illicit some interesting results eg: slide film (E-6) in print film (C-41) chemistry. Pushing slide film a few stops can also work well to soften photos but be forewarned with any of these tricks: it takes quite a bit of experimenting to find what works and you end up missing shots that would have worked with conventional processes
|
|
|
|
|
xen_monkey
Mar 16, 2002, 9:25 AM
Post #5 of 9
(1725 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2001
Posts: 217
|
Tungston in daylight looks like crap. I thought the blue cast might make for something intersting shots. Especially on greyer colours. My Brother has shot tungston motion film outside in the winter which was intesting, he put a slight orange filter on it to counter some of the blue, but it still gave a great colour
|
|
|
|
|
andy_lemon
Mar 17, 2002, 5:04 PM
Post #6 of 9
(1725 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 6, 2001
Posts: 3335
|
I've used 200 & 400 speed films... that is about as crazy as I get. I've experiemented with Kodiak & Fuji... I still haven't decided which I like best.
I did once by a $8 roll of film called "Kodak Professional". Your supposed to keep it in a refrigerator... The photos are of high quality! Go figure, 8 bucks for a roll of film...
|
|
|
|
|
krillen
Mar 20, 2002, 6:16 AM
Post #7 of 9
(1725 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 19, 2001
Posts: 4769
|
I agree with Saltspringer. Tungston film was designed for indoor use, so outside climbing shots would not come out the best. You could always shoot B&W?
What about instead of shooting whacky film, shoot regular film and try different filters? Coloured, Creative, etc. Polarizers bring out great colours, my Sky filter brings out great blues in the sky(go figure ). Look through the filter rack at your local camera shop, and surf the net and see what you can come up with.
|
|
|
|
|
kriso9tails
Mar 20, 2002, 8:08 AM
Post #8 of 9
(1725 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2001
Posts: 7756
|
You know the beer goggles in the Simpsons? When are they going to make a filter like that?
|
|
|
|
|
krillen
Mar 20, 2002, 4:01 PM
Post #9 of 9
(1725 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 19, 2001
Posts: 4769
|
it exists....just add beer....
|
|
|
|
|
|
