Here are a few more shots taken with the Fujifilm Superia Xtra film. I find the grain in the first shot particu;arly off-putting and it’s only marginally better in the fourth shot, which is my favourite from the roll. I believe this is one of the many films Fujifilm are pulling from the market. If so, it’s no great loss.
Disappointing. I expected more from this film. Partly because it is from Fujifilm. Partly because the results from the last colour 400 film I tried – Kodak Ultramax – were unexpectedly good. While images from this film taken in good light look well, once shadows appear so does the grain to a much greater extent than with the Kodak film. While it is small and relatively uniform this only makes it worse since it contributes to a kind of smudged appearance at times. Harder, more random grain would be better. So, a decent film on a bright day but a distant second to the Ultramax when shooting in the shade.
Here are a few archtectural shots taken mostly in the full light of the day.
Less than ten weeks left and 21 rolls of film. I’ll be leaving Bulgaria for good in mid-August and while doing a little organising I opened the bag I keep my film in. Twenty-one rolls. I don’t recall buying that much since I prefer to pick up only a few rolls at a time, so I’m not at all sure where they all came from.
I probably thought I would have more time for photography while here, but then work came along and the hours disappeared. The COVID-19 restrictions didn’t help either – though I think that was more a matter of affecting my mental attitude rather than any legal or physical constraints.
So, back in Bulgaria but still off work after a long weekend in Munich, I dusted off my Minolta XD, loaded it up with Fujifilm Superia X-TRA 400, and headed out for a leisurely walk through the city. I haven’t previously used this film and as far as I know Fujifilm are gradually withdrawing it from the market. So if it turns out to be wonderful, too bad.
I also decided to use my 135mm Rokkor MD f2.8 which I have had for a while but rarely used since I nearly always shoot somewhere between 35mm and 70 mm. Since Superia is an ISO400 film and it was a bright day most of the time I was shooting the lens at f11 or f16. At the end of the afternoon I dropped the film off at my local developers and I’m now in that period of anticipation, waiting to see if some of the shots that I think were quite good live up to my expectations, anf if some of the ones I’ve dismissed or forgotten turn out to be not too bad after all. I will, of course, post the best of them here when I get the scans.
Tomorrow is another day off and I’m hoping to shoot at least one more roll.
Given how well Adobe’s Super Resolution feature worked on digital images I was curious if it would deliver the same results on scanned film negatives, so I tried it with two photos – one shot on Ilford Delta 100 and another on Ilford HP5+. While I normally scan my own images I used scans done by the local store where I get my film developed. I believe they use Noritsu scanners.
Below are the original and enhanced images from the scanned TIFF of the Delta 100 negative. The original is 3999 x 2666, while the enhanced is 7998 x 5332. As with previously enhanced images I think the outcome is excellent and the larger jpeg is essentially indistinguishable from the original. In particular I don’t see any negative impact from the detail enhancer on the grain.
The next shot is with the grainier Ilford HP5+, but despite the grain I got the same excellent outcome. The original scan is 4917 x 3276, while the enhanced image is 9828 x 6552. As well as being able to print bigger an additional benefit specific to film scans is that instead of trying to stretch my scanner to the limit on resolution, I can now scan at a slightly lower resolution and then upres using Super Resolution. As with previous posts you can download the images and make your own comparison. Right click on the image and select ‘open file in new tab’ to get around WordPress’s image scaling.
Key Bridge Marriott, Rosslyn VA / Konica C35, Agfa Vista 400
This is the Key Bridge Marriott Hotel seen from Rosslyn Gateway Park. This was one of the first Marriott hotels, originally built in 1959 and I believe it is the oldest Marriott still in operation. Last year the Arlington County Board approved a makeover for the hotel and construction of new residential developments on the site so soon this view will be gone, replaced by more nondescript high rises jammed together in too small a space.
Gateway Park, Rosslyn VA / Konica C35, Agfa Vista 400
Sofia University / Minolta XD, Rokkor MD 24mm f2.8, Kodak Ektar
Lion Bridge / Minolta XD, Rokkor 50mm f1.7, Kodak Ektar
Vasil Levski Boulevard / Nikon FM2n, Nikkor AI-S 85mm f2, Kodak Ektar
A little over three years ago I took the plunge and ordered a Nikon FM2n and five rolls of Ilford HP5+. At the time I was open to the possibility that I might lose interest after six months but I still have my FM2n plus a few other film cameras and still enjoy shooting with them though I still use my digital cameras regularly as well. In those three years I have come to a few conclusions about my approach to film photography. Here they are in no particular order.
First, I’m a 35mm SLR bloke. I tried a few rangefinders along the way – a couple of Konicas and a Yashica – and have occasionally been tempted to try medium format but I have ended up with three main cameras all of them 35mm SLRs. The rangefinders are fun little cameras but I prefer the size, adaptability and solidity of SLRs.
Second, I like classic 1970’s SLRs. I tried a couple of newer models – the Nikon F100 and F75 – but I preferred a more hands on approach and concluded that if I was going to use an auto-everything camera I would go with a digital model. That my preferred digital camera, the Fujifilm X-T2, is as well built as the F100 and a lot better built than most film SLRs from the 1980’s onwards only confirmed this for me. There is an element of nostalgia to this as well since I was a teenager in the late 1970’s just developing an interest in photography and the SLRs I now own are all cameras I dreamed of back then but could never afford.
Third, I don’t really care about data. When I first loaded a scanned negative into Lightroom the emptiness of the Metadata panel unnerved me. I started trying to work out how best to record data manually and organise it in Lightroom and physically in a film archive. I even wrote an article about it for the Emulsive website. Now? I don’t really care. Camera, film, lens (though sometimes I forget to note this) and the approximate date is all I record. The rest is detail.
Fourth, I don’t feel the need to archive my negatives. I started out keeping them all but then reasoned that since some or most of the pictures were rubbish and not worth five minutes to scan why should I keep the negatives? Also, I don’t do this with my RAW files. So now I just keep negatives for the pictures I like and bin the rest. These negatives still need a little organisation so I can find them again but I keep it simple – year and roll number.
Fifth, the process is more important than the outcome. Truth be told if I never take another shot on film worth publishing or printing I would still go out and shoot. I find film photography with mostly manual cameras and a limit of 36 shots therapeutic. The pleasure is in the process of shooting rather than the creation of pleasing images. The latter is a bonus but nothing more. When the outcome is important I use my Fujifilm digital cameras.
Sixth, and following on from the previous point, I have no interest in developing or printing my own film. I can understand that this might be a critical part of the process when the outcome – the final negative or the final print – matters more but for me the pleasure is being out with the camera taking pictures.
If you would like to see the bonus pictures that I do think are worth keeping you can find them all in my Granularity category.