Official Film Thread

Mar 16, 2010 @ 17:18

ultra post, but who gives a fuck.
hasselblad 500cm.
arista 400, self developed and scanned.
i am in fucking love.
flash meter and sync cord coming soon.
hassy skate coming soon &)&)&)

jesus god in heaven julian. these are incredible.
Mar 16, 2010 @ 17:58

so much more to come. /

Mar 16, 2010 @ 20:06

soo sick. extreeeeeeeeeemely sick i fucking love this shot. how much did the camera cost that you used to take this? lol
Mar 16, 2010 @ 20:20
where do you guys get your 120 film developed?
Mar 16, 2010 @ 20:30
can someone tell me how this 35mm/50mm film works? so it's just a regular camera that you have to develop correct? but do people just develop it themselves cause it's cheaper or because the quality turns out better? just inform me on anything cause im about to buy a camera and was set on digital but i saw julian's shots and omggggg
Mar 16, 2010 @ 20:35
nah film and digital are totally different. to take pictures with film you pretty much have to pay for every picture you take. not only that, you have to factor in the price of numerous chemicals such as fixer, photo flo, developer, etc. the actual film cameras are much cheaper than digital, but in the long run, you'd be spending a lot more on film and supplies. i mean not like a few hundred dollars more, i mean A LOT more. and if you actually plan on printing these pictures, you'd have to spend well into the thousands. you'd have to set up a darkroom, buy an enlarger, a print dryer, etc.

as for quality, it's really all up to debate. i generally tend to think that film provides a certain look that digital can't really give you unless you do some crazy shit in photoshop (which really isn't my thing). also, grain in film is pretty much more apparent when you print images, but you could usually control that by print size.
Mar 16, 2010 @ 20:35
it is shot with a hasselblad 500c/m, its a medium format film camera that shoots 120 film, versus 35mm film.
it was 650$, but that is a definite steal, and i love it.

120 development, i am not sure if shops do it (costco/walmart), since we don't have any of those around here, but i would suppose a photo lab would be the best bet, or you can always develop your own black and white if it is available in school.

film must be developed yes, they require film cameras, versus say a digital point and shoot or a digital SLR. self development is alot cheaper and much more sensable, but you cannot develop your own color film (i suppose you can, but it is very hard to master and requires bleach kits and all of that shit).

film cameras are extremely fun, definitely having far more fun then shooting digital now a days. you'll have to get a shop to develop your film if you chose not to, which can rack up in prices, about ~10$ i think it is to get a roll developed and scanned. you can always get a flatbed scanner and save some money per roll, but investing in photographic chemistry may be difficult, but a learning experience and cheaper for 35mm.

film is just more natural, more crisp (lolz no megapixels here), and far more of an experience/accomplishment when you achieve a rad shot. /

Mar 16, 2010 @ 20:38

as much as i want to fuck the shit out of your pictures, i am gonna stick with digital. that sounds like wayyyyy too much work. thanks for the info though
Mar 16, 2010 @ 20:42
its definitely work, but if you want to get into it, it is so so so so SO worth it, an amazing experience.
you can always get a film SLR and practice some black and white, get a film pro pack for about 10$, and get some rolls developed for fun.

the results are on a far other level then anything digital can produce.

also thank you bebe &)&) /

Mar 16, 2010 @ 22:37
sewer drainage picture is now my desktop background. so dope
Mar 16, 2010 @ 22:57
<3 /

Mar 17, 2010 @ 23:54

i seriously am in love with this camera.
shaun white being awkard as fuck, all the homies, loving life mayne ! /

Mar 18, 2010 @ 00:18
^yo, my elementary school teacher taught shawn white
Mar 18, 2010 @ 14:03
those blacks are so deep. i want to start shooting 120 again
Mar 18, 2010 @ 14:14
Mar 18, 2010 @ 14:52

;) /

Mar 18, 2010 @ 15:15
good shit
Mar 18, 2010 @ 15:21
real talk, that shit is ill b. in all seriousness those are some extremely well done photographs
Mar 18, 2010 @ 15:30
the picture of bloxheads is real dope julez.
Mar 18, 2010 @ 18:02
thanks mayne.
made some prints today, probably print that one out on some pearl next week. /

Mar 18, 2010 @ 18:05
i been slackin lately. next week when i have access to my friends darkroom again i wanna try solarizing.
Mar 18, 2010 @ 18:17
word solar printing as in sabatier printing?
did that a little while ago, its cool i guess. /

Mar 18, 2010 @ 19:08

forgot to post from a week or so ago
Mar 18, 2010 @ 21:21
yeah, sabatier. i just wanna see what it's like to actually look at the silver in the photo paper. seems really interesting. just have to select a good print first.
Mar 18, 2010 @ 21:35
yeah, anything with rich blacks is cool.
from an artistic standpoint, they are cool, but the nostalgia certainly wears off and i could never take anybody serious whom would try and show me one.

tip though.
get a little bit of a lighter print, develop it for ONE MINUTE (rather then 1.5; though that matters on your developer i suppose) , then stop, flash again for 1-3 seconds, develop stop fix.

now that i think it of, its pretty fun, but i want to get into tonal printing, sepias and cool tones! /

Mar 18, 2010 @ 22:09

i seriously am in love with this camera.
shaun white being awkard as fuck, all the homies, loving life mayne !

Dope, white is too bright though.
Mar 19, 2010 @ 13:51
ayo julez is 120 any harder to develop than say 35mm? do you make your own prints? or just develop your own shots and then take the rolls to be developed?
Mar 19, 2010 @ 13:56
they are not that different, though the tanks are alot bigger and get really fucking heavy.
i do make my own prints in the darkroom, but i seem to always just scan my negatives rather then my prints. /

Mar 19, 2010 @ 17:00
I tried a technique last yr where you can make your holga take a 35mm film. I love the results where your prints take up the whole negative including all the sprocket holes
Mar 20, 2010 @ 18:07
<a href="" title="Garden by FunkFlip, on Flickr"><img class="lazy-load" data-original="" width="500" height="307" alt="Garden" /></a>

first photo on my first roll that didnt turn to shit... :/
Please login first to reply.