Hey there! My name is Noah von Hatten, and I'm Aperture Dundee. I'm here to share content about film photography with you. From to film stock and camera reviews to tutorials my aim is to share my thoughts and insights along with valuable information in a way that's useful and (at least a little bit) inspiring to you.
I like the Fomapan 400 in all its formats except the 200 ISo, I shoot foma in 35mm, 120mm and 4x5 and have never ever had such dull results as you show here. But I also develop them myself and do not give them away. The negatives are mostly very crisp and rich in contrast. I use rodinal most of the time, as well as fx39 … But this said, when I see your outcomes here, … if that happened before I tried that film, I would never ever use it. Sorry, but your or better the laboratory’s results are a nightmare compared to what I achieve with this film quite consistently and easily. I also use Kentmere, hp5+, Rollei 400 but am very happy with the fomapan as well, even at box speed. Always good light, and try to develop a roll of foma by yourself!👍🏼🙋🏼♂️
While Kodak Ektachrome might me a good film (I've used it in its few iterations), it's NOTHING compared to professional line of colour reversal films Kodak used to make, and it's unlikely they'll be brought back, ever, like for example Kodak Ektachrome professional 100S. To my view, that film was even better than Fuji's Velvia 100, and that was damn hard to achieve...
I have not used this film, but I have used quite a lot of 100 and 200 in all formats including 4X5. The QC of foma is below par and I have had many issues with both the 100 and the 200, so not a fan of Foma at the moment. Also Foma films were reasonably cheap in the UK up to two years ago but their prices have gone up considerably in the last 18 months. I think that for the price it is hard to beat HP5 +. Rated @ iso 200 and developed properly in perceptol the film is almost as fne grained as a medium speed emulsion with superb tonality and sharpness, and no QC issues so far.
Yeah but its not a warm green film at all. Its a quite cold blueish film. When Velvia came most nature photographers switched.. I was never a huge fan. I missed Fomachrome more to be honest. I miss Emaks photopaper, and most of all Agfa Portriga
What is unbelievable is That Kodak decided to kill Kodachrome. This is more, better, info about the development of the great color film we enjoy as hobby photographers than I've ever heard.! Thank you. I understand the money /cost problem of Kodachrome... I'm just an old grump.
You have to print in the darkroom to really test a film. Unfortunatelly for the price, in my opinion, there is anything like the Tri-x. I like the Delta 400 but without to push it. If you want a grainless image I prefer the Delta 100. I cannot spend time and money for cheaper film but for poor images. I use cheaper film only for testing cameras.
Originally the hate for T-Max came from the fact that T-Max is very sensitive to changes in development. Developing T-Max films will make your sloppy development techniques painfully obvious. You can't say you don't like the look of T-Maxx unless you've shot it for a very long time and have completely tested it for your personal exposure index and development times. Don't blame the film for your shortcomings.
Got mine in and loaded it with TRI-X 400 film. Waiting for a battery and the ring adapter for it. Shooting sunny 16 until then. But wow this is a gorgeous little camera. Lighter and better looking design wise than my Nikon F2 and F3hp.
Correction. The MX was released with the ME. The ME Super was later in 1980. I remember. I bought one. It was made of polycarbonate and eventually I realised my mistake and bought the all metal MX, then the ME both of which I still have and function perfectly.
I just ordered a Spotmatic SP. in EX condition from KEH for $100. I don’t know the model differences. But I already have the 55mm. 1.8 lens. And I think I might want to buy the 24mm Pentax lens. My camera will arrive this next week. And I am excited to shoot with it.
I noted that in earlier video, Kodak 100, you used a Pentax Spotmatic, with 55/50 mm Takumar lens, which are low contrast! I loved them when I lived in South Africa, Johannesburg is like 2000m.7000ft above sea level.! High UV light, maximum contrast.. I later preferred my Nikkors on Nikon-F.
Are there any considerations when metering? A meter sees all light but if not all of it is being recorded on ortho film, I’m thinking the film might be slightly underexposed when the meter says the exposure is perfect.
the main reason people didnt like it was because tmax is very sensitive to any variations in processing. people blamed the film rather than admit they were sloppy in the darkroom.
It's crazy to think that RU-vid was around 3 years before Kodochrome was discontinued, it would've been great if someone made a video review about it back then.
I had the same eye releif issue too having to look around to get all the info. I got myself a 19mm screw in diopter which replaced my spec when shooting. As a left eye shooter the LEDs on the right are ideal and unlike with the FE everything is always easy to see even in low light.
so wanted this camera when it came out. still got it although probably not used it for 25-30 years. only downside is if you hold to left eye like i do the cocked lever will stick in your right eye, so you need to hold it at a bit of an angle.
I see you rated the Rollei Retro 80S at 40ASA; have you ever used it at box speed and if so what were the results like? Have you developed it in D76 1:1
I’ve used it a Box Speed and at 40 ASA. I liked the ones at 40ASA better. There are samples of both in the Retro 80S video I made. I haven’t developed it in D76 1:1 however.
Went to the original Woodstock 1969 site and went to the museum they had. They happen to had multiple different props and items from the original festival including this exact model of Pentax
This is mechanical simplicity at its best. You can't remove anything without affecting the MX's functionality, and you can't add anything without making it superfluous. Take the viewfinder information for example. You have just the bare minimum for taking a good picture - a focussing prism, shutter speed, and simple LEDs to confirm exposure. The rest of the screen is kept clear so you can focus on image composition. Compare this to the information clutter you find in the EVF of any modern digital camera. Histograms, face detection emoji and other distracting details that get in the way. I'm lucky I bought my MX when these things were still cheap.
never liked HP5+ - it seems to have low ugly contrast and bad looking grain... Maybe cos I use D-76... For my opinion good old Ilford PAN 400 is much cheaper and much better nad wors as well as 800 or 1600 iso, not only 400)
