Jeff D

More film photos from the XD-11

I just bought a pretty cheap Albinar 28mm f/2.8 macro lens for the XD-11 and gave it a test drive today. 

Unfortunately after I finished the roll I realized I had the ISO on the camera set incorrectly.  The ISO of the film was 160 and I had it set to 125.  It wasn't a disaster, but all the photos were slightly overexposed so I corrected them in Photoshop.

The depth of field is pretty shallow as well which led to some cool flower shots that almost look like paintings. 

Take a look.

Cactus
Cactus

Yes, I live in Massachusetts and have a neighbor with cactus planted in their front yard.  Surprisingly I think it's actually alive and survived our winter. 

Tree over our driveway
Tree over our driveway

I loved the contrast in this photo.

Blossom2
Blossom2

These blossoms are clearly a bit past their prime, but this was the sharpest of the pictures I took of them.  It was windy today so sometimes I just snapped and hoped the focus was good.

I took all of the flower shots with the lens wide open at f/2.8 and the effect in some is pretty cool; they almost look like paintings.

Flower1
Flower1
Flower2
Flower2
3 comments


Tags:
This also appears in:

Next Posts

Previous Posts

Comments

Leila
[this is good]

My fav is Flower 3..but all of them are beautiful

Victor Solanoy (digitalized)
You've just witnessed why film is better than digital -- exposure latitude. Modern films are far more forgiving when over-exposed. Details will simply be blown out with digital.
Jeff D
True to an extent, though shooting in RAW would let you compensate for such a small miscalculation too.

I like shooting in film as I find that I concentrate more on setting up the shot, making sure it's in focus, etc.
Victor Solanoy (digitalized)
It's a little different with RAW -- you're still dealing with less exposure latitude than with film. With consumer, non-speciality, negative film, if the film was rated at ISO 100, but you set the camera to 200, the exposure latitude of most consumer and professional negative film will still allow you to developed photos that maintains quite a bit of detail without being washed out or having blown out highlights. Modern film stock, even pro stock, has benefited from technologies introduced into advanced consumer films from years ago. However, the same can't be said about positive "chrome" films.

RAW is a lot like shooting slide film. There's very little exposure latitude, meaning slighting overexposing RAW or slide films results a loss in color fidelity, contrast and if exposed too much, a loss of image detail. Typically, underexposing a shot and correcting during "development" yields the best photos with both RAW and slide films because underexposing guarantees capturing details that can be recovered while "developing". While this process can be done with negative films, under most circumstances, the exposure latitude of negative films allows a greater degree of error so you're less prone to losing details under normal circumstances.
Victor Solanoy (digitalized)
Sorry - mixed the ISO numbers up... either way, exposure latitude for consumer films allows for some degree of over exposure and under exposure... while not messing up the resulting shot too much.
Jeff D
I've never shot with slide film before and had no idea what the differences were, thanks for pointing them out.
melissa
i love your pictures. i've got so much that i can learn from you.
Jeff D
Don't scare me like that! I'm a rank amateur!

The only key thing that I've found is that you need to take a lot of pictures. Odds are that a few of them are going to stand out.
melissa
i'm just having fun getting my hands on any camera in the house. haha.. used my sister's dslr.. which i barely know any of the functions.
Jeff D
Ha, as we speak my new Nikon D80 is on a UPS truck on its way to my house...sometime today.

I stuck with a kit lens but plan on buying a good macro lens pretty quickly.
melissa
wow.. that's good.. i'm waiting for the day i would get to own a dslr.
macro lens. i love macro.. i love using macro on pns. wonderful.
Jeff D
Well, the camera and lens I used for those pictures cost a total of about $150. Not cheap, but a lot cheaper than a dSLR. Of course you have to develop and scan the film, but still.

Post a comment

Already a Vox member? Sign in

You will be asked to join Vox to post this comment.

Advertisement