What camera/film combo would produce these looks?

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous Equipment' started by alexandros, Feb 14, 2010.

  1. alexandros

    alexandros Member

    Messages:
    7
    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2010
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Hi there,

    I am relatively new to film (one week in actually). For the last few years I have been shooting digital but I have felt there was something missing. It was all too simple. Too boring. Too easy. So I have arrived at film and loooving it so far!

    I'm currently shooting with a Yashica T4 (yeah, just point and shoot at this stage) and Portra 400 NC/VC film. I'm still coming to grips with a bunch of the new terminology so excuse me if I'm not up to speed yet - I'm still very much a newbie at this game.

    I have a simple question. What camera/film combinations would produce around about results similiar to the following photographs?

    #1

    [​IMG]

    #2

    [​IMG]

    Thank you very much for your time and if I have put this in the wrong forum I apologise! Point me in the right direction and I'll remove and repost :smile:

    Thanks!
     
  2. Andy K

    Andy K Member

    Messages:
    9,422
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2004
    Location:
    Sunny Southe
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Firstly, hi Alexandros, and welcome to APUG!

    The camera is less important than the film type. All film cameras are basically a light-tight box with a lens and shutter on the front. As you progress into film photography you will come to understand that it is lenses and film that are the more important factors. For the time being stick with what you have, get used to its idiosyncracies.

    Regarding your question:

    The first picture I'm not sure, there are others here who are better informed on colour film in low light situations.

    The second, looking at the grain, I would hazard a guess at either Ilford HP5+ 400 speed film, or Kodak Tri-X 400. Also the second photograph is most likely a photoshop construction, the car being added in later. As far as camera goes, pretty much any 35mm camera could have made the ingredients of that picture.
     
  3. alexandros

    alexandros Member

    Messages:
    7
    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2010
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Thanks for the introduction buddy. I guess it's quite similiar to digital in that respect then. I spent more money on my lenses as opposed to the body. Thanks for the advice and I'll remember that when I start looking for an SLR.

    Haha, yeah I'm not so interested in the subject more so the grain! I really love the grain. Thanks for the tips. Already just browsing I've heard a wee bit about this Tri-X so I'll go do some research on this bad boy and see what I find! Cheers mate.
     
  4. Anon Ymous

    Anon Ymous Member

    Messages:
    1,479
    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2008
    Location:
    Greece
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Αλέξανδρε, that BW picture doesn't really tell us much. The only assumption we can make is that a grainy film was probably used, as Andy K said. Apart from that, the soft look could be a result of many things, which are not related with any film. And also keep in mind that a negative is only an intermediate stage, it's not a final image. The different paths someone can take affect the result. A hybrid workflow (scanning) can give very different output compared to an all analog print. Reproduction of an already printed image can also make a huge difference. Anyway, sorry for being somewhat vague and disheartening, but that's pretty much the truth...
     
  5. perkeleellinen

    perkeleellinen Member

    Messages:
    2,261
    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2008
    Location:
    Warwickshire
    Shooter:
    35mm
    The first photo, looks to me like some sort of tungsten film like 320T. But who knows? Why not email the photographer: Jamal Shabazz?

    The second looks like a movie still. Is it? If so, what movie?
     
  6. Shangheye

    Shangheye Member

    Messages:
    1,094
    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2007
    Location:
    Belgium
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Whatever film that fisrt image is, it is white balance corrected. Either in the film or on thae camera (through using a filter) or later in printing or Photoshop. Daylight film in fuorescent light would have a green tint, obviously missing here. Please remember that one of the "disadvantages" of film is that it is white balanced to only one condition and you have to manage it in artificial light through either using the right temperature film or using a filter.

    No idea what that second one is, but Tri-x of HP5 is just as probable, but the car does not have the same grain as the rest of the picture and is therefore a PS add in...K
     
  7. Andy K

    Andy K Member

    Messages:
    9,422
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2004
    Location:
    Sunny Southe
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Yup:

    [​IMG]
     
  8. jnanian

    jnanian Advertiser Advertiser

    Messages:
    20,213
    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Location:
    local
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    hi alexandros

    no need to worry about your t4 ..
    that is a great camera!
    was have one, but it is unusable
    we put too many rolls of film through it
    and the focus system refuses to focus ...

    enjoy! ( and welcome! )
    john