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.
Пікірлер
you make incredible videos. Very high quality video production. Are you editing them all yourself? Either way great work.
Thanks! Yes, I do edit them myself.
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.
Yeah, I can see how that could be a bit of an issue.
Tri-X in D-76 1:1 for 11 minutes is the bomb.
amazing video and info, thanks a lot. what battery you personally suggest?
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.
@@noahvonhatten Thank you for your immediate reply. I saw your review of Foma 100. Which do you prefer?
How does it compare to the Rollei Retro 8OS?
That locking of the shutter for long exposure was available on the Spotmatic F, btw.
Ernie was right about the number 9.
thanks dud3
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
I’ve found it better to treat Fomapan 100 at ISO 64 to get the best results
Rollei Retro 80 is (apparently) the same as their RPX-25. Try shooting it at 25 and develop with RPX-25 times on 'The Massive Dev Chart'.
I agree, RPX 25/Retro 80s is great at iso 25. Very high resolution and shadow detail without blowing up the highlights.
If you've shot with Kodachrome before, film simulations on digital cameras will hold zero appeal. Only one is the real thing. Accept no substitutes.
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)
I find that Ferrania P30 is three times as expansive as Fomapan 100, so I am afraid they will have a tough time trying to survive.
Back in the 90's they made the GREATEST film ever !!!.... Agfa 25 .. slow but long tonal scale and normal contrast ... which then and even now is a bit unusual ... Agfa film has always had incredible tonal range !!!!
Basically, not just cameras, but almost all merchandise from the 70’s era were all well built (no cut cost or corners or plastic parts)… watches, stereos, automobiles, etc you name it 😂 People moralities as well. People trusted people. Friends last forever; no cheap social medias lies easy come easy go… LOL I think America and the rest of the world are heading to a wrong direction if people don’t wake up sooner
As someone who has collected watches and stereos from the 70s, and only ever owned really old cars, I’m included to agree.
I also have a F2 Photomic (1971), it a new king after the legendary F (1959). 🎉
This is the original (version 1) Nikon FM from 1977 to 1979, I believe. I personally think it’s the best version. There were three versions made all together from 1977 to 1982). The FM and FE (twin brothers or sisters) were primarily targeted at the North American market in 1977 and 1978, respectively, from articles I had read. I prefer the FM over the FM2, FM2n and the FM3A due to its pure manual control springs, levers and gears mechanical shutter camera. 😅
Agree with how great the FM is for sure, but the FM2N is the same quality with better features while maintaining that fully manual experience. I'm sure I'd be happy with an original FM, but I see literally no reason not to just go ahead and use the FM2n.
I’m just collecting old cameras with 100% intention on using every one I get. Got an F3 last week and a FM today. Probably pick a Pentax k1000 and a canon Ae-1 program at some point. I’m really enjoying film right now.
One thing I'd add to the equation is how flat (or not) the film physically is once developed. I'll spend the extra $3 for a roll that keeps me from going crazy trying to scan on a flatbed. I suppose a nice digital camera setup with some sort of film holder negates that issue but if you're needing to use a flatbed beware. I forget which fomapan I tried a few months ago but holy smokes.
I just made a video about Fomapan 400 where I mentioned exactly this. Trying to scan it on a flatbed was a bit of a nightmare. You make a valid point.
Did Wes Anderson co-direct this? 😄
Have you tried comparing the sharpness between your own scans and the lab scans ? A flatbed scanner will not yield the ideal sharpness from a 135 film, which is why you might find it is not as sharp as the other stocks. Just a thought
I did compare the two. I also showed the original lab scans in the video. It’s sharp enough, but not quite up there with HP5+, Tri-X, and the like.
I got an all-black Nikon FM maybe 8 years ago, and I love it. I wonder if it actually has the best build quality of any SLR, but even so it's not very heavy.
Personally HP-5plus is pretty hard to beat, 35mm or 120. Having said that, there are times when I look at my tri-x images and say to myself omg. I shoot both. Honorable mentions Fuji Neopan 400. (Discontinued) Agfapan400. (Discontinued). Bergger Pancro 400. (Always backordered.)
it's also available as Super8 😉
Right! Thanks for point it out!
Doesn't tri-x have a t-grain? It should not be in the same category as classic tech/grained films. Maybe a comparable one is delta from ilford (in best case scenario)
Actually, Delta has t-grain, and Tri-X doesn’t. Kodak T-Max is the one with the-grain. Tri-X is much too old for t-grain.
@@noahvonhatten thank you for letting me know
I have 2. The FV in silver and a mint FT in black.I had kanto camera build in a split screen focus mechanicism in the fr. I love it
I have given up on Fomapan. Their QC is very bad. I have had 35mm that has had white spots on the negs, and the last 2 rolls of Fomapan 400 shot on a Mamiya 645 only produced 14 and a bit images. When I compared the length of the films with another brand, they were both over 1.5 cms (over 1/2 inch) shorter.
I haven't had any issues with the 35mm 400 version, but I've had the odd QC related problem with Fomapan 100.
Never had an issue with Fomapan 400 curling. I reckon it's something you can get if you don't weight the negs when you hand them to dry. Or if they dry too fast in a too dry environment. I've shot 100 feet of it last year (plus many canisters before that) and never ever had it curling on me. I hang them, weighted, in my bathroom and it's always perfect.
That could totally be it.
A trick I learned to uncurl film after drying is to roll the film against the curl, then place it in the 35mm plastic capsule for 2 hours +/- This flattens the film for easier scanning. I’ve tried Foma 400 too with low contrast results. I think shooting at iso 300 or 200 is a great idea and I will try it soon. Love the video and your jazz music throughout! 👍🏻
watching this video meanwhile developing fomapan 400 haha
I happened to have a roll knockong around and it was my first ever 35mm roll in a new to me Pentax MX. Pleasantly surprised, got some nice photos out of the roll considering i was just experimenting with the camera. The photos were generally a little underexposed but that could have easily been user error. Considering its the same price as HP5 then i probably wont go out my way for it again.
Although having been stucking on Nikon since 1971, I love the Asahi Pentax Spotmatic. It was a very social camera because of the M42 screw thread, which also made it possible to attach very inexpensive lenses - best suited for beginners who switched to Pentax and first of all wanted to try out a certain range of lenses from wide angle to telephoto. And in 2023, my very early dream of the Spotmatic finally came true: 80 euros for a 'black beauty' incl. SMC-Takumar 1.4/50;-)) @philosimot
Thank you! I've long loved Tmax film, even while many other photographers told me I'm crazy. But, I liken their reasoning for hating it to the pursuit younger photographers who grew up in the digital photography age undertake when shooting film these days: they're romanticizing flaws. I grew up on film, and especially as an art (and commercial) photographer, imperfections in final prints were unacceptable. I worked my ass off when making prints, whether in the dark room or via inkjet from scanned film, to ensure they were as grain-free, tack-sharp, and otherwise unmarred as possible. Even a single speck of dust appearing on an art print could make it unsellable. Truth is, the same is true even today. Super-grainy, dusty, linty, scratched, and otherwise messy images might look cute on Instagram, but art photography collectors will have little to no interest in them. And, you won't even get your foot in the door of commercial photography. Tmax, as black-and-white films go, is one of the best precisely because it has such fine grain, smooth gradients, and overall workability in printing, again both in traditional dark rooms and in digital labs. Photographers should take pride in quality craftsmanship, from taking great photos to making great prints. Anything less than perfectly clean final images doesn't look cool, just sloppy. Deriding Tmax film for its cleaner look is like deriding classical paintings for not having brush hairs stuck all in the paint. The masters never would have allowed their work--and their reputations--to be marred like that. It's why they were masters.
For such a small model, I find it remarkably comfortable to hold, mainly due to the self timer/DOF lever being positioned higher up, leaving plenty of uncluttered space to grip. Unfortunately though, the ridiculously stiff shutter speed dial makes it almost unusable. A bizarre oversight on an otherwise very well designed model.
It is unusually stiff, isn’t it. At first I thought it was just mine, but speaking with other photographers who have one, it seems to be a part of the design.
Fomapan has a lot of character. I love it as 120 film but for 35mm, I prefer Fomapan 200 developed in Rodinal. 400 is a bit too wild for my taste or I haven't figured it out correctly. Great review! The last film that really surprised me, was Ferrania P30. It matches my style of open aperture photography, even for landscapes and has an insane contrast and sharpness. Oh, try to develop black and white film by yourself, it saves you money in the long run and you are way more flexible. I prefer good old Rodinal, because I like grain.
Doing a review on a Film that has been processed in a Lab is meaningless.
Or , from another angle, it’s a review that would allow you to replicate the results I got more easily than any other way.
Hi Noah. @noahvonhatten I think mamiyapress has a point, and I also see yours. If you develop a film in Rodinal you will get a different result when using say D76 (the standard in film development) I used a lab when I first started out in photography, never again will I bother them again.
Never tried this film... I like agfa apx 400... Especially when I push it to ISO800 with Ilford microphen, love the grain that I get, and also it has a certain look, that I can't really explain, but really like... Seems almost perfect to get my emotion across.
You should try Kentmere 400 instead. It is a true EI400 film and can compare with HP5+ at EI400 but HP5+ is better for pushing more than 1½ stops so iif that is your game then stick to HP5+
I’ve been enjoying using Kentmere 400 for the past little while. I’m going to be publishing something about my experiences with it soon.
I will say, I’ve pushed K400 to 6400 in Xtol with not terrible results, so go crazy 😂
@@noahvonhatten Looking forward to it! In my experience, Kentmere 100 and 400 are the best budget b&w films with Fomapan 100 following right behind. Just like your experience, I think Fomapan 400 can be great, but it's fussy. It takes development and editing adjustments to get consistently great results with it.
Fomapan 400 is actually 250ISO according to its data sheets. Exposing my Fomapan 400 at EI250 yielded much nicer negatives in terms of local contrast and shadow detail. I'm unsure if it's due to the denser negatives but the grain seemed to look nicer as well. In terms of development, I feel like at EI400 and above Fomapan 400 is great with Rodinal which emphasises the grain you're going to get anyway in a pleasing manner. At EI250 or below I've only tried Ilfosol 3 and 510-Pyro, but I liked the look of 510 Pyro a bit more. Also important to note that Fomapan 200 is technically 160ISO, while Fomapan 100 is actually true 100ISO.
Interesting point. I suspected it was actually a slower speed, but wasn’t 100% sure. Thanks! I already started exposing it at 320. I’ll try it at 250.
@@noahvonhattentry Rodinal stand development! Fomapan is naturally higher contrast so being able to meter at whatever ISO and getting pleasing negatives is really cool.
Excellent educational video
I use a Nikon F3HP ( High Point ) because it is made for people with glasses. It is a very rugged and sturdy camera. Great video as usual. RS. Canada
-I owned several Pentax cameras in the 1970’s : Pentax Spotmatic, Pentax Spotmatic 11, and the Pentax ME. ---They are beautiful cameras and the nicest looking of all cameras. --BUT, they are not as sturdy as the Nikons. Nikons are not “pretty” but they are extremely rugged. They rarely break with normal use or even abnormal use. RS. Canada