Silbersalz35 - an update!

As all you millions who read this will know, I’ve been quite excited with using Silbersalz35 film over the past few months. It is bloody awesome.

But my favourite emulsion from my early tests was the 50D. And Silbersalz recommend overexposing by a stop. Which makes that a 25ISO film. Eeek.

Now, I like my history when it comes to photography (in fact, anything creative - I didn’t spend all those years at art school for nowt) and know that the old masters didn’t have the luxury of our modern high speed films, but those long exposure times do leave me a little bit nervous. I dont mind a bit of motion blur but…. I’m exposing at 25ISO!!!

I don’t tend to use tripods so a slow speed film means I’m wanting good light. This is why I’ve held out on using the 50D film properly until the summer…. but who can rely on the weather, eh?

Anyway, I thought getting a batch of four 50D films for my holiday in Spain would be a good plan.

I decided to use this batch of Silbersalz in my Yashica Electro 35GT. I’m still getting to grips with this camera so was unsure about how experimenting with film and camera at the same time would work but…. I shoudn’t have been worried.. It worked out bloody awesome! And it’s been a good learning experience for both camera and film…

The film is gorgeous. I’ve never seen a film with so little grain. And with the exposure latitude it has, I can do whatever I want with it and it still doesn’t get grainy. It obviously helps with Silbersalz making such good high res scans - they are exceptional, but the film itself is second to none.

As far as the camera goes… well, this is the first proper test for the Electro 35. I’ve used it here and there since I got it a few months ago but decided to dedicate it to the Silbersalz this time. And it looks great. I played around with precise focussing and zone focussing and this camera is just awesome. I might have to write a proper review when I get time, but for now…… the Yashica Electro 35 is a great camera and everyone should have one!

Anyway…. Silbersalz35 50D with a fantastic camera. I shall leave you with some results…

48441728012_a73ff53874_k.jpg
48441733247_368f946c50_k.jpg
48441702312_8dcf67e404_k.jpg
48441724757_5240a886b6_k.jpg
48441582681_53f2d401d7_k.jpg

Scanning, holidays, and new films

For quite some time I've felt the need to have more control of what is going on with my film scans. I've used several labs over the years for processing and scanning, and whilst none of them have done a bad job, I've never been 100% sure if it could be better or not. It seems to be adding a variable into the process which I have no control over - is the exposure wrong because of me or is the scanner not set up properly? The same goes for the focus - is the lab's scanner out? Or am I just not getting things right when shooting?

So, I needed my own scanner. By doing it myself, I can not only be more sure of any variables, but I can also tweak each shot if I want. Because I know what I was shooting and what the scene looked like.

I'm a bit tight on space at home, which meant a flatbed scanner was out; which was a shame as a flatbed would do various formats. So I went for a Plustek Opticfilm 8100 35mm scanner.

I'd heard that there was quite a steep learning curve to the Silverfast software which comes with it. The first few scans I wasn't particularly pleased with at all - it was all looking a bit grungey. After looking at some tutorials, I then found what some of the tools were doing in the software and was on top of it pretty quickly.

It has multi exposure on it, which means I can do two scan passes. I'm scanning fairly flat without bumping up any contrast. So the resulting TIFF files are a bit washed out. However, when putting them through Lightroom then they really come to life. I've started saving presets for each one to speed up the post process.

The first scans I made where from a short break in Cornwall. I was trying out some Kodak ProImage 100, a film that is not readily available but is apparently being marketed more in Europe now. Which is a good thing, because I rather like it! It's very much like Kodak Portra - natural colours, nice saturation and renders skin tones nicely. It also has quite a bit of flexibility - I could push certain colours a bit if I wished. The film was apparently first released in 1997 and not been updated since; mixing that with my OM10 and old Zuiko glass gives it a feel of my youth in the 80s/90s.

CORNWALL_JULY18_3397_05_020818.jpg
CORNWALL_JULY18_3398_18_020818.jpg
CORNWALL_JULY18_3399_30_030818.jpg
CORNWALL_JULY18_3397_07_030818.jpg

The next film which I'd not used before was Fomapan 400. I'd used Foma 100 and 200 before (see earlier journal entries) and liked the results - particularly the 200. So I thought I'd give the 400 a shot. I'd read that it wasn't quite as good and I think I'd have to agree. Tonally I found it quite flat and stubbornly didn't want to be pushed anywhere. Too much exposure made it break up quickly, too much shadow just crushed the blacks. I like a bit of grain with my black and white film, but the grain I found a bit crude. Unlike Foma 200, I don't think it will be high on my shopping list in the future....

JULY_2018_1475_03_040818.jpg
JULY_2018_1475_22_040818.jpg
JULY_2018_1475_31_040818.jpg

Next up was Ilford's Pan 400. And this was completely different - nice tight grain, a wide range of greys in the tone allowing me to play with it to my heart's content, and a gorgeous look which has an almost 1960s documentary look to it. I've got another roll in my camera at the moment and already excited to see how it turns out - really love this one!

JULY_2018_1476_16_050818.jpg
JULY_2018_1476_22_060818.jpg
JULY_2018_1476_29_060818.jpg
JULY_2018_1476_37_060818.jpg

One thing that I didn't expect from using my own scanner was seeing the difference straight away between different emulsions. I could see a massive difference between Foma 400 and Pan 400  just by seeing the initial scans before I even put them into Lightroom. Even the physicality of the film is different - the Foma more prone to being damaged than the Ilford.

I have to say, the Plustek scanner is great. I've got scans from it that are just as good as I've been getting from pro labs. And I'll be tweaking the settings more to see what else I can get out of it.

And Kodak ProImage and Ilford Pan 400: big thumbs up! Now, I wonder what Pan 100 is like...!?

All shot on my Olympus OM10.
Kodak ProImage 100 rated at 80asa.
Fomapan 400 rated at 200asa.
Ilford Pan 400 rated at 200asa.