Actual photography

Using a recipe for Portra 400 film too.


Haha yeah. Recipes are amazing.

Moar Portra



Why on earth not.

Finally seen not just one Bouquetin, a whole herd, 9 of them in total! Amazing!


No valid reason.

Calling them recipes I find particularly triggering though.

Well that’s what they are.

No, they are a filter, or a preset or a profile.

But I know that’s what Fuji like to call them. Still does my head in.

Also, colour negative film is rubbish, has always been rubbish. So I don’t particularly get emulating it.

I could rant all day.

1 Like

What do you dislike about colour film?

Colour negative film specifically. Colour slide film can be quite nice (Provia mmmm) if you can cope with its 4 stops of dynamic range. If you put it into provia mode down it just clip all the highlights to fuck?

Generally with colour negative I don’t like the grain or in general the colour shifts, It can be hard work in a darkroom to make a nice print.

Scanned film is something else entirely as it becomes a combination of the film/scanner/processing/colour correction. It can be very hit and miss.

I basically see it as obsolete since about 2005. Give me digital for colour anyday.

In the case of Portra, it used to be handy as it was fairly saturated but flesh tones would still behave, it had its uses, why you would want/need to emulate that now I just don’t quite grasp?

Are you limited to using jpegs if you use these presets in camera too? This also triggers me greatly. (Not that familiar with Fuji stuff)

1 Like

Oh and it’s £20 a roll now. Fuck me.

Funny you should mention the price. A guy at work happened to ask me this afternoon if it was possible to still buy film, as he has an old camera. I told him it was still available, and how it’s usually developed, then scanned etc. I also mentioned it was expensive. I couldn’t help but think it was more of a gimmick these days for someone like him to try it.

I still shoot b&w, and sometimes setup the dark room although it’s been a while. That can be done fairly cheaply with films like fomapan, kentmere etc.

I think, while it’s a gimmick, there is a joy in using vintage cameras, it’s an enjoyable process. It’s not always about the end result as such.

Things like using expired colour film and lomography do my head in.

I think this guy was merely thinking of it on a whim, I know it’s a big thing for a lot of pro’s and hobbyist to use film as it slows the process down etc, but it doesn’t appeal to me. Particularly when it’s scanned and tweaked on a pc.

No it’s not for me in general. Very trendy though.

I do mess with the B&W via the pc but I do always think I’ll print the good ones in the dark room, one day, maybe :rofl:

I popped out with my camera last night purely with the intention of taking b+w shots. I rather enjoyed myself and will head again soon.

These are handheld with ISO at 1600 the first shot and I think also the second.


I don’t do a lot of b&w a lot with digital. I struggle to get the tone/look I want and it always just looks like digital to me rather than b&w but that’s probably just psychological.

Harman Lab print on b&w paper so I need to have some of my digital shots printed that way to see what they look like. Very happy with some of the scanned film I had printed by them.

Fomapan 100, Nikon F90, Harman Lab b&w print.

My views tend to skew to end prints. I print most things I like either for the wall or book form.


Wide angle makes it look a bit odd, but I quite like it. About 750m up.


I did wonder if it was a baby break …

1 Like