707 at isp??

[Mayi757]

Yea i'm happy about catching it but I also wanted some good shots. Yea I was using an ancient film camera and those shots arent edited. Thats how they came out. Camera is from the 80's and the film was fujifilm. I think it was the crappy film that got me. Here are 2 more.

The shot without the fence in the way I like it a lot, find it nostalgic and interesting, so what if the plane isn't perfectly sideways? you got a very interesting background. That looks like it was taken in the 1970s! Don't let it go to your head but that's my favorite out of all the Travolta 707 shots on the thread, I'm not joking.

I'd like to know what film that is exactly?? Seems to be very good actually.

Really dig the result on a cloudy-bright day. If I get me another film camera body I'll like to try that film when the weather isn't so good and my digital will be collecting dust!

That film seems to have excellent color contrast and saturation in difficult light (visibly superior to digital) and could not have come out better given the conditions. The plane just pops out of the image. Same shot on digital would've come out ugly and needed heavy editing to look half as good. Just beware that camera has a light leak. Some pictures might not come out at all.

With a SLR film camera and zoom lens you will be able to zoom in and get good action shots.

[NLovis]

I was zoomed in for those shots. If I use another camera I lose 140mm on my range and my range only goes up to 200mm max. The film wasnt all that great. Next time I buy i'm buying Kodak film.

[Mayi757]

ok the film sucks, the camera is great. I'm still curious so is it ok to say which type it was? (there are many kinds of fuji films)

example: Fuji Reala 100, Fuji blah blah 200, etc

[Tom_Turner]

Mario - you actually make me want to go out and shoot some prints - were it not for the time and cost involved (and then scanning). I do miss the Kodak Gold 100 and the Fuji 100/ Fuji Reala 100. They've got to be much harder to find now I suppose.

Tom

[NLovis]

If I remember correctly it was Fuji 500

[SengaB]

I have to agree with both of you. I thought I was alone in feeling that way too. Nlovis images had that nostalgic feel to them and give you a "authentic" feeling. They remind some of us of a time before everyone had to have big lenses and fancy cameras and just getting thew plane was ENOUGH. I guess in the age of cookie cutter pictures in aviation photography its sometimes nice to see something that doesn't like its just another shot.

Senga

[hiss srq]

I agree Senga. Not to take away from anyone elses shots because they are all pretty killer and if you can nail a 707 these days you do it. But........ You are spot on. I feel like I whipped out a picture album in my grandfathers old photo collections or somthing.

[Mayi757]

Yea man, a 707 docked at the terminal in 1974 or something like that. That shot could fool anybody.

This might seem like an exaggeration but I personally enjoyed the photos at airliners.net more in the early days when everything was taken on film and all 15 shots per page weren't all side-ons in perfect sun, cloud-less skies or with the same contrast/saturation. Each photo had a different look of its own.


ps: Tom I think Kodak doesn't even make Gold 100 anymore. Kodachrome is gone but there are some good newer 100 speed slide films that still exude classic photographic joy. For some FUN in cloudy and difficult light I'd like to try possibly Fuji NPS 160 or a faster film like the one NLovis is using, which sounds to me like some kind of Fuji 400 film (since there's no 500).

[Mayi757]

...btw, for anyone who might try shooting print film, beware that pictures taken with SLR cameras developed at drugstore-type photo labs almost always come out with awful colors, I guess they calibrate their printers for $10 point-and-shoot cameras (what most people shoot with).

I tried Kodak Ektar 100, developed it at Target and the blue sky came out dark gray :shock: :lol: Best to have it scanned to experience how the film really performs.

[NLovis]

Yea I went straight to CD. Didnt bother getting it printed. I edited a few of them but I forgot which ones :mrgreen:

[NLovis]

It was Fuji 800 i was using. Here are a few more shots. Fence in the way.



Edited shots

[Mayi757]

800 speed film will give you too much grain. For such days with bad/low light or if you must shoot a plane that's back-lit (as in that last shot), 400 speed is about the highest you want to be shooting. Grain and lack of sharpness usually increases too much after that.

sent you a PM

[727C47]

you know that graininess gives it a texture though, those shots echo the 707s the way they appear in my minds eye,spewing smoke,roaring like thunder,arcing majestically over Jamaica Bay,Pan AM,TWA,Lufthansa,Braniff,BOAC,etc.etc., those 1st generation jets had presence,and those somewhat grainy shots capture that essence.

[NLovis]

Next time I buy i'll remember that. As for now though I have another 800 in the camera that I have to use or lose. Only problem is I need a zone where 200mm is more then enough. I dont have any lenses that go further.

[Mayi757]

Your camera has a light leak anyways, on a second thought for what you are doing 800 will be fine. And the new 400 and 800 films are much better now than 10 years ago. Beware Kodak 200 speed films are awful though. 400 is actually better.

If you used Fujifilm Superia 800, the reviews for it are actually pretty good http://www.photographyreview.com/mfr/fu ... 20crx.aspx

727C47, I agree with you. The angles and the shots on this thread are awesome, but (in my opinion) N707JT simply doesn't look good (or right) on digital. Film grain texture gives the photo character and snap, make it look more real than digital, which despite grainless and neatness is flat/boring in comparison.