|
Are there any mail in labs that give dngs or whatever kind of raw/editable files. I really really hate dealing with scanning
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 03:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 20:41 |
|
|
Most do around here but they charge you a lot for it
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 06:55
|
|
|
Dunwoody photo does tiffs for +$2. I just sent an order in for the first time so I can't attest to their quality yet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 13:10
|
|
|
Finally finished a cheap roll in my Pentax, now to run one through the Minolta and find out if I got light leaks or some other bullshit. Shame you guys missed out on me trying to wind the film back in before I went online and found out there's a rewind lock button on the bottom.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2024 01:07
|
|
|
50D is hardly a new thing but my currently preferred retailer finally started carrying it - my photos from the end of the last page were shot with free promo rolls from Atlanta Film Company. They're running mine and other people's photos on their IG page over the next week. Kinda cool to see my one of my photos posted by someone else even if it's just promotional. https://www.instagram.com/p/C6Ega9xO24i/
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 17:46
|
|
|
Very cool. I have some 250d on the way from them and I'm having some other stuff developed at the lab they use. Glad to see a nice endorsement. I feel like the vision 3 stocks are slept on a bit because I normally only hear about the non cine stuff, but these pics look great.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 17:56
|
|
|
a dingus posted:Very cool. I have some 250d on the way from them and I'm having some other stuff developed at the lab they use. Glad to see a nice endorsement. I feel like the vision 3 stocks are slept on a bit because I normally only hear about the non cine stuff, but these pics look great. I think you'll be happy, 250D is a pretty good look IMO. It seems to have great range for playing around in NLP/Lightroom.  I am starting to feel like my quality bottleneck is definitely my scanner after seeing how crispy a professional scan can get. I'm also probably going to be relegating my leica to home developed B&W walkabouts around town and with friends where I'm not as concerned about super high resolution scans, since the olympus glass I have beats the absolute pants off any of my vintage rangefinder glass.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 18:11
|
|
|
a dingus posted:I feel like the vision 3 stocks are slept on a bit because I normally only hear about the non cine stuff, but these pics look great. This is wild to me. I feel like it's the exact opposite and I almost exclusively hear about the vision stocks (and the god awful halation)
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 23:05
|
|
|
big black turnout posted:This is wild to me. I feel like it's the exact opposite and I almost exclusively hear about the vision stocks (and the god awful halation) The key is to shoot on Vision stock with the remjet intact then developing in ECN-2.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 23:10
|
|
|
Yeah it's not so bad in ECN-2 but it was so overhyped for a while that I still have a bit of a kneejerk negative reaction to it. Actually, that reminds me, I saw someone talking about processing Ektar in ECN-2 and I was curious what difference that makes. I thought it was a pretty similar process to C41 just with some steps specific to the remjet
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 23:22
|
|
|
ECN-2 stocks are finely tuned to color temperature and ambient light. For best results you'll have to adjust in scanning. Unadjusted 250D scan; full sun against rear a tree line. Pretty green.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 23:42
|
|
|
big black turnout posted:This is wild to me. I feel like it's the exact opposite and I almost exclusively hear about the vision stocks (and the god awful halation) That funny. Maybe I don't pay attention to anywhere other than here or some small subreddit where it's mostly about porta or b/w stock. Either way whatever it was I'm glad I decided to try it out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 23:57
|
|
|
big black turnout posted:This is wild to me. I feel like it's the exact opposite and I almost exclusively hear about the vision stocks (and the god awful halation) Halation is for suckers. Go check out an ECN2 processor's insta or website - AFC, Midwest Film Lab, or Silbersalz35. The only thing I feel like I'm missing is not being able to shoot anamorphic. That would really nail "the look," imo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 01:28
|
|
|
Dumb question time but the internet is just AI articles: when people talk about for example shooting a 400 film at 800, it is literally just setting the camera to 800 and shooting as if that were the speed of the film, right? So it's basically just like using a stop of exposure compensation on digital? I know pushing ISO is about developing. I also got some expired film from a relative, I assume I'm going to want to overexpose that a bit. It wasn't stored in a freezer or anything so it's definitely degraded some. Grand Fromage fucked around with this message at 00:56 on Apr 27, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 00:54
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Dumb question time but the internet is just AI articles: when people talk about for example shooting a 400 film at 800, it is literally just setting the camera to 800 and shooting as if that were the speed of the film, right? So it's basically just like using a stop of exposure compensation on digital? I know pushing ISO is about developing. Yeah this is the way to get proper exposure before you get to the development step when pushing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 01:00
|
|
|
Expired film should go the opposite way however, shoot the 400 at 200 iso depending on how old it is
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 01:20
|
|
|
Typically the advice is 1 stop per decade of expiration Re: pushing: you shoot the film as if it's 400 iso and it's important that you or your lab know that it was pushed because development also needs to be adjusted
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 04:06
|
|
|
big black turnout posted:Re: pushing: you shoot the film as if it's 400 iso and it's important that you or your lab know that it was pushed because development also needs to be adjusted Okay, now I'm confused about a different thing. I thought pushing just meant leaving it in the developer longer, you could do that to any film regardless of how you shot it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 04:22
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Okay, now I'm confused about a different thing. I thought pushing just meant leaving it in the developer longer, you could do that to any film regardless of how you shot it. Pushing and pulling is the combination of shooting your film at a higher/lower ISO then compensating in development by lengthening/shortening the time in the developer. Rating your film at a higher ISO then not developing for longer is underexposing your film. Shooting your film at box then extending development is just over development. All they were saying is that the lab needs to know how many stops they need to push or pull the development based on how many stops you've under or over exposed your film.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 05:37
|
|
|
Did some printing today off 6x9 to 12x16   
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 06:54
|
|
|
That's a terrible clock you have failed the Alzheimer's test great prints 
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 07:15
|
|
|
Thanks, I'm teaching a friend how to print tomorrow so that's going to be good fun
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 07:17
|
|
|
amazing prints as always!!!
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 07:26
|
|
|
cerious posted:... I wouldn't do a GF670 ... [film flatness] ... Do you know if this also applies to the GF670W (non-folder, 55 mm lens) or the Voigtlander-branded version of the same camera?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 15:39
|
|
|
theHUNGERian posted:Do you know if this also applies to the GF670W (non-folder, 55 mm lens) or the Voigtlander-branded version of the same camera? The flatness issues I was seeing where always from the center and radiating outwards, which lines up with the bellows sucking up the film off the film plane from the center out (since the most volume is from the center of the lens). So I would assume it doesn't apply to a non-folder.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 18:12
|
|
|
Megabound posted:Did some printing today off 6x9 to 12x16 I'd like to know more about whatever you used to do this!
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2024 17:39
|
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:I'd like to know more about whatever you used to do this! A Kodak projection print scale. I like it for my big prints.  I hung my prints from this weekend and need to do more framing and hanging this week. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2024 22:05
|
|
|
i like your living room and the creature in it
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 01:42
|
|
|
I'm trying to figure out if I have a light leak or if something else is going on. There's a washed out area on one or both edges of the photo, but only sometimes? You can see how it comes and goes:       Film is super fun!
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 02:01
|
|
|
Admiral Bosch posted:i like your living room and the creature in it Thanks, that's Aggie, you can find a lot of her in the YOSPOS cats thread
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 02:08
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:I'm trying to figure out if I have a light leak or if something else is going on. I can sorta see it in that first pic, not so much the others. Light leaks can vary in how they manifest depending on the location of the leak, conditions, and how long the film sat between shots. For example, you might have left your camera on frame 15 for a couple days, during which you walked around with it around your neck a bunch. One afternoon you take a shot, advance it, then quickly take another (let's say trying a different composition of the same subject) and advance again. If the leak is where the film sits in the chamber, frame 15 will be obliterated from several days exposure, whereas it may not manifest at all in frame 16 because it was only in the film chamber for a second or two. Something you can try next time to try and troubleshoot is to let the film sit in the chamber for a while in bright afternoon light, and do a long exposure with the lens cap on. Scan that frame and load it into PS or your image editing program of choice, and play around the with the levels/curves until you can see a light leak. Remember that everything will be upside down/mirror image.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 03:33
|
|
|
After having a chat with a friend I have come across a macro project I'd like to start. The cheapest way for me to do any macro would be to use my 50mm f1.4 olympus lens with the extension tubes that Olympus manufactured. Obtaining these isn't going to be difficult, but I have a question. https://www.ebay.com/itm/2044855181...emis&media=COPY This listing shows the three standard extension tube, plus a fourth one labeled "auto 7". Can someone enlighten me as to what "auto" means in this context and what makes it different than the one just labeled "7"?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 18:33
|
|
|
If I understand it right with the auto tubes the aperture works like normal on an Olympus slr where it stays wide open and only stops down when you take the photo. With the non-auto tube it stops down immediately when you change the aperture, kinda like if you were to use it with an adapter on a digital camera. It's the same auto as in the zuiko auto-s whatever your lens is called.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 19:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 20:41 |
|
|
Havana Affair posted:If I understand it right with the auto tubes the aperture works like normal on an Olympus slr where it stays wide open and only stops down when you take the photo. With the non-auto tube it stops down immediately when you change the aperture, kinda like if you were to use it with an adapter on a digital camera. It's the same auto as in the zuiko auto-s whatever your lens is called. ahhhh, of course. a little more googling would have likely got me there, but thank you. i will now be searching ebay with the word 'auto'.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 20:20
|
|