|
Here's some hastily shot pics of my current collection. When I moved from Australia to Scotland about 6 months ago I came with a duffel bag containing about 4 shirts, 2 pairs of jeans, and 5 cameras ... (I've built on it some, since then) 1941 FED-NKVD CCCP, Type 1d "MADE IN OCCUPIED JAPAN" Olympus Six Polaroid One600 Classic Early 20th Century Kodak 35mm 1 of 2 Holgas (120 and 35mm) Coronet Captain Nikon F40 w/ Tamron 28-200 Goldline Tele 110 Yashica-Mat 4 lens toy
|
# ? Jul 3, 2008 13:55 |
|
|
# ? May 13, 2024 11:27 |
|
hybr1d posted:Doh! Nothing like making an idiot of myself in the forum I said out loud, "Backlight, there's a backlight? I suppose there has to be one here somewhere" and found the handle for the cover about 10 seconds later. I would like to see how well the 4490 scans medium format negatives. I have been thinking about picking one up. Would you mind posting am image or two?
|
# ? Jul 3, 2008 19:09 |
|
Omits-Bagels posted:I would like to see how well the 4490 scans medium format negatives. I have been thinking about picking one up. Black & white generally works pretty well, but the scanner is a disaster with poorly-exposed negatives, and it can't seem to figure out colour balance (at least not through VueScan)
|
# ? Jul 3, 2008 19:43 |
|
Luxmore posted:Colour, B&W. sweet, thanks. do you clean up/fix your images in photoshop?
|
# ? Jul 3, 2008 19:55 |
|
Here's one I just took yesterday for a test roll- no touch ups or editing with balance- just a scan at 3200 dpi. I don't like posting full res pictures of anything online, but I did zoom in so you can get a feel for clarity. Even with a substantial crop it still looks awesome at 600x600, but I am going for work that can go on prints larger than 30x30. This is the first sign of the grain, which still looks cooler than pixelation any day! I think scanners are like any other camera gear- go with what you can barely afford I am wishing I had the 4990 so I can do 4x5 negs from my new camera, but I'm not ready to sell my 4490 yet. Overall it's a decent scanner, although I haven't really used the Epson software for anything serious- I just use the imaging app in OSX.
|
# ? Jul 4, 2008 04:23 |
|
hybr1d posted:I think scanners are like any other camera gear- go with what you can barely afford I am wishing I had the 4990 so I can do 4x5 negs from my new camera, but I'm not ready to sell my 4490 yet. Overall it's a decent scanner, although I haven't really used the Epson software for anything serious- I just use the imaging app in OSX. Wanna scan 4x5 negs? Just shoot paper negatives and scan them like any other piece of paper, plus its cheap and fun to shoot at ISO 3
|
# ? Jul 4, 2008 04:49 |
|
johnasavoia posted:Wanna scan 4x5 negs? Just shoot paper negatives and scan them like any other piece of paper, plus its cheap and fun to shoot at ISO 3 I'm not familiar with paper negatives- do you have a recommendation on a place to start?
|
# ? Jul 4, 2008 14:38 |
|
hybr1d posted:I'm not familiar with paper negatives- do you have a recommendation on a place to start? Get in a room with a dim safelight and cut some printing paper down to 4x5, load it in your negative holders and meter for ISO 3 or so, develop as you would a print, by inspection. Super easy and you can get 200 frames for dirt cheap. Depending on the paper you use, paper negatives can have poor tonality/dynamic range, but it can be so much fun, 20 minute exposures in the mid day sun are fun.
|
# ? Jul 4, 2008 15:47 |
|
Lambster Bisque posted:Here's some hastily shot pics of my current collection. When I moved from Australia to Scotland about 6 months ago I came with a duffel bag containing about 4 shirts, 2 pairs of jeans, and 5 cameras ... (I've built on it some, since then) What do you think of the Olympus Six? Do you shoot with it much?
|
# ? Jul 4, 2008 22:41 |
|
So, 4th of July. I think I'm gonna try to take some snapshots with my XA2 + X11 flash loaded with APX400. The flash ought to make the non-highspeed film irrelevant, right?
|
# ? Jul 4, 2008 23:21 |
|
killabyte posted:What do you think of the Olympus Six? Do you shoot with it much? I love it, it was a gift/loan from my girlfriends grandfather. I've only had a chance to run a few rolls of film through it - but when I finally spring for an Epson 4490 or something of the sort (in the next week or so) I'll scan up some of the negs so we can both see just what sort of shots I'm getting out of it. So far the initial impressions are really good though, it has a really nice feel to shooting with it, second only to my Leica-clone FED.
|
# ? Jul 4, 2008 23:25 |
|
Aaargh, I think my 120 film reel might be defective. Even watching videos on how to thread the film I can't get it the film to roll up properly. The spring loaded clip doesn't hold the film and the spool itself seems a smidge too small for the film size. The end result, whether I'm in a changing bag or testing it with a dummy roll is film stuck on film which is resulting in horrible developing results. I could be loading the film wrong, but I'm thinking a plastic reel might be my best bet. Anyone know if I can use a plastic reel in a metal tank or am I going to need to replace the whole set?
|
# ? Jul 4, 2008 23:39 |
|
Lambster Bisque posted:I love it, it was a gift/loan from my girlfriends grandfather. I've only had a chance to run a few rolls of film through it - but when I finally spring for an Epson 4490 or something of the sort (in the next week or so) I'll scan up some of the negs so we can both see just what sort of shots I'm getting out of it. So far the initial impressions are really good though, it has a really nice feel to shooting with it, second only to my Leica-clone FED. I just bought an Epson V500 scanner and it seems to work pretty well. Try one of the windows live ebay deals to get one at a good price. I'm interested to see how the Olympus Six performs. I would love to have a semi compact medium format camera.
|
# ? Jul 4, 2008 23:53 |
|
Krispy Kareem posted:Aaargh, I think my 120 film reel might be defective. Even watching videos on how to thread the film I can't get it the film to roll up properly. The spring loaded clip doesn't hold the film and the spool itself seems a smidge too small for the film size. The end result, whether I'm in a changing bag or testing it with a dummy roll is film stuck on film which is resulting in horrible developing results. While the clip is very helpful, you may find that it's not needed 100% of the time. You can load the roll by putting a finger in there to create the same tension and then wrap the film around the "ridge", just enough to get tension to keep rolling. It would be easier to show you, but when you get it going you should be able to compress the film as you roll it in, and as it expands it will kind of lock in place. I personally hate the plastic ones, and 99% of that is probably because I never learned to use them right. I learned on the metal ones, and never looked back. It sounds like you need a new roll, and you may get different recommendations based on everyone's preference... and I have no idea if the plastic rolls fit in the metal tanks.
|
# ? Jul 5, 2008 01:35 |
|
Krispy Kareem posted:Aaargh, I think my 120 film reel might be defective. Even watching videos on how to thread the film I can't get it the film to roll up properly. The spring loaded clip doesn't hold the film and the spool itself seems a smidge too small for the film size. The end result, whether I'm in a changing bag or testing it with a dummy roll is film stuck on film which is resulting in horrible developing results. Meanwhile, no, a plastic reel won't fit in a metal tank (the reel is too fat)
|
# ? Jul 5, 2008 02:19 |
|
Luxmore posted:Have you dropped or otherwise impacted the spool? Even a tiny bend can make it difficult to get film on a metal reel. No, I haven't dropped it and it's possible the reel is working to specifications. I just can't imagine it being this difficult on purpose. This last time I tried my best to roll a spool of film on there in daylight and still couldn't get it to fit right. Looks like I'll be investing in a plastic tub and reel next.
|
# ? Jul 5, 2008 03:40 |
|
Does anyone have experience with these guys for film developing? http://www.protekcolorlab.com I like the ~$3 per roll of 120, compared to the $15 of the local shop. Can you guys recommend a place for me to send my color 120?
|
# ? Jul 5, 2008 20:07 |
|
Reichstag posted:So, 4th of July. I think I'm gonna try to take some snapshots with my XA2 + X11 flash loaded with APX400. The flash ought to make the non-highspeed film irrelevant, right? Well, looks like the only pictures that DID come out were the ones I used flash on. I don't know what the gently caress is up with this camera, but here is an example of the poo poo it pulled over the fourth: That is pretty much every shot that I didn't use flash on. What the hell?
|
# ? Jul 7, 2008 00:32 |
|
Reichstag posted:Well, looks like the only pictures that DID come out were the ones I used flash on. I don't know what the gently caress is up with this camera, but here is an example of the poo poo it pulled over the fourth: Looks like a light leak.
|
# ? Jul 7, 2008 01:01 |
|
8th-samurai posted:Looks like a light leak. That's what I thought. What's throwing me off is the flash thing.
|
# ? Jul 7, 2008 01:44 |
|
Reichstag posted:That's what I thought. What's throwing me off is the flash thing.
|
# ? Jul 7, 2008 03:37 |
|
...and so the mint condition XA I paid $90 for at the store jammed halfway through its second roll, which happened to be my only roll of Kodachrome. I was able to advance the film another time by really muscling the film advance knob, but after one more shot it froze even harder and won't budge at all. I really want these little compacts to work out, but that's the fourth one (two Lomo LC-As and now a second Olympus XA) to break on me. Old film cameras Edit: applied some more controlled violence and got it to advance, though it was still pretty sticky. Put another roll of film in and got about 4 frames off before it locked up again. On the other hand, at least the Kodak B&W 400 that went through the checked baggage X-ray seems fine. I got my first two rolls back today. Pompous Rhombus fucked around with this message at 14:09 on Jul 7, 2008 |
# ? Jul 7, 2008 07:48 |
|
What mail-in service do you guys use? I have some color rolls I'd like to try out on a new vendor. Also, came across this today: http://www.freestylephoto.biz/techtips_filmdev.php
|
# ? Jul 7, 2008 16:50 |
|
hybr1d posted:What mail-in service do you guys use? I have some color rolls I'd like to try out on a new vendor. Also, came across this today: Apparently APX400 takes 0 minutes to develop in Rodinal 1+10... Try the Massive Dev Chart
|
# ? Jul 7, 2008 19:43 |
|
So my Diafine finally arrived (got stuck in customs, x 5 lost there). At least it turns out I was sent a gallon while ordering a quart. Also got a hugeass changing bag and some Minox film, so I'm ready to roll. Is it a bad idea to only mix up like a pint of each of the solutions? I don't have any gallon-sized airtight bottles at the moment. Also, I have some Tri-X and a roll of Minopan 400 that were shot at their nominal EI - how would I go about developing them in Diafine without overdeveloping? Edit: Minopan 400 == APX 400 Snaily fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Jul 8, 2008 |
# ? Jul 8, 2008 22:00 |
|
Snaily posted:So my Diafine finally arrived (got stuck in customs, x 5 lost there). At least it turns out I was sent a gallon while ordering a quart. Also got a hugeass changing bag and some Minox film, so I'm ready to roll. Is it a bad idea to only mix up like a pint of each of the solutions? I don't have any gallon-sized airtight bottles at the moment. You really can't develop them in Diafine without overdeveloping, especially the Tri-X. Tri-X in Diafine is rated at between 1200-1600. Developing it in Diafine is going to lead to a 3 stop overdevelop.
|
# ? Jul 9, 2008 01:32 |
|
killabyte posted:You really can't develop them in Diafine without overdeveloping, especially the Tri-X. Tri-X in Diafine is rated at between 1200-1600. Developing it in Diafine is going to lead to a 3 stop overdevelop. Not really. It depends on the conditions they were shot in. People get workable negs out of Tri-X at box speed in Diafine if it was shot in contrasty light. Although, remember, Diafine is a compensating developer, it develops to exhaustion, you cannot pull film in it. APX 400 will work just fine, it works out to about box speed, if not a 1/4 stop under in diafine.
|
# ? Jul 9, 2008 02:19 |
|
Oh crap. I have to mix up my D76 then, and do all that difficult temperature matching for my first rolls.
|
# ? Jul 9, 2008 11:11 |
|
Snaily posted:Oh crap. I have to mix up my D76 then, and do all that difficult temperature matching for my first rolls. Difficulty is overrated. Developer to an ideal temp, use ideal box times, done. The internet likes to bitch and moan about reticulation, but everything from the big names has been reformulated not to reticulate under all but the most ridiculous conditions. (Which the internet also likes to bitch about, because now it's much, much harder to get it on purpose.) If room temperature is way off from your dev, throw the other chemistry in a water bath to get it closer if you like (easy as pie if you're not using stop). Pragmatically, though, it's not a big deal.
|
# ? Jul 9, 2008 17:49 |
|
Molten Llama posted:Difficulty is overrated. Developer to an ideal temp, use ideal box times, done. The internet likes to bitch and moan about reticulation, but everything from the big names has been reformulated not to reticulate under all but the most ridiculous conditions. (Which the internet also likes to bitch about, because now it's much, much harder to get it on purpose.) Oh, I'm aware it's not a big deal to many people. It is, relatively speaking, a tad more difficult than the Diafine pour-in-pour-out for a newbie. There's also the fact that developing in D76 feels a lot more wasteful, since you can't reuse the developer (or?), and it supposedly goes bad faster as well.
|
# ? Jul 9, 2008 21:00 |
|
killabyte posted:You really can't develop them in Diafine without overdeveloping, especially the Tri-X. Tri-X in Diafine is rated at between 1200-1600. Developing it in Diafine is going to lead to a 3 stop overdevelop. That's complete and utter poo poo and I suspect you have never used Diafine or any similar developer (or you'd find out like everyone else that Tri-X is nowhere near the rated 1600 but rather closer to 1k if you care at all about shadows). Because of the two step solution and lack of real agitation, the developer will wear out in the highlights before overdeveloping. I generally shoot Tri-X and Plus-X at box speed and have not once 'overdeveloped' a neg. They come out gorgeous, and because of the way Diafine works you are unlikely to ever gently caress up exposure or development too badly. Sounds like magic? Probably is, but as long as I get great negs I am not going to argue with it. edit: PS, 1600 is two stops away from 400, not 3. Clayton Bigsby fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Jul 13, 2008 |
# ? Jul 13, 2008 20:02 |
|
Shadow detail is for wimps and communists.
|
# ? Jul 13, 2008 20:44 |
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:That's complete and utter poo poo and I suspect you have never used Diafine or any similar developer (or you'd find out like everyone else that Tri-X is nowhere near the rated 1600 but rather closer to 1k if you care at all about shadows). Because of the two step solution and lack of real agitation, the developer will wear out in the highlights before overdeveloping. I generally shoot Tri-X and Plus-X at box speed and have not once 'overdeveloped' a neg. They come out gorgeous, and because of the way Diafine works you are unlikely to ever gently caress up exposure or development too badly. Sounds like magic? Probably is, but as long as I get great negs I am not going to argue with it. Chill the gently caress out. I have used Diafine. It's sitting in my closet right now. I've never shot Tri-X at 400 and developed it in Diafine, except for a 15 year roll that I don't take too much stock in, but have never read of anyone besides yourself doing it. Everything I've read on other forums seems to suggest that ~1200 is about as low as people generally go in it.
|
# ? Jul 14, 2008 00:44 |
|
Right. His point is that diafine naturally controls conrast, if fact it sucks at developing negs shot in flat light. If you overexpose and or develop you get high contrast, which through magical diafiney goodness ends up looking good.
|
# ? Jul 14, 2008 01:42 |
|
8th-samurai posted:Right. His point is that diafine naturally controls conrast, if fact it sucks at developing negs shot in flat light. If you overexpose and or develop you get high contrast, which through magical diafiney goodness ends up looking good. So what, do anything and it'll look good? Overdeveloped means underexposed (for that development), doesn't it? Why would a developer work in both ends of the scale, but not in between? (Also, I've given up on figuring it out beforehand - I have few test rolls I'll run through the soup once I find two gallons of cheap distilled water)
|
# ? Jul 14, 2008 08:49 |
|
Overdeveloped means just that. Left in the developer too long. Tends to cause highlights to block up. Remember that generally when you over develop film you are compensating for underexposure but exposure and development are 2 completely separate variables. Meaning the long you expose negative film the more shadow detail develops. Conversely as you gain shadow detail you lose highlight detail. This assumes that the scene contrast exceeds the 11 stops that B&W negative film can record. As a rule anything 7 stops brighter than your deepest shadow that retains detail is going to pretty much wash out. We can combat this in several ways. Remember this phrase (there will be a test) "expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights". 1: You set your exposure roughly 3 stops brighter than the darkest area that you want to retain detail in. Then you can cut development by a stop or two to get an area that is just out of the films contrast "reach" to retain some detail. This really only works if you spend alot of time comparing the highlight and shadow areas in the scenes you are shooting and have done extensive film/developer testing. 2: Expose your high contrast scene at what ever EI you feel like and develop accordingly. Just make sure you are using a developer like HC-110 that can be diluted to practically any strength you want. Make up a half strength batch (dilution H with HC-110) and double the time you leave the film in there. Then drastically cut down on the agitation. I agitate like between 3 and 5 inversion every 5 minutes. You see developer exhausts faster in the highlights than the shadows because there is less silver in the highlights. So when you agitate you are replacing that exhausted developer with fresh stuff. Let it sit and the shadow areas keep developing while the deveopment of the highlights is retarded. 3: Two bath developers like our friend Mr Diafine. These reduce contrast intrinsically because of the way they work. The first bath is the developer and the second is the catalyst that activates the developer. The amount of developer available to convert silver halide into silver is only what is soaked up by the film in the first bath. Once the developer in the highlights is exhausted thats it its gone. This explains the Diafine magic pretty well: http://www.dunnamphoto.com/diafine_developer.htm 8th-snype fucked around with this message at 09:56 on Jul 14, 2008 |
# ? Jul 14, 2008 09:24 |
|
8th-samurai: thanks for that link, it's nice to know I am not the only one who likes Diafine with films at box speed. I really think using Diafine is the best you can do short of shooting zone system style which is a PITA with roll film... By the way, though I shoot TriX et al at box speed, it's nice to know I can underexpose a couple of stops and still get usable results if needed. Good to have when you hand hold and need a faster shutter speed than your lens and film might normally allow. I have some Efke 100 4x5 film I plan to try with Diafine soon, should be fun.
|
# ? Jul 14, 2008 14:51 |
|
Anyone want to recommend a cheap place to get 120 developed in the Bay Area?
|
# ? Jul 14, 2008 19:22 |
|
brad industry posted:Anyone want to recommend a cheap place to get 120 developed in the Bay Area?
|
# ? Jul 14, 2008 23:43 |
|
|
# ? May 13, 2024 11:27 |
|
brad industry posted:Anyone want to recommend a cheap place to get 120 developed in the Bay Area? Where in the bay area? Foto Express is pretty good and they have a few locations. They do 120 C-41, E-6 same day.
|
# ? Jul 15, 2008 01:05 |