|
gib posted:Diafine lasts an insanely long time. Next time just to be sure shoot Velvia 50 instead 
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2008 02:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 22:50 |
|
|
That's weird. It looks like fog on the lens in the second one (like Luxmore said), but it looks more like a light leak in the first one since it isn't covering a majority of the picture. Don't know what to tell you.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2008 03:23
|
|
|
Trying to win auctions on eBay makes me want to shoot myself in the foot. I was trying to get a canon 28mm f2.8 lens on the cheap, but kept getting outbid by a few cents at the last second and on another auction I hit the bid button a second late and it had all ended by that time. I also tried to find the canon lens in stores in Vancouver but I only found people selling them for $100, and a sketchy pawn shop selling a 28mm lens for $35 but it was of very questionable quality. Frustration got the best of me and I settled on using the 'Buy Now' button on an auction for a RMC Tokina 28mm f/2.8 for about $40. Guys, reassure me that I didn't gently caress up and that this Tokina lens will be okay! I am pretty excited for it to arrive though, I need a reason to bring my camera around with me more often. Do you guys ever get in a rut where it's like you can't find anything interesting to take pictures of? What do you when this happens? MrMeowMeow fucked around with this message at 04:56 on Sep 24, 2008 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2008 04:53
|
|
|
MrMeowMeow posted:Trying to win auctions on eBay makes me want to shoot myself in the foot. I was trying to get a canon 28mm f2.8 lens on the cheap, but kept getting outbid by a few cents at the last second and on another auction I hit the bid button a second late and it had all ended by that time. I also tried to find the canon lens in stores in Vancouver but I only found people selling them for $100, and a sketchy pawn shop selling a 28mm lens for $35 but it was of very questionable quality. Frustration got the best of me and I settled on using the 'Buy Now' button on an auction for a RMC Tokina 28mm f/2.8 for about $40. Change the technical way in which I'm shooting, normally I go for moderate apertures and easily hand-holdable shutter speeds, but sometimes I'll shoot everything wide open, or shoot at nothing faster than 1/30th, or purposefully defocus the lens and shoot at f22 to compensate, or shoot a different focal length than I normally do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2008 05:05
|
|
|
MrMeowMeow posted:What do you when this happens? If I keep my camera in my hand and not in my bag even just on my short walk from the train to work and back I can usually take a few a day at least. Never hurts to go a few blocks out of my usual route either. Switching bodies and or formats (35mm to 6x6 or back) helps. An occasional roll of color is nice too, since I mostly stick to black and white. Things look different depending on what I'm carrying. Even with all that, I too still have that constant "I should be shooting more" feeling. Oh well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2008 07:54
|
|
|
MrMeowMeow posted:Trying to win auctions on eBay makes me want to shoot myself in the foot. I was trying to get a canon 28mm f2.8 lens on the cheap, but kept getting outbid by a few cents at the last second and on another auction I hit the bid button a second late and it had all ended by that time. I also tried to find the canon lens in stores in Vancouver but I only found people selling them for $100, and a sketchy pawn shop selling a 28mm lens for $35 but it was of very questionable quality. Heck it's not even that bad for an 28mm S.S.C. in FD mount. MrMeowMeow posted:Do you guys ever get in a rut where it's like you can't find anything interesting to take pictures of? What do you when this happens?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2008 17:58
|
|
|
Luxmore posted:Buy a new lens. Most expensive advice ever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2008 21:44
|
|
|
Luxmore posted:Buy a new lens. Or any other related gadget. I've shot a ton recently since getting some lighting gear. Yes, gear can inspire. edit: lenses don't HAVE to be expensive. If you can use M42 on your camera via an adapter there's a loving ton of stuff there for not a lot of money. Clayton Bigsby fucked around with this message at 01:31 on Sep 25, 2008 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2008 00:26
|
|
|
This is very true. It doesn't screw with your wallet TOO much if you sell the stuff you're not using anymore. It might feel hard to let go of something you think you might use down the road, but you can always just buy it again if you really need it. You might lose a tiny bit of money, but who cares.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2008 01:24
|
|
|
I haven't had a roll of film commercially developed in like 6 years. I recently sent off a roll of kodak's C-41 process black and white film, and just blech. The prints I got were comparable to the instant print kiosk at Walmart- lovely contrasts, fuzzy line definition with halos, and limited fine detail. It looks like they used the 1500x1000 jpegs I got on CD (that keeps prompting me to install software) to print out my stuff. I thought that consumer Kodak drop off labs had at least some standards, unless they are all like this. I got better prints/photo cd's back in 2000.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2008 08:59
|
|
|
I remember back in my freshman year of high school at the school newspaper we loaded our own 35mm rolls of Tri-X 400 from 100ft rolls. We found you could actually get 100 frames into a can. Of course it helped that we had older non-AF cameras to work with, as all the AF cameras I've seen have digital counters that only go to 36 
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2008 15:31
|
|
|
Kilonum posted:I remember back in my freshman year of high school at the school newspaper we loaded our own 35mm rolls of Tri-X 400 from 100ft rolls.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2008 19:14
|
|
|
Yeah, we usually kept it to about 35-40 frames because ifyou got it too tight it would crease the film. On a related note my youngest brother goes to the same school (he's 11 years younger than me) and while they've switched to digital for the most part, all the school newspaper photographers still have to know to do four things: Focus manually Use a light meter Develop B&W film Make B&W prints Matter of fact the "take home" camera my brother has is the EXACT SAME camera I started with 12 years ago, a Canon T60.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2008 20:14
|
|
|
Luxmore posted:Heck it's not even that bad for an 28mm S.S.C. in FD mount. And thanks johnasavoia for the tip on changing technical ways of shooting. I had still been using my training wheels (a.k.a. aperture priority) and had forgotten about that. I'll give some of your suggestions a shot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2008 04:29
|
|
|
MrMeowMeow posted:I had to look up what SSC meant, but is Super Spectra Coating really that great?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2008 07:32
|
|
|
MrMeowMeow posted:I had to look up what SSC meant, but is Super Spectra Coating really that great? OK, I just have to ask.. why do you consider aperture priority "training wheels"? Almost all of the people I see touting "manual mode" just fiddle with shutter speed and aperture until the camera tells them the exposure is correct. Just how is that any different whatsoever from controlling either of the parameters and letting the camera pick the other based on metering? In fact, even if you are saying "ok, this looks like I ought to go +1EV" you can do that just fine in Av or Tv mode through exposure compensation. Not picking on you at all, just a general question. Unless I'm using my studio strobes I spend 95% in the Pentax TAv mode (which is a mode where you control shutter and aperture and the camera picks ISO based on metering; obviously not an option for film cameras) and the remaining 5% in Av mode. I just don't see the point in going all manual mode when all I'll be doing is the same exact thing except making it more of a hassle. Anyone? edit: if I really want to go "all manual" I'll pick up my Leica and go eyeball the metering, which can be fun and challenging. But screwing around with manual mode on a camera that has metering, why?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2008 01:15
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:But screwing around with manual mode on a camera that has metering, why? Because sometimes meters lie. Sunsets just for a quick example. Edit for more explanation: Sometimes you don't want to go by what the meter says, it will not give you the results you want. For example, the meter told me that 1/60 shutter speed I should have IIRC F2.8 for this picture. That was exposing for the the whole scene (the wall, etc). But to get this result I needed to stop down to F11 or so.  Full manual lets you make choices like this. That 70s Shirt fucked around with this message at 01:30 on Sep 27, 2008 |
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2008 01:25
|
|
|
Back_From_Termina posted:Because sometimes meters lie. Sunsets just for a quick example. Re-read what I wrote. If you know that a meter will lie under a certain scenario, you can compensate just fine with exposure compensation in the 'auto' modes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2008 01:28
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:Re-read what I wrote. If you know that a meter will lie under a certain scenario, you can compensate just fine with exposure compensation in the 'auto' modes. Yeah, but I think most cameras will only let you go +/- 5EV, what if you need more than that?
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2008 01:31
|
|
|
So, what kind of scanner do you guys use? I am finding the scans I am getting out of my Epson V500 on 35mm suck. I recently shot some Provia 400X (great film btw) and some Ektachrome and the scans I am getting are awful. The detail looks terrible and the colors look off as well. How much better would a Coolscan V be? Can anyone post comparisons of a flatbed vs a dedicated film scanner? I haven't been able to find any good comparisons.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2008 01:43
|
|
|
Back_From_Termina posted:Yeah, but I think most cameras will only let you go +/- 5EV, what if you need more than that? Sure, go manual by all means. Nothing against it, but I fail to see the value of touting manual as "serious photography" when most of the time you're just manually doing what the camera was about to do for you.  And honestly, I can't remember the last time I needed more than +/- 2EV compensation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2008 01:43
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:Sure, go manual by all means. Nothing against it, but I fail to see the value of touting manual as "serious photography" when most of the time you're just manually doing what the camera was about to do for you. Oh I definitely see what you're saying, and you're right, 90% of the time I'm just spinning the dials until I get a proper meter exposure. For me it's just how I shoot. I come from the cinematography world where there is no auto-anything. Auto-focus, aperture priority, none of this stuff is heard of on a studio film camera. Full manual for me just seems more "streamlined" and I work more efficiently that way. There are rare times I use aperture or shutter priority, when I don't have time to fiddle with the controls, (sports, etc.) But most of my stuff is slow, take-your-time kind of material. Anybody who touts full manual as more "serious photography" is a pretentious twat. How you shoot should be based on your needs and your own personal workflow.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2008 03:24
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:Sure, go manual by all means. Nothing against it, but I fail to see the value of touting manual as "serious photography" when most of the time you're just manually doing what the camera was about to do for you. the advantage of shooting manual is that if you have a particular scene, and you get your exposure the way you want it, you can walk around shooting without worrying that the meter is going to get confused, secure in the knowledge that your shots will be consistently lit. the downside is that if the light is not consistent in the scene, you're going to get different exposures.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2008 22:59
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:Re-read what I wrote. If you know that a meter will lie under a certain scenario, you can compensate just fine with exposure compensation in the 'auto' modes. Personally I find it easier to spot meter in that instance (and in most instances, actually). Know I want something silhouetted? Spot it, expose it two stops under, done. Know I want to stop a highlight blowing out? Spot it, keep it within two stops over. etc. etc. I find my meter is inaccurate a whole lot more than I'd like, but then I do use a D80 with its notoriously awful metering so I sort of ask for it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2008 02:59
|
|
|
killabyte posted:So, what kind of scanner do you guys use? I am finding the scans I am getting out of my Epson V500 on 35mm suck. I recently shot some Provia 400X (great film btw) and some Ektachrome and the scans I am getting are awful. The detail looks terrible and the colors look off as well. How much better would a Coolscan V be? Can anyone post comparisons of a flatbed vs a dedicated film scanner? I haven't been able to find any good comparisons. All I can say is buy the thing, you won't regret it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2008 06:41
|
|
|
Luxmore posted:After trying to scan negatives with an Epson flatbed, I went ahead and spent the money on a Coolscan V, and the only thing I regret is not saving up for a Coolscan 9000. The scans from the V are infinitely superior in pretty much every way to the scans from my Epson 4490. Can you post a couple of examples? Some 100% crops would be cool if possible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2008 07:32
|
|
|
Bunny Fiesta posted:Thanks for the advice, it all sounds great. I poked around on KEH and found an Olympus OM-1 for $126 and a 50mm f1.8 Zuiko lens for $27, both EX condition. Seems like the makings of an inexpensive (and exciting) introduction to film. Good choice. I love my OM-1. I wish the shutter-speed ring around the lensmount was still around; I'd be all over a DSLR with that feature. I'd suggest the 28mm f/3.5 as a second lens, as it's pretty much all I ever used unless the available light really sucked (in which case I'd use the 50mm f/1.8) or I needed to go long (75-150 zoom). My dad had a surprisingly good all-Zuiko kit of the above lenses that I inherited when I got into photography. Clayton Bigsby posted:The OM1 is great, but be aware that you need to either use zinc-air batteries or an adapter to get the proper voltage for the meter. If you really want the classic grainy BW look, shoot 4x5 Tri-X (or any other old-school ASA400-ish film) and develop it in heated Dektol (yes, paper developer) for a minute or so, and go straight from the (shorter than recommended) fixer to the enlarger, still dripping. That's how the newspapers did it back in the day. You'll obviously want to test the hell out of it before shooting anything important. It may push a stop or two -- it's been several years since I tried it, and I don't remember. If you want to be cheap, push the hell out of 35mm Tmax or Tri-X. 35mm Tmax 400 at 3200 is wonderful:  friendship waffle posted:the advantage of shooting manual is that if you have a particular scene, and you get your exposure the way you want it, you can walk around shooting without worrying that the meter is going to get confused, secure in the knowledge that your shots will be consistently lit.  If you shoot enough, you'll find yourself memorizing the exposure for certain lighting conditions.
Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 10:19 on Sep 28, 2008 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2008 10:16
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
Delivery McGee posted:Test it with whichever modern battery fits, and remember how far off it is or make a sticker to go over the ISO dial. Mine reads a stop high. Using a different voltage battery tends to cause a non-linear error in the readings so just don't plan on shooting slides with it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2008 13:46
|
|
|
So I just got a load of old darkroom equipment from a garage sale (old chemicals, trays, paper, tanks, reels, etc.) and I've got a question. Most of the chemicals are bad, but there were a few goodies to be found. There was an unopened, yet expired, bottle of Ilford rapid fix (I'm planning to do a clip to see if it's still usable; 4 bottles of Photoflo 200 (who needs that much Photoflo?); and a bottle of Permawash. The question involves the Permawash. There's a small crack in the cap and it's been exposed to air for probably around 5 years. Will it still work? The directions on the side of the bottle say that the working solution oxidizes within 8 hours, but how long will the concentrate last? Internet research reveals claims it last will a very, very long time but no concrete numbers are given.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2008 21:18
|
|
|
Jahoodie posted:I haven't had a roll of film commercially developed in like 6 years. I recently sent off a roll of kodak's C-41 process black and white film, and just blech. The prints I got were comparable to the instant print kiosk at Walmart- lovely contrasts, fuzzy line definition with halos, and limited fine detail. It looks like they used the 1500x1000 jpegs I got on CD (that keeps prompting me to install software) to print out my stuff. I thought that consumer Kodak drop off labs had at least some standards, unless they are all like this. I got better prints/photo cd's back in 2000.  I dropped it off a couple hours ago, think it's too late to retrieve it? I don't even know where to go with it because there's no other photo developing places around here in Bumfuck Wisconsin. There used to be a Ritz in the mall 10 years ago but they're gone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2008 23:29
|
|
|
pwn posted:poo poo, I just shot a roll of C-41 B&W today and dropped it off at Walgreens. I asked them what resolution they scan the negatives at and they said "something like... one thousand by like... eight hundred?" Beats me. I've had the film developed at a local pro lab that does their own before, it was really nice. He purposefully prints the Kodak C-41 B&W cooler toned because he says it brings out the character much better... it was great quality. I guess I'll have to go there rather than trust Kodak labs with my Kodak moments now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2008 05:46
|
|
|
I called them and asked them if they make prints from the negative or from the neg scans, and he said from the negative, but he could be telling me what I want to hear. I canceled the CD of scans and asked for a refund. I'm not paying for low-res garbage. If the prints are tinged green or something I will make them redo them until they're right.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2008 10:35
|
|
|
You might also be asking too much out of Walgreens, pwn. Different labs have different standards/outputs, and do-on-site places can be significantly different depending on the knowledge of the person running the souping machine and its upkeep.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2008 17:56
|
|
|
Sorry to keep coming back with problems, but I've got another one. For some reason I can't seem to get all of the fixer out of my negatives while washing anymore. Normally the Ilford method up to 30 inversions works fine, but the last 3 rolls I developed didn't work. I even went up to 80 inversions on all of them, and still my negatives are just a teensy bit purple. I don't think it's the fixer because I did a clip test and it's still clearing in a minute-and-a-half, so I don't know what the gently caress. Any ideas? Edit: The only thing that's changed is since it's getting colder here my tap water temperature has gone down by about 3-4 degrees, could this be the reason? But even if it is, why wouldn't an additional 300 inversions make up for it? That 70s Shirt fucked around with this message at 08:37 on Oct 1, 2008 |
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2008 08:34
|
|
|
Back_From_Termina posted:Sorry to keep coming back with problems, but I've got another one. For some reason I can't seem to get all of the fixer out of my negatives while washing anymore. Normally the Ilford method up to 30 inversions works fine, but the last 3 rolls I developed didn't work. I even went up to 80 inversions on all of them, and still my negatives are just a teensy bit purple. I don't think it's the fixer because I did a clip test and it's still clearing in a minute-and-a-half, so I don't know what the gently caress. Any ideas? I think some films have a slightly purplish look to them. The developer might have something to do with it. Others look fine. Tri-X in Diafine always looks a bit purple to me...that might be the worst offender. Acros comes out the clearest. What kind of fixer are you using?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2008 15:57
|
|
|
I'm using Ilford rapid fix. It's reassuring to hear that lots of film stay purple, but the thing is I used to be able to get them completely clear, so now that they're not it makes me kind of nervous.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2008 20:43
|
|
|
Yeah my Tri-X always stays a little purple too, whether I use HC-110 or Diafine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2008 21:50
|
|
|
Pre-soaking Tri-X really helps get a lot of the purple (anti-halation) backing out. Obviously, don't pre-soak if you're using Diafine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2008 22:17
|
|
|
How can I get decent negative scans done for a reasonable price? I don't trust the monkeys at Walgreens and I really can't be buying a dedicated scanner for the odd roll of film - especially since this past Monday was the first time I've shot any film in years. I had to do a scan of the prints on a crappy flatbed scanner to get a couple of my favourites at least online for the time being, until I can get proper neg scans.   http://flickr.com/photos/gecafe/sets/72157607653914487/ I'm pretty happy with the photos, right now they're marred by the two-fold crap factor (crap green-tinted prints and then scans of said prints on an old lovely scanner) but hopefully with some advice from you experts I can get nice negative scans up. edit: Film is fun. I love my digital to death, I really do, it allowed me to learn through trial-and-error, and I don't think I'd want to shoot exclusively on film, all things considered. But as an occasional thing... BOY is it fun to know you can commit something to actual film and taking out the exposed roll and waiting a day for it to get developed. I don't have the chutzpah to develop myself (and I've read a LOT in this thread about it,) but if I ever did get my own darkroom, I'd probably spend a lot of time in there.
pwn fucked around with this message at 04:06 on Oct 2, 2008 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2008 04:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 22:50 |
|
|
find some local place that will do drum scans of your negs. That's really the best you can do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2008 18:38
|
|