|
I just came across one of these enlargers. This thing any good?
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2008 23:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 22:05 |
|
|
gib posted:I just came across one of these enlargers. This thing any good? Excellent enlarger, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2008 03:08
|
|
|
I want to get into photography. Back at my parents' house there is a canon nobody uses, I believe it is an AE-1. Any problems learning on this camera? I also have the opportunity to get a TLR camera for dirt cheap from a university surplus auction thing (with the choice between a few seagulls or a 'photina reflex'). I see that seagulls are entry-level, and I couldn't really find much info on photina reflex.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2008 12:31
|
|
|
those are all cheap tlrs, but medium format is so much more fun than 35mm so go with the tlrs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2008 15:55
|
|
|
Anyone got any tips on good portrait film/lens for a Pentax 6x7? Of the 1989 make I believe. I'm having some trouble exposing faces correctly with a 67mm: Is the focus off? Am I not shooting fast enough (1/60th)? Was it scanned poorly? (I get it scanned at the same place I get it developed but they're really professional so it seems unlikely) Help a filmbrother out
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2008 18:16
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:Anyone got any tips on good portrait film/lens for a Pentax 6x7? Of the 1989 make I believe. I'm having some trouble exposing faces correctly with a 67mm:
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2008 18:31
|
|
|
Luxmore posted:The exposure seems fine, but your focus isn't quite on, and the scan might be a bit magenta-ey (but that depends what kind of film you're shooting with) It was Fujifilm 400 iirc Here's another shot that I was like 90% sure was correctly focused on his face when I shot it:  I think I just learned a trick to focusing correctly in my photo class so maybe that'll help? These pictures were some of the first I ever took with this camera so that's likely too. I don't know, I'd like to believe the fault is on me and that my focusing apparatus isn't off and I need to get my camera recalibrated or something. My vision isn't perfect but it's not exactly horrible either so who knows? The place I got it from doesn't test their used cameras as well as their competitors and the version of Pentax 6x7 (1989 I think) I have is known to be a bit dark in the viewfinder compared to the more recent version so who knows. P.S. Does anyone know a good place in or near NY to get 35mm Kodachrome developed?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2008 19:18
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:I think I just learned a trick to focusing correctly in my photo class so maybe that'll help?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2008 19:44
|
|
|
I too would like to hear this trick.dorkasaurus_rex posted:P.S. Does anyone know a good place in or near NY to get 35mm Kodachrome developed?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2008 20:07
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:Help a filmbrother out The 6x7 has such a huge shutter/mirror that it induces camera shake easily, even on a heavy duty tripod, always try and go for the fastest shutter speed possible, regardless of how steady you might be, also the DOF on 6x7 is paper thin, so even though the image may appear correctly focused on the ground glass, even slight focus error will show in the negative, I'm assuming the 6x7 has a split image prism, use that, but dont focus and recompose because you're gonna be shifting your DOF.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2008 21:53
|
|
|
I picked up the seagull tlr for 20 bucks, but I'm afraid it may be broken. The shutter speed is unaffected by changing the little slider that controls it. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2008 22:51
|
|
|
Those photos are both focussed significantly in front of the camera. The first one has the granite in front in sharp focus and the second has the drinks in front in sharp focus. Have you got another lens to test focus with? Try setting the camera on a tripod, focussing the lens to infinity (at the infinity mark, the lens might focus beyond infinity) and taking a photo of an object at infinity. If that's out of focus it's an issue with the lens or the lens mount, if it's in focus it's probably an issue with mirror alignment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2008 23:10
|
|
|
Satchmo posted:I want to get into photography. Back at my parents' house there is a canon nobody uses, I believe it is an AE-1. Any problems learning on this camera? I've new to photography, and I've been learning on an AE-1 for a few months, and I love the thing. It has a nice, sturdy feel to it. So no, no problems at all learning on that camera, buy yourself some film and go nuts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2008 01:51
|
|
|
I've seen so much love for Tri-X 400 but what about Kodak Plus-X 125? That's all I've ever used and I love how it looks when I go to make prints. Where's the love, or why shouldn't I love it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2008 07:12
|
|
|
Wow. I only just found this thread today. I started shooting film again this year. Got heaps of Kodak T-Max 100 and Kodak Elite Chrome 100 for a dollar a roll. Currently got some Ilford HP5 Plus 400 on the go as well. Processing my own B&W film but I don't have a darkroom to make prints at the moment. Got an enlarger cheap off a friend who was going overseas. Slide film is a bit harder to get done locally unless I cross process it. I get pleasant results cross processing it in C-41. The main camera I use is a Contax 159MM with a Zeiss 1.7/50mm Planar. I collect 35mm cameras I can use. I have a few rangefinders and SLRs from the 60s - 80s. One camera I love is my Praktica LLC. It will probably survive a nuclear war. Here's a couple of shots. Shot on T-MAX 100 on my Contax.  
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2008 13:04
|
|
|
I've only read the last 4 pages, but I think I've fallen in love with this thread. Does anyone else use diafine largely out of laziness?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2008 14:10
|
|
|
Large Hardon Collider posted:what is it? Well, it's hard to explain, but it doesn't have a split image. It just has a very subtle thing in the center that gets less and less "fuzzy" as you focus more and more correctly. It's hard to explain but pretty much, if it's not focused correctly, the center circle will look like it's wiggling like it's made of worms, and if it's focused correctly it won't move around at all. Very subtle though, and I've never seen it on another camera.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2008 17:40
|
|
|
Satchmo posted:I picked up the seagull tlr for 20 bucks, but I'm afraid it may be broken. The shutter speed is unaffected by changing the little slider that controls it. dunno posted:Does anyone else use diafine largely out of laziness?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2008 23:50
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:Well, it's hard to explain, but it doesn't have a split image. It just has a very subtle thing in the center that gets less and less "fuzzy" as you focus more and more correctly. It's hard to explain but pretty much, if it's not focused correctly, the center circle will look like it's wiggling like it's made of worms, and if it's focused correctly it won't move around at all. Very subtle though, and I've never seen it on another camera. I think my friend's K-1000 is like this as well (micro-prisms). Apparently you can just get a split-prism screen ( http://photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/008XNS ). It could be that the screen just needs a shim because it's out of calibration. It seems like the camera is always front-focusing when it's off, although some of the shots have been perfect.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2008 23:55
|
|
|
Rontalvos posted:I've seen so much love for Tri-X 400 but what about Kodak Plus-X 125? That's all I've ever used and I love how it looks when I go to make prints. dunno posted:Does anyone else use diafine largely out of laziness? That, and I don't want to deal with trying to maintain chemical temps without special equipment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2008 02:12
|
|
|
After taking it apart and doing a little fiddling around, I was able to get the shutter working correctly. This comes at the cost of making the camera look fairly ghetto.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2008 02:30
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:That, and I don't want to deal with trying to maintain chemical temps without special equipment. What, like a thermometer?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2008 02:36
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:What, like a thermometer? Hardy-har, I mean getting it to stay at one temp.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2008 04:08
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:What, like a thermometer? I started using diafine when a friend stole back his thermometer. My precision habits quickly deteriorated to the point where I've now done a good job if I've remembered to agitate more than twice and kept it to under 10 minutes in solution B... Sheer ease aside, I'm tempted to go back to HC-110 to keep the grain under control and give me more control over speed rating (and because there's a gallon mixed up under my sink that I really should use pretty soon).
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2008 17:29
|
|
|
I've never paid a whole lot of attention to the temperature using HC110 and so far no problems. It's true that a lot of my negatives end up with pictures of lost astronaut ghosts on them but according to the bottle that's normal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2008 17:45
|
|
|
I found a interesting. It's a Zeiss Ikon Contina L. I've been looking for a rangefinder but while fumbling around with the camera, I noticed it didn't have a ghost image to focus with and the shutter was down. I don't have much experience with analog cameras, is it normal that the shutter remains closed? And may I have just simply stumbled along a viewfinder camera? EDIT: Nevermind, I looked it up. Looks like it's a simple manual point and shoot. Fragrag fucked around with this message at 13:36 on Oct 25, 2008 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2008 13:00
|
|
|
Fragrag posted:I found a interesting. It's a Zeiss Ikon Contina L. I've been looking for a rangefinder but while fumbling around with the camera, I noticed it didn't have a ghost image to focus with and the shutter was down. Yep, Continas aren't rangefinders, and the shutter should always be closed when not taking a picture. Otherwise light would get in and ruin the film.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2008 19:56
|
|
|
breathstealer posted:Yep, Continas aren't rangefinders, and the shutter should always be closed when not taking a picture. Otherwise light would get in and ruin the film. Yeh, I kind of just realized that. It's different with SLRs, isn't?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2008 20:37
|
|
|
No. The mechanics in an SLR are the mirror and the shutter. The mirror reflects the light from the lens up to the viewfinder, and slaps out of the way when you take a picture. The shutter is still there to cover the film/sensor from exposure, and only opens for the fraction of a second it takes to expose the picture.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2008 00:26
|
|
|
Jahoodie posted:No. The mechanics in an SLR are the mirror and the shutter. The mirror reflects the light from the lens up to the viewfinder, and slaps out of the way when you take a picture. The shutter is still there to cover the film/sensor from exposure, and only opens for the fraction of a second it takes to expose the picture.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2008 04:41
|
|
|
Luxmore posted:And then you get into stuff like Hasselblads where there's a leaf shutter in the lens that's open and then closes and then opens and then closes again and the light baffle flips open with the mirror and bwooahhh. And then you get electronic digital shutters/combo of focal plane shutters and digital (ie, D70 highspeed flash sync hack), but why confuse the kid? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2008 15:09
|
|
|
Cleaning, lubing and adjusting your own cheap finds: yes or no? More specifically, I'm thinking of getting a cheap Hasselblad with a sticky shutter and lubing it with the help of a service manual. Am I likely to ruin it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2008 18:25
|
|
|
Total newbie question: After seeing a lot of beautiful Velvia shots, I really want to give it a try but haven't developed film in a decade and have no interest in getting my hands wet. Can Velvia be developed through whatever the normal developing process is (like at your closest drugstore) or would I have to have it specially done. If it's the latter, has anyone cross-processed Velvia?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2008 04:02
|
|
|
guidoanselmi posted:Total newbie question: Velvia is an E6 process film. Most chain drug stores will take it, but send it out to be done, expect to wait a week or two before you get it back. Most professional labs will do at least one E6 run every day, so expect to pick it up the day after or sooner. Velvia can be cross-processed in colour negative (C41) chemistry, but generally needs to be exposed by two extra stops which means you'd be shooting Velvia 100 as if it were ISO 25 film. Don't expect much without lots of light (sunny days or lots of flash). Your local drug store may or may not process it competently, be sure to ask or just take it to a pro lab. In my experience most xpro shooters aren't terribly picky about what film they're using and will take whatever they can get their hands on cheap, which usually means expired film being cleaned out of fridges either at the local pro shop or via eBay.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2008 10:49
|
|
|
Jahoodie posted:No. The mechanics in an SLR are the mirror and the shutter. The mirror reflects the light from the lens up to the viewfinder, and slaps out of the way when you take a picture. The shutter is still there to cover the film/sensor from exposure, and only opens for the fraction of a second it takes to expose the picture. What I actually meant, the shutter is constantly open in an SLR, otherwise you wouldn't be able to see anything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2008 11:49
|
|
|
Fragrag posted:What I actually meant, the shutter is constantly open in an SLR, otherwise you wouldn't be able to see anything. SLRs generally have focal plane shutters behind their mirrors (as opposed to some other types of camera which have shutters in the lens assembly) which are closed except when making an exposure.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2008 14:00
|
|
|
Seeing as blambert now has me thinking about medium format film, is there any significant advantage to shooting 220 film instead of 120? Does the square format really make that huge of a difference or is it just that some people prefer it compositionally? What about lenses? I'm familiar with what's wide/normal/telephoto on 35mm and digital APS-C sensors, but what about medium format? What field of view does that 75mm lens offer? I also see 220 format cameras going for a good chunk less than 120 format cameras, why is this? Is 200 less desirable? Help me, oh goons.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2008 17:50
|
|
|
220 is twice as long, You can take twice as many photos. It won't work in some cameras. It's also somewhat less common. (also, the square format is undeniably better than 645 because it contains exactly the same image as both a portrait and landscape 6x4.5, so you can crop to either with no loss of quality. I like it compositionally. The odd landscape medium format sizes like 6x12 are fairlly uncommon but the definitely have their proponents and uses.) what is this fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Oct 30, 2008 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2008 17:57
|
|
|
Fragrag posted:What I actually meant, the shutter is constantly open in an SLR, otherwise you wouldn't be able to see anything. Here is an image from how stuff works:  For an SLR, light travels in through the lens, and hits a mirror. The light is reflected up to a prism, which bends the light so you're looking at the picture rightside up and not backwards. The mirror is in front of the shutter, and flips out of the way as to not block the light when you take a picture. The shutter is behind the mirror, and flips open for the fraction of a second it takes to expose the film. The shutter being open/closed has no effect on seeing through the veiwfinder, only the mirror. If your shutter was open all the time, light would be constantly hitting the film and you wouldn't be able to record any images, you'd just get a roll of blank.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2008 18:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 22:05 |
|
|
That clears things up a bit. Is it any different with DSLRs? Because when I preview the aperture, I can see the shutter closed, which means it's in front of the mirror. Or am I starting to confuse stuff?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2008 18:09
|
|