|
Luxmore posted:Check the pressure plate, because it does look like the focus varies unevenly over the image. Did it just start doing this recently? Yeah, the last roll was fine. I double checked the plate and put some delta 3200 in there. Hopefully I just nudged it or something loading the last roll. Thanks for the help.
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2008 08:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 11:12 |
|
|
Luxmore posted:The grey-paint-over-beige-plastic construction ensures that it will get uglier with wear, and the controls are needlessly obtuse since they hadn't quite figured out how to build a pushbutton interface yet. Oh. I thought you meant the pictures it produced were ugly. Yeah, it's not much to look at next to a Leica body or whatever, but it's a pretty decent 35mm camera for the price and I'm used to the controls by now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2008 14:01
|
|
|
God, I want to learn to develop B&W film but I know if I try it'll just turn into yet another hobby that ends up taking over my house.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2008 22:08
|
|
|
HPL posted:God, I want to learn to develop B&W film but I know if I try it'll just turn into yet another hobby that ends up taking over my house. It just takes over a small portion of the space under my sink.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2008 22:35
|
|
|
dunno posted:It just takes over a small portion of the space under my sink. But then there's the equipment and space you need for making prints and then I'll probably end up doing colour film and so on and so on. I've been down this road a few times.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2008 22:47
|
|
|
HPL posted:But then there's the equipment and space you need for making prints and then I'll probably end up doing colour film and so on and so on. I've been down this road a few times. BW isn't really that bad. A small enlarger can be broken down, if you process prints in a drum it takes up hardly any space, or get a scanner that does film and go hybrid. As for color-I was doing color prints back before I lost access to the really nice darkroom where I worked at the time, quite honestly it was a PITA and not really worth it in the end. You have to deal with color balance, exposure, reciprocity, all kinds of wierd stuff, holding your temps steady, knowing what I know now and with the technology available I'd whore out and go inkjet, or maybe really nice laser. I'd even consider sending out the prints I really like to have done elsewhere. So yeah, don't worry about the color part.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2008 04:45
|
|
|
I just got a few rolls of Ektar 100 from Freestyle. Has anyone else tried it yet?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2008 05:06
|
|
|
Gnomad posted:BW isn't really that bad. A small enlarger can be broken down, if you process prints in a drum it takes up hardly any space, or get a scanner that does film and go hybrid. For serious. Home processing and scanning really make shooting b/w film a lot more economical (I think I waspaying about 50 cents an exposure for film, processing and low res scan, it now amortizes to like 10 cents), and if you're not printing you don't need a real dark room anyway. You can also save on colour by getting ti done develop only and scanning it yourself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2008 05:24
|
|
|
killabyte posted:I just got a few rolls of Ektar 100 from Freestyle. Has anyone else tried it yet? Now let's see them bring back Ektar 25 
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2008 05:38
|
|
|
edit: This post is now useless, editing it out
pwn fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Dec 18, 2008 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2008 23:51
|
|
|
Think I like Neopan a bit better, but Tri-X is pretty snazzy stuff too. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2008 23:31
|
|
|
I found a Nikon FA to compliment my D50, paid all of $65 for the FA, 28mm and 35-105 lenses, motor drive and speedlight. These came off the test roll, Fuji 200, the first roll of film I've run through a camera in 5 years or so. I didn't buy a new roll of film, no telling how old that film was.  These are photos of Anchorage, midtownish, Cuddy Park. Does it look cold? That'd be becuase it was cold.   We don't get much light this time of year but what we get is interesting. This one is the ASRC building with a hoarfrosted tree.  The FA is now my carry camera. If it somehow disappears, it's easier to swallow a $65 loss than a $500 one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2008 07:58
|
|
|
Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask this. I received a new camera for Christmas. A Blackbird, fly. It is a sort of gimmicky twin lens reflex camera. Never heard of it before, but new cameras are always fun. The same person gave me a Lomo Fisheye last year which I have enjoyed. I figured out how to load the film. It was very convoluted. What I cannot figure out is where to connect the lens cap loop to the camera body! Seriously. Do any of you have one of these things??? I only had ISO 200 film on me, so I can imagine everything is going to be very underexposed until I get something else in there. Unlike the Lomo, the bbf has a bulb shutter option so you can expose as long as you like. You can adjust focus, but the focus is not visible in the lens! Maybe I need to start toting around a yard stick! It also has two aperture values to choose from! 7 or 11. I imagine the learning curve on this one is going to be much greater than the lomo. It does have a neat feature where you can replace the film mask to expose different sizes on the film. You can completely remove it and it will expose from edge to edge, including the sprocket holes. God knows if my local shop will develop that correctly!
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2008 03:07
|
|
Associate Christ
|
That blackbird thing looks fun, but kind of silly. It's basically a Holga with a funny viewfinder that uses 35mm film, so just dump some 400 speed (100 if you're out on a bright sunny day) in and enjoy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2008 05:07
|
|
|
A silly camera it may be, but a tlr is more than a "funny viewfinder." :P
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2008 05:12
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:A silly camera it may be, but a tlr is more than a "funny viewfinder." :P Sure, if the viewing lens is attached to the focusing mechanism.  If not, it's a viewfinder camera with the added negative of reversing the image for you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2008 05:15
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:Sure, if the viewing lens is attached to the focusing mechanism. I am not sure what you are saying here. You can adjust the focus by turning either the view finding lens or the shutter lens. They are attached by mechanical cogs. Or are you referring to the fact that the adjusted focus is not visible in the view finder? I still need to use a few more shots on my lomo, then I will go pick up a box of 400 for both of them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2008 05:24
|
|
|
Kaluza-Klein posted:I am not sure what you are saying here. You can adjust the focus by turning either the view finding lens or the shutter lens. They are attached by mechanical cogs. So you can actually see the results of the focus adjustment in the viewfinder? If so, cool -- the website made it sound like it was guess focus and you just used the image in the viewfinder to compose. Give the Kodak BW400CN film a go if you want some latitude for the shots -- it's a very forgiving C41 process black/white.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2008 05:28
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:So you can actually see the results of the focus adjustment in the viewfinder? If so, cool -- the website made it sound like it was guess focus and you just used the image in the viewfinder to compose. Ah no, you are right. There is a focus adjustment, but you can't see it. I may give that film a try, thanks. I've just been using Fuji 400 mostly with my lomo. I'm still getting used to just how much light these little guys seem to need. I guess I do mostly indoor stuff, so that doesn't help.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2008 08:48
|
|
|
I'd like to play around with some polaroid medium or large format film. I am looking at MF bodies, and already have a Graphlex Graphic 4x5. Can anyone make a recommendation on a camera/back/film combo that's reasonable? I'd really like a recommendation for a back/film pair for my existing LF, but I haven't found many guides/recommendations online that help.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2008 23:09
|
|
|
Kaluza-Klein posted:Ah no, you are right. There is a focus adjustment, but you can't see it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2008 13:59
|
|
|
Luxmore posted:I'm sorry to possibly repeat a question here, but is there seriously no groundglass at all in those things? Um, I wikipedia's ground glass and I am still not sure what it is! Both the picture taking lens and the lens you look through have glass in them? It's not the clearest glass (at least the lens you look through isn't) and my eyes are pretty bad. It's odd that you can twist either lens (they are coupled by a gear teeth) to focus (focus distance printed on the ring of the viewfinder lens) but any change in focus is not visible in the viewfinder lens. I am very interested to see how the film turns out. My guess is the photos will all be horrible, especially since it is 200. The whole idea of trying to focus without being able to see what you are doing is frustrating and probably a whole lot more trouble than it is worth. My little fisheye lomo has a fixed focus, so it isn't even an issue! I sort of wish this new one was the same way!
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2008 20:13
|
|
|
Well, back from my local camera shoppe. I can literally walk to it in about 90 seconds from my front door. It is way too easy to pick up used nikkor lenses when I am bored. The gentleman there said that they could do a print of the entire width of the film, sprocket holes and all, but it would be quite a bit more expensive, maybe $1.00 a print. He advised I have them printed normally, and then if there was a particular print I liked I would still have the negatives. Good idea. We then got into a very long conversation about the BW400CN film versus regular black and white film (I don't know poo poo about film or film processing btw) so I ended up getting two rolls of the BW400CN and two rolls of TRI-X 400TX, which is a regular black and white. Now I am sitting here with no film in my fisheye lomo and no idea which one to try first! As we both pointed out, all this debate was a bit much considering the cameras I am using. It's more of a question of grain vs. no grain I gather. I am going to go macro the gently caress out of the Blackbird, Fly now. Maybe that will help clear up the glass issue? http://www.flickr.com/photos/skibler/3142234186/in/photostream/ other people fucked around with this message at 21:27 on Dec 27, 2008 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2008 20:48
|
|
|
If cost is a matter for you, getting true B&W done commercially can be really expensive. Getting the C41 black and white done is alot cheaper and more common. I drop it off at a slightly more expensive local camera store that does their Kodak C41 BW with a cooler tint to them and they come out really ace.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2008 21:24
|
|
|
Kaluza-Klein posted:Um, I wikipedia's ground glass and I am still not sure what it is! TLRs with waist-level finders, like the Blackbird, generally have focussing screens made of ground glass that see through the viewing lens, whose focus is coupled to the taking lens.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2008 00:44
|
|
|
dunno posted:TLRs with waist-level finders, like the Blackbird, generally have focussing screens made of ground glass that see through the viewing lens, whose focus is coupled to the taking lens. Ah, well maybe Luxmore was confused because I said "you cant see it". There is a viewfinder with a lens (plastic?), a mirror, and then the screen you look through just has etchings on it to denote the various frame sizes. Rotating the viewfinder lens (to focus) also rotates the "taking" lens. But what I was really trying to say is that the image in the view finder does not change as you adjust focus. So whether you are focused on 0.8m or infinity (this cameras limits) the viewfinder image looks exactly the same. Carrying a range finder and light meter for using this thing seems a bit extreme! I really like that you can expose for as long as you want, I can't wait to see how the photos look. One giant nit-pick is that the shutter works regardless of whether you have wound the film on from the previous shot. I guess that means you can do lots of neat double exposures deliberately, but it also means (if you are like me) if you forget to wind you are double exposing things you may not want to. I think I have some triple exposures on this roll!
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2008 03:59
|
|
|
Kaluza-Klein posted:Rotating the viewfinder lens (to focus) also rotates the "taking" lens. But what I was really trying to say is that the image in the view finder does not change as you adjust focus. So whether you are focused on 0.8m or infinity (this cameras limits) the viewfinder image looks exactly the same. Still a pretty cool looking camera.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2008 05:20
|
|
|
Luxmore posted:It's pretty weird that they bothered to couple the lenses if you can't see the focus, but I guess it's more ironic that way? If you can actually see what's going on you won't be doing ART, man!  edit: I was going to ebay this, but I'll throw it out here. If anybody wants a Pentax SL with 55/1.8 in very good shape (brand new lightseals, lens nice and clean) send me a PM or IM me (in profile). I'll let it go for a good deal. It's basically a Spotmatic without meter, very compact and as close to a rangefinder as I've ever used in an SLR. Nice bright viewfinder etc...
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2008 16:52
|
|
|
^^The Pentax SL sounds really cool.. I sort of want it, but I already have two cameras. And now to my post which I've been meaning to make for a while now. Posted in the Camera Gear thread, but got redirected here then never got around to reposting. Anyhow, over Thanksgiving I was at my uncle's house and had brought my SRT-101 to take pictures. Then my uncle sees it and says to he has something for me, and comes back with a leather camera case, containing a Minolta X-700, three extra lenses (28/2.8 wide angle, 80-200/4.0 zoom, 35-75/3.5-4.8 zoom), and a flash, all in pristine condition. Pretty awesome. I haven't gotten a chance to go out with the X-700 (need to get it new batteries and find a PDF of the manual for all its nifty features), but I've played with some of the lenses on the SRT - I love that they're compatible. I just know nothing about using them, I've just had my one lens for so long. Another question I had, where would I be able to find a cable to use the flash (if possible) with the SRT, since it doesn't have a hot shoe like the X-700. And while I'm at it, I found a Nikomat FT in the basement, but according to my dad, something is probably irreparably wrong with it and that's it not worth dealing with because Nikomats are just lovely Nikons and that my SRT-101 is vastly superior anyway. Is it even worth looking into? Last part of my bloated post. In the past year, I've seen two Rite Aid photo centers near my campus close down, both of which have delivered gorgeous prints. So I found a CVS nearby that did film. Both times I've gone there I've gotten totally lovely prints, first time I thought it was my film, second time it was the same quality (offset by half a centimeter, and blue-green tinge to most of the pictures, and the blacks weren't really that black, sort of washed out). I mentioned this the to lady, and she tried to tell me it was my Fuji film, and that I should have gone with Kodak, even though my previous Fuji prints have been fantastic. Example:  Then she said that they don't always use the best film in disposable cameras. No one calls my vintage SLR a disposable!  So yeah, everything except saying that they just had a crappy machine. So I'm wondering, would this problem be just in the prints, or would the negatives be affected too? Because I would like to have these rolls redeveloped.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2008 02:05
|
|
|
Most likely the negs are fine and they just botched the printing. I sometimes drop a roll of C41 off at the local places and the prints are never particularly good, but if I scan the negs they're just fine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2008 02:13
|
|
|
Their chemistry might be out of date, that's a pretty big problem with stores that don't get a lot of film going through their machines.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2008 02:32
|
|
|
Well, I got around to trying a roll of Ektar 100 today. I drove up to Mt. Hamilton in San Jose where there is currently snow, which is a real novelty for the bay area. I thought it would be a nice place to test, with snow, blue skies, foliage, dark interiors, etc. I had it processed at Costco and the Noritsu machine hosed up the scans and the prints. I am thinking I will just use Costco for developing from now on and skip the prints. There are lines and marks running through the scans and the prints. They are just prints of the Noritsu scans which look like crap anyways. Anyways, back to the film. The grain is really tight. Even on the crap scans I can barely see any grain. It's a very saturated, contrasty film. Foliage really pops. It actually doesn't seem to have as much latitude as I am used to with color neg film but that's just my initial perception. It sort of looks like Ektachrome. All in all, I really like it. I will try to scan and post some actual examples. The picture themselves are crap unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2008 02:55
|
|
|
I had a similar experience with dropping a roll off at a BJ's Wholesale; crappy low-rez scans and they seemed to have made the prints from the scans. On a related note I'm saddened because the only place that does in-house processing anymore around me is a pro-lab that's high quality but really expensive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2008 04:57
|
|
|
Authentic You posted:but I already have two cameras. Hahahaha, just wait. Along with the manual, a 50mm f/1.7, a Vivitar 70-210 zoom, a 2X teleconverter, and some assorted filters, I also found the original sales receipt (he paid $300 with some film after a $4 coupon) with some handwritten notes on the back about how aperture/depth of field work  Edit 2: Some more searching and it turns out the X700 uses the same batteries as my Olympus XA. Swapped them in, gently jiggled the shutter a bit with my finger, and bam, mirror comes down, camera starts right back up. poo poo, I missed having a split-prism for focusing. Shutter sounds pretty much like a gunshot, which is satisfying in its own way but not very conducive to being unobtrusive. Pompous Rhombus fucked around with this message at 06:00 on Dec 29, 2008 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2008 05:21
|
|
|
Is there some rule that concerts have to use absolutely nothing but backlighting... I had to manually focus on most shots too (EOS 1N) I shot some Tri-X at ISO 3200 and a roll of Delta 3200 saturday - developed in T-Max.  Tri-X  Delta 3200 (developed for 6400) with flash How does T-Max P3200 hold up compared to Delta 3200? I noticed the great dev-chart has times for up to ISO 25600, I assume at such high speeds it would be extremely grainy even compared to 6400? e: I've also been thinking about getting a proper medium-format camera, if I get a Yashica TLR does that have a light-meter? I'd prefer to get something with at least a needle giving some indication of availible light.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2008 18:00
|
|
|
longview posted:e: I've also been thinking about getting a proper medium-format camera, if I get a Yashica TLR does that have a light-meter? I'd prefer to get something with at least a needle giving some indication of availible light. My Yashica-Mat 124G does. I don't trust it though. Get something like: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/200224-REG/Sekonic_401_208_L_208_Twin_Mate_Meter.html I'm sure there are much cheaper ones out there, that's just the first I saw.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2008 18:17
|
|
|
My 124G has been pretty decent, but it's a very basic meter. For important stuff I bracket the hell out of it, and when it comes to film costs I probably would have been better off getting a dedicated meter sooner than later.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2008 18:31
|
|
|
I'd like to get into film - 35mm but also medium format. Do you recommend going down the 35mm format first? I was thinking of getting a used F5 or F6 (although they're expensive), but then maybe I should just get something super cheap since I'm not sure how often I will really use it. I have no idea how the different films perform so I guess that would just be something I would have to experiment with. In terms of medium format, would any of my current Nikon F-mount lenses work, or would I have to get something specific to medium format? I basically know nothing about this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2008 18:47
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:I'd like to get into film - 35mm but also medium format. Do you recommend going down the 35mm format first? I was thinking of getting a used F5 or F6 (although they're expensive), but then maybe I should just get something super cheap since I'm not sure how often I will really use it. I went straight into medium format and haven't regretted it at all. No F mount lenses would be suitable for medium format. Well, I suppose you could modify a PC lens with a huge imaging circle, but I don't think that would be practical at all. Get a cheap TLR or medium format rangefinder and see how you like it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2008 18:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 11:12 |
|
|
think about DX on an FX body, that's kind of how an full frame lens would be on a medium format body. At best you'd get a circle of light surrounded by black in the middle of the negative. Also the mounts aren't compatible. People do use medium format lenses on 35mm bodies though. Usually they pair them with a tilt-shift adapter to make use of the wider imaging circle (otherwise it's basically wasted). If you want to go film I'd recommend a TLR. Cheap, you can get excellent quality glass if you buy the right model, simple, and medium format is always nice. Plus, square is a great format. Don't worry about fancy things like a meter. Just buy a solid older TLR on eBay, budget the money to have it adjusted professionally so the shutter and everything are rock solid, and use an external light meter (or your D3). Medium format is much more fun than 35mm in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2008 19:03
|
|
