|
Stregone posted:So lately I have been kinda stagnant with my (digital) photography, so I decided to change things up and try out an old film camera. I got the camera and a small pile of lenses for like 200 bucks on ebay. I think I have the controls mastered, and successfully loaded my first roll of film. Can't wait to try it out tomorrow! Why do old cameras look so much sexier and robust, design wise, than anything digital? I mean, the sony a900 comes close, but the A-1 is just beautiful
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2009 11:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 21:34 |
|
|
Here are some scans from contact sheets that I just picked up for my LF Speed Graphic. Unfortunately, I spent the same amount on 20 negs/contact sheets as I would have on a single decent studio light, so this is it for my LF for a while. When I come back to it, I will likely be armed with my own dark lab and LF enlarger. Edit: I would love some critique on my shots too, I am always looking to improve. Swami's in Encinitas, CA. Year round surf spot, but the locals don't like visitors. They seemed cool with my 50 year old camera though.  Playing around with the camera, thought I might end up with a wallpaper or AI image post out of this one.  A Neighbor's house. I really like the DoF on this, everything is in focus.  Another shot of the same beach area. This one came out a little dark, but the graphlex is un unforgiving bitch sometimes. 
hybr1d fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Feb 5, 2009 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2009 21:30
|
|
|
Starting to get a feel for my new mamiya. Now getting acceptable results from the MF film being done in my bathroom, heh. Tri-X @ 200 in HC-110 dilution H for 6 minutes dunno fucked around with this message at 11:01 on Feb 8, 2009 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2009 23:07
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Why do old cameras look so much sexier and robust, design wise, than anything digital? I mean, the sony a900 comes close, but the A-1 is just beautiful Because they are sexier and more robust. Anything you see in use today was built to last.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2009 23:09
|
|
|
dunno posted:Because they are sexier and more robust. Anything you see in use today was built to last. To me that camera looks like it should have one of those cheesy name tags that reads, "hello, my name is I'M MADE OF METAL!!!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2009 23:33
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:To me that camera looks like it should have one of those cheesy name tags that reads, "hello, my name is I'M MADE OF METAL!!!" BLACK METAL  I'd love to see Nikon or Canon make "retro" editions of their current DSLRs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2009 23:42
|
|
|
My d90 would be so sweet in brushed aluminum/magnesium. Plus I could clobber peons with it. When you think about it though, quite a few DSLRs have metal housings, they're just covered in plastic and rubbery compounds.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2009 23:49
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:My d90 would be so sweet in brushed aluminum/magnesium. Plus I could clobber peons with it. I mean it would be cool if they made versions with squared-off corners, retro knobs, old-school typefaces and all that. But then again on second thought they would probably sell a grand total of three of them since it would be all cosmetic changes, and expensive ones at that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2009 23:51
|
|
|
Injection-molded plastic is the same cheapness that makes the cameras affordable. Sure, the companies aren't doing too poorly on margin, but keep in mind many of the cameras still alive today sold for quite a bit more than low-end DSLRs do today.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2009 00:11
|
|
|
HPL posted:I mean it would be cool if they made versions with squared-off corners, retro knobs, old-school typefaces and all that. Nikon introduced a new mechanical (plus Aperture priority autoexposure), manual focus big-hunk-of-metal SLR in 2003, the FM3a. The ludicrous backwards compatibility of the Nikon lens library helped a bit. They only discontinued them in 2006.  There would totally be a market for something like that but with a digital sensor, but I doubt people would settle for less than FX, and that would be necessarily pricey. They're also starting to introduce primes with no aperture ring :\ Edit: The FM3a was $500ish, and the crap plastic bodied outsourced FM-10 can be grabbed new with a kit lens for about $300. Edit, again: Also, the Epson RD 1, an older digital range-finder had a manual shutter cock in place of the usual shutter cock/film advance. But of course, this is the film thread, so long live silver halide. dunno fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Feb 6, 2009 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2009 00:14
|
|
|
sinc posted:In my opinion the wide latitude is one of the major advantages of B&W negative, and you're pretty much throwing it away with 8 bit. It's much like whether you shoot RAW or JPEG with a digital camera, except even more significant. The range of values in a digital B+W file is always from pure black to pure white, and an 8bit file won't give you less range than a 16bit file. An 8bit file will have fewer steps within the range, but this doesn't make too big of a difference as long as you're not doing severe adjustments to the tones. Anyway I do agree with sync and others that you should keep it in 16bit if you can at least until you're done editing. It's true that a B+W negative has a huge tonal range, but your scanner's Dmax will be your limiting factor here no matter what kind of file you use. Check this out: http://photo.net/learn/drange/ gib fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Feb 6, 2009 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2009 00:28
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Why do old cameras look so much sexier and robust, design wise, than anything digital? I mean, the sony a900 comes close, but the A-1 is just beautiful Older cameras are definitely more angular and "serious" looking. That said, I still get weak in my knees when I look at my 1Ds Mark II. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2009 02:33
|
|
|
Chiming in to agree, cameras with angles, hard edges, and black metal are just so much sexier than modern cameras. The antithesis of classic camera design, the ugliest camera ever, the Leica R8: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2009 02:36
|
|
|
I would absolutely love it if Nikon came out with a digital version of the F3 but I doubt it will ever happen. Put in a 12 MP FX sensor, get rid of all the LCDs and have it controlled solely but dials and buttons. A manual shutter cock would be great. I would pay $2000 for one of those.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2009 02:39
|
|
|
killabyte posted:I would absolutely love it if Nikon came out with a digital version of the F3 but I doubt it will ever happen. You and about eight other people, and that's unfortunately why we'll never see cameras like this.  I want a nice Leica M series back based on that 14MP (maybe it was 12, been a while) monochrome FF sensor I saw one company offering. No LCD or anything, just a switch to set ISO. I'd pay $2000 for THAT.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2009 02:48
|
|
|
killabyte posted:I would absolutely love it if Nikon came out with a digital version of the F3 but I doubt it will ever happen. I support this only because it would make Ken Rockwell's head explode.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2009 02:48
|
|
|
Unfortunately the closest we'll ever get is the Epson RD-1.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2009 02:49
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:They're forgiven for this monstrosity because M's are beautiful. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2009 03:30
|
|
|
Some of the lenses I got are a little grungy, what is the best way to clean them up?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2009 04:30
|
|
|
Spent 8 hours in the darkroom today, first time in over a year, and it all came flooding back. Developed and printed contact sheets for 9 rolls of film, a ton of different types which was a pain. Havent made any enlargments yet but hot drat it felt good, also 35mm Efke 25 negatives are so loving beautiful, its like shooting medium format film or something jesus its like the resolution does not end.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2009 05:49
|
|
|
johnasavoia posted:35mm Efke 25 wanted to try this for so long, but i just hate shooting low iso film
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2009 06:03
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:wanted to try this for so long, but i just hate shooting low iso film it wasnt so bad, i was shooting my usual street stuff with it, 50/1.7 at f2 and f4 and I was getting 1/500ish in sunlight, out of two rolls only a half dozen shots were shaky blurred, I usually never dip below 400 speed film but this and a roll of delta100 someone gave me came out so loving nice. I have one more roll of the 25, thinking of running it with my 24/2
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2009 06:14
|
|
|
Lowest I normally shoot is 100, and that's only in MF. With 35mm, I almost never go below 400, and usually end up pushing my TX to 800-1250. Maybe I should try shooting a slower film.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2009 06:16
|
|
|
More classic camera porn, a Praktica B200: I use two of these bodies with a 2.8/28, 1.8/50, 2.8/135 and 4-5.6/70-210. Got all of my equipment, including several fancy flashes for under 100 euros. Tukker fucked around with this message at 11:21 on Feb 6, 2009 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2009 11:18
|
|
|
Perhaps one of those people that crams modern game systems and PCs and whatever else into old NES casings and the like can figure out a way to make an F4/F3/whatever with digital guts. That'd be spiffy aftermarket stuff. It would undoubtedly, somehow, be illegal, as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2009 09:28
|
|
|
pwn posted:Perhaps one of those people that crams modern game systems and PCs and whatever else into old NES casings and the like can figure out a way to make an F4/F3/whatever with digital guts. That'd be spiffy aftermarket stuff. It would undoubtedly, somehow, be illegal, as well. http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonf3ver2/variations/index.htm#DCS We've already had one, sort of. I know what you mean though. I can't help but think it would be possible, but it wouldn't be something I'd want to try.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2009 13:46
|
|
|
I still think it would be feasible to make a digital 35mm "roll of film"- a self contained digital exposure system that looked and loaded in the camera like a 35mm film roll. Triggering the system that an exposure had taken place might be a bit tricky, older cameras with an "F" flash trigger would be able to give the digital film a heads up but "X" synch might not give it enough time. The other hioldup is that the big camera companies with the resources to do this aren't going to be very intere$ted in making their old already purchased many years ago cameras capable of the same imagery that their new yet to be purcha$ed cameras do. Might be a good project for a film maker like Polaroid to look into, assuming they haven't gone compleatly tango uniform.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2009 18:56
|
|
|
i.e a digital back for 35mm? Some MF digital backs trigger from the X sync cable, so that bit is certainly possible. Polaroid have sort of been saved. A company has bought all the stock, warehouses, trademarks and knowledge. I think they plan to recommence production in 2010. I'm all geared up for my 4 hours in the darkroom tomorrow! I've been looking forwards to this for ages, got some FP4 to process and some paper to print on. Hooray!
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2009 19:31
|
|
|
If anyone wants cheap b&w film, this is repackaged tri-x, and this is plus-x, I just bought 30 rolls of the 400
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2009 21:18
|
|
|
johnasavoia posted:If anyone wants cheap b&w film, this is repackaged tri-x, and this is plus-x, I just bought 30 rolls of the 400 btw this is repackaged fuji neopan 400, and the 100 is supposedly acros! (Also available in bulk rolls, which is cool since Neopan is no longer available that way) Also, gnomad, that very idea was bandied about in the early 2000's, and was mere months from market when its investors pulled out. I'll see if I can remember more info on it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2009 21:50
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:btw [) I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the big 3 camera co's have thought of it, patented the crap out of it and then buried it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2009 22:51
|
|
|
What is a recommended 1600 speed black and white 35mm film? I see Fuji Neopan 1600 at Freestyle, that is all they have.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2009 23:54
|
|
Associate Christ
|
Gnomad posted:I still think it would be feasible to make a digital 35mm "roll of film"- a self contained digital exposure system that looked and loaded in the camera like a 35mm film roll. Triggering the system that an exposure had taken place might be a bit tricky, older cameras with an "F" flash trigger would be able to give the digital film a heads up but "X" synch might not give it enough time. A company called E-film looked into that a few years ago. It never went any where. would be cool though. I wish someone would put out a small full frame high resolution Black and white DSLR (or rangefinder).
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2009 05:27
|
|
|
Kaluza-Klein posted:What is a recommended 1600 speed black and white 35mm film? I see Fuji Neopan 1600 at Freestyle, that is all they have. I've shot neopan 1600 and love it to death, tri-x at 1600 is also pretty nice, contrastier and less shadow detail, you can also pull delta 3200 or tmax 3200 to 1600, though I've never used either. (also the second two only work if you develop yourself, most labs dont do push processing)
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2009 05:34
|
|
|
Kaluza-Klein posted:What is a recommended 1600 speed black and white 35mm film? I see Fuji Neopan 1600 at Freestyle, that is all they have. Tri-X looks decent enough at 1600. Its pretty contrasty, but so is a lot of the subject matter you need 1600 for, heh.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2009 05:35
|
|
|
TokenBrit posted:i.e a digital back for 35mm? Some MF digital backs trigger from the X sync cable, so that bit is certainly possible. MF cameras generally have fancy pants leaf shutters that sync at any speed though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2009 05:37
|
|
|
I just realized something wonderful about negative scanning. Apologies if this is already well known. step 1: scan B&W 35mm film at 3200 dpi, 48-bit color with no auto correction, save as TIFF step 2: open Bridge CS3 and find that image step 3: right click, Open in Camera Raw Voila! Camera Raw treats those huge TIFF scans just like they came from a fancy digital camera. Just made processing these scans vastly easier. johnasavoia posted:If anyone wants cheap b&w film, this is repackaged tri-x, and this is plus-x, I just bought 30 rolls of the 400 ... you just saved me a ton of money for an upcoming project. Best post ever. Dr. Cogwerks fucked around with this message at 10:44 on Feb 8, 2009 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2009 10:39
|
|
is go
|
Dr. Cogwerks posted:step 1: scan B&W 35mm film at 3200 dpi, 48-bit color with no auto correction, save as TIFF Does this work for plain old 16-bit grayscale tiffs? All that data is pretty useless for bw... I usually end up doing most of my processing in lightroom, and lately I've been so lazy/hard up for storage that I've been scanning 8-bit at 1200 dpi and making jpegs. I can't really do archival quality scans without a better film holder and a scanner with a higher Dmax any ways.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2009 11:01
|
|
|
dunno posted:Does this work for plain old 16-bit grayscale tiffs? All that data is pretty useless for bw... I'll have to test that. That extra bit of color data can be helpful for making B&W's seem a little more lively, I think. I kinda hate pure grayscale, it usually looks painfully cold on most uncalibrated monitors. One major problem still is that the school's big Epson 1680 has some really noticeable scratches in the glass that inevitably cause blurry refracted lines in every fifth negative or so, but other than that, I'm pretty happy with how it's been working. Dr. Cogwerks fucked around with this message at 12:25 on Feb 8, 2009 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2009 12:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 21:34 |
|
|
Any recommendations on some Canadian online stores that sell b&w and color 120 film for cheap? For color print is fine and preferable, not looking to get into slide quite yet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2009 19:33
|
|
