|
HPL posted:What scanner? Oops, forgot to mention that  Epson V500
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2009 02:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 05:53 |
|
|
HPL posted:Went out and got an EOS-1000FN. Basic as heck, but it autofocuses fast enough, goes to ISO 6400 and I don't have to futz around with sprockets when loading film. It's also super light. This plus the good 'ol plastic 50mm f/1.8 makes for a combo that's so light it practically floats out of my hands. It's awesome how light/compact they can be, and the low cost means I don't feel nervous putting it in risky situations (crime, water, etc). The 50mm f/1.8 + Rebel 2000 is great for tossing in my backpack whenever I'm going out. The rest of my lenses are full frame too, but I've never really shot much with them on film.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2009 15:52
|
|
|
pseudonordic posted:Oops, forgot to mention that Nice. I've been looking around for a V500 but of course now that I'm actually looking for one, the price got jacked up $25. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2009 19:37
|
|
|
HPL posted:Nice. I've been looking around for a V500 but of course now that I'm actually looking for one, the price got jacked up $25. I got mine from B&H, but I had a $100 gift card from Christmas  It's $175 at B&H but it's back-ordered again. I waited 3 weeks for it to be in stock again before I could order it. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2009 20:32
|
|
|
My local Office Depot has the V500 for $170, $30 off regular. Dunno about the stock situation, but it might be worth a look. In other news, picked up a few odds and ends off the dollar table at the local pawnshop. One of them was a film container marked "Koda 64", which oddly enough contained a roll of Kodachrome 64. What should I do with this? I have no clue about how old it might be. Ideas anyone?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2009 22:14
|
|
|
Gnomad posted:
Sell it to some one for two dollars! Profit!
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2009 22:48
|
|
|
I just got a changing bag in the mail. I am a bit confused by it. I had sort of imagined that the arm holes had gloves inside, but they are actually just holes. There is elastic to keep the holes closed around your arms, but really how light-tight could that be? Should I still work in a dark place when loading film in this? At least it will be a lot easier working inside the bag with my bare hands.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2009 23:31
|
|
Associate Christ
|
Kaluza-Klein posted:I just got a changing bag in the mail. I am a bit confused by it. It's light tight enough. I never had any issues with light leaks. Just don't take your arms out of the holes without putting the film in the tank. Occasionally I would get frustrated trying to load a roll on to a reel and would need to take a break (usually happened with crap plastic reels).
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2009 00:05
|
|
|
It's been mentioned before but let's mention it again- make sure all the stuff is in the bag. Scissors, film container opener (I always used a bottle opener} film, tank, including top and bottom (doh!) and reel or reels. I use a steel tank that can hold 2 rolls but don't load up 2 at a time, but I put an empty reel on top of the other so it doesn't bang around when I've agitating. Plastic reels (Yankee Tanks and such) can work if everything is perfect and it's all you have, but steel is really the way to go.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2009 01:10
|
|
|
I'm so happy that I found this thread.  I just bought an Epson 4490 because I miss my film cameras so much (500cm, F4s, a beat to hell FED, and multiple holgas) and figured it was the best way to keep costs down in the long run. I won't be doing any self developing or printing because I just don't have the space at the moment, but just getting the developing done and doing the scanning and sending a few shots away for printing will be fine for now. I'm pretty impressed with what the Epson can do with the 35mm slides and 6x6 negatives I've scanned so far, but the options are little daunting. Does anyone know of a decent guide to getting the most out of this scanner? Googling just led me to a few photo.net and flickr discussions that weren't all that informative.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2009 01:19
|
|
|
Yay! New toys, courtesy of craigslist. $25 each (the 35 f/2 was mine already).
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2009 01:41
|
|
|
Nice find on both. I did find a canonet at the local Starvation Army but the shutter was stuck. So much working stuff follows me home lately that encouraging broken stuff to tag along seems a bit over the top. That Elan, IIRC, has the autofocus that follows your eyeball-that's a cool trick. It seems that all of the EF lenses I find at pawn shops and such all have EOS film cameras stuck on the end of them. One shop in particular has a EOS 630 stuck on the end of a 35-135 zoom that seems to be highly regarded, along with a Tamron 70-300 with a film Rebel stuck on the end. I may have to see what deal I can swing on those.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2009 02:53
|
|
|
I am really enjoying my Pentax MX so far. It's great to take on nature walks and what not. I love composing photos with it, thinking everything through and working out the details. I love the big, bright viewfinder. And then when you've got everything just so, you press the shutter button and there's a satisfying "clunk" sound from the mirror slapping and shutter working. It's like nature was just meant to be photographed with a mechanical camera. Of course, the downside is that I get the film developed and realize that I should have done this or that differently but it's too late now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2009 03:03
|
|
|
Aside from spending money on film and lenses, I also threw out a small bid on ebay for a Calumet 4x5. And I won it . $86 total. My wife is going to be pissed 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2009 15:54
|
|
|
pseudonordic posted:Aside from spending money on film and lenses, I also threw out a small bid on ebay for a Calumet 4x5. I highly recommend giving the print paper as negatives a try- although I didn't do it, my 4x5 negative development killed me for a while on my b&w budget. Getting 4x5 negs developed is far more expensive from labs than roll film, and the darkroom developing gear seems to be pretty pricey too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2009 17:24
|
|
|
hybr1d posted:I highly recommend giving the print paper as negatives a try- although I didn't do it, my 4x5 negative development killed me for a while on my b&w budget. Getting 4x5 negs developed is far more expensive from labs than roll film, and the darkroom developing gear seems to be pretty pricey too. I'm fortunate in having options here. There's a local shop that will develop B&W 4x5 negatives for $1 a sheet (5 sheet min.) or I can use the shop's darkroom and gear to develop myself at $10/hr. They also have everything for enlargements should I decide to make prints from the negatives. It's a great place. Edit for more info: I talked to the owner and he wants to order some Shanghai film to test. He told me he'd rent me pre-loaded film holders for the 4x5 with a total cost of $5/holder. The $5 covers $1 per sheet of film, $1 for development per sheet of film and $0.50 loading fee per sheet. That pretty much covers his cost on a 50 sheet pack of ISO100 4x5 and lets him play with it while I learn on cheap film! Hooray! pseudonordic fucked around with this message at 02:59 on Feb 23, 2009 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2009 18:01
|
|
|
pseudonordic posted:Aside from spending money on film and lenses, I also threw out a small bid on ebay for a Calumet 4x5. I'd have it delivered to the office.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2009 18:30
|
|
|
Gnomad posted:I'd have it delivered to the office. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2009 21:06
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:That's just delaying the inevitable. I do the same thing with fly rods, then I lie about the cost being about a fifth of what it actually was, and she still yells at me. "What, you paid how much for a stick to catch fish?" If only she knew...
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2009 21:29
|
|
|
Armed Neutrality posted:I do the same thing with fly rods, then I lie about the cost being about a fifth of what it actually was, and she still yells at me. "What, you paid how much for a stick to catch fish?" If only she knew...
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2009 23:45
|
|
|
I am about to develop my first roll of film :o. It was actually quite easy to load the film in the loading bag. You guys made it sound so difficult :/. Anyway, I am reading the howto on chromogenic.net as well as the one on the first page of this thread. The chromogenic fellow advises to pre-soak the film, before using the developer. The post on page 1 makes no mention of this. What should I do?!?!?! "1) Pre-soak. To start, all you have to do here is put some water in the tank and let it sit for a minute, then pour it out. 120 film should be soaked a few minutes longer than 35mm, and when you pour out the water it’ll probably be dark green or blue. I suspect this is because of the paper backing rubbing up against the film because there’s no difference between the emulsion used in different film sizes. Either way, don’t worry about it." edit: Well doing a quick google, it seems the general consensus is that you probably don't have to pre soak with modern films, but a lot of people still do it. I am a lazy buggar so I am opting not to. I have the developer in the tank right now!!!!! This is going to be a long eleven minutes! other people fucked around with this message at 00:56 on Feb 23, 2009 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2009 00:32
|
|
|
I've never done a pre-soak. Can't even think of why you would with B/W. Found a Nikkormat FTn (I think it's an n, just has a needle for the light meter) at a pawn shop. $50 with a short Vivitar zoom. They also have a 50mm Nikkor f2 for $25. I wonder it I should wheel and deal 'em, or do I have too many cameras already?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2009 01:15
|
|
|
My film is drying :o. It was Ilford 3200, which is something I don't plan on using normally. I had it in a toy camera with a 33mm lens, 1/125 shutter speed, and a choice of 7 or 11 aperture. Not a set of combinations I can claim to be familiar with. So I was not even sure if anything is going to show up, even if developed in a real lab. I am happy to say that there is visible exposure on the film, so I did something right! Now I just have to wait for it to dry. . . I tried to use some Photo-Flo and ended up making a giant bubbly mess. It suggests 1 part photo-flo to 200 parts water. I didn't have any tiny syringes to measure that out, so I just did my best to add a few drops. I imagine I added a bit too much. Anyway, it just resulted in me having to wash the film off excessively. I don't think I have "hard water", so hopefully I won't get many/any spots. All in all, it was much easier than I was expecting. I do need to grab some more exacting measuring devices from work. Trying to measure out 32.5ml with a beaker that is marked every 50ml is pretty futile. All my cameras are loaded with Ilford 400 now, so the next batch will hopefully be a bit more exciting to work with.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2009 01:46
|
|
|
Congrats! It's always exciting when you take the film off the reel, peeking at it, wondering if there are images, or if your dreams have been crushed. Um, what I mean to say is film developing is pretty fun and I'm glad you like it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2009 01:51
|
|
|
Gnomad posted:I've never done a pre-soak. Can't even think of why you would with B/W. Helps with getting the purple crap (aka anti-halation backing) off some Kodak films.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2009 02:10
|
|
|
With 35mm film I don't bother, but I do a quick presoak with medium format film. Also, I've mixed up ~1L of photoflo and just been using that. When I'm ready to hang the film to dry I pour photoflo into the tank (without the lid on) then let it sit for a minute or so until all the bubbles go away. Then, I take it out and let it dry.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2009 02:40
|
|
|
I've never pre-soaked film, 35mm or 120, but I might start now just to see if there's any difference. I've found you can get rid of some of the odder anti-halation backing colours by leaving the film in the sun for a day on a windowsill. As for measuring for small quantities I went and bought a set of syringes. It's the same way for rodinal, there aren't many graduated cylinders that will let you accurately get a 1:50 ratio when you're mixing up 500ml.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2009 09:19
|
|
|
Anyone own a Leica M and need an ltm adapter? I've got a voigtlander 50/75 one I don't need I could let go pretty cheap... Adapter, Jupiter 8, and 52mm Heliopan UV/IR filter for sale 365 Nog Hogger fucked around with this message at 11:48 on Feb 26, 2009 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2009 04:57
|
|
|
Has anyone here used anything like those automatic film developers like the ATL 1500 or whatever? Not going to buy one, just curious how it worked out for you folks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2009 07:36
|
|
|
I am about to develop some Ilford HP5+ with Ilfosol 3. The massive dev chart lists either 1+9 for 6.5 minutes or 1+14 for 11 minutes. Is there a preference here? I imagine each produces it's own look?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2009 22:24
|
|
|
Kaluza-Klein posted:I am about to develop some Ilford HP5+ with Ilfosol 3. The massive dev chart lists either 1+9 for 6.5 minutes or 1+14 for 11 minutes. You should get pretty similar looking results between the two. Extremely low dilutions can have a compensating effect (where highlights won't clog up because any developer near them has been chemically exhausted), but the usual reasons for using a weaker dilution is more accurate timing (its easier to always get within 5% of 10 minutes than 5 minutes) and developer economy if its being used 1-shot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2009 22:42
|
|
|
I went for the eleven minute develop. I just hung them up to dry, they look gorgeous so far! I used a syringe to get half a dozen small drops of the wetting agent in at the end of the wash. It did not explode into a mountain of bubbles this time, thank god. What is a an acceptable drying time? Is four hours cutting it too short? I want to get them under the scanner! Doh, I just realized I forgot to save the fixer. I could have reused that, right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2009 00:48
|
|
|
Kaluza-Klein posted:What is a an acceptable drying time? Is four hours cutting it too short? I want to get them under the scanner! Dry them until dry -- i.e. no water beads or moisture. The time depends on the environment. As for the fixer, yes, you can reuse it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2009 02:23
|
|
|
While cleaning up around the house, I found an Argus C3 and a roll of C41 BW film, so I took it as a sign and ran the film through the old Argus. Since I was burning some vacation time, I spent a couple hours tromping through new snow up at Hatchers Pass, 50 miles north of Anchorage and the playground of southcentral Alaska.  
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2009 06:00
|
|
|
Gnomad posted:While cleaning up around the house, I found an Argus C3 and a roll of C41 BW film, so I took it as a sign and ran the film through the old Argus. Since I was burning some vacation time, I spent a couple hours tromping through new snow up at Hatchers Pass, 50 miles north of Anchorage and the playground of southcentral Alaska. I like these! Good job!
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2009 06:03
|
|
|
One more from Hatcher Pass- And one from the banks of the Matanuska River, a cold afternoon.  Not too shabby for an old camera. I've owned it for 20 years and it was old when I picked it up at a yard sale, along with another one, for $5 or so. I figure it's roughly 50 years old? I am so tempted to run a roll of Kodachrome through it. I just happen to have a roll that I bought in a dollar bag at a pawn shop, who knows what the vintage of that film is?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2009 06:08
|
|
|
I'm a photographer, and I recently got a whole bunch of slides and ancient negatives from my grandpa. I noticed that some of the slides, the really old ones, were done on real glass and with a metal frame. This poo poo does NOT degrade, I scanned these slides and they look like they could've been taken yesterday. Keep in mind this photo is from the mid/late 40s...  And an old slide I found of the happiest place on earth around 60 years ago... 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2009 11:24
|
|
|
Nedsmaster posted:And an old slide I found of the happiest place on earth around 60 years ago... Holy crap- that's what it looked like when I was a kid. For those not local, the holes in the Matterhorn have been long since filled in since they closed the Skyway. It's been closed for nearly 10 years. Cool find on the negatives- my Grandfather took photos of archeological dig items here in Southern California, but unfortunately was a poor note taker.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2009 20:48
|
|
|
Nedsmaster posted:I'm a photographer, and I recently got a whole bunch of slides and ancient negatives from my grandpa. I noticed that some of the slides, the really old ones, were done on real glass and with a metal frame. This poo poo does NOT degrade, I scanned these slides and they look like they could've been taken yesterday. Keep in mind this photo is from the mid/late 40s... Kodachrome eh? That stuff won't degrade for a century or so..
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2009 03:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 05:53 |
|
|
From what I keep reading, they won't be making it forever. Kodak seems to make one run of it a year these days and only 1 place in the world still processes it? The end of Kodachrome brings us one sign closer to the apocalypse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2009 03:42
|
|