|
All depends on what you're loading. For example, if you were to load 400tx, that's not terribly efficient since buying arista premium per roll is about the same price.
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2009 02:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 19:17 |
|
|
gib posted:In a lesser forum, asking if Leicas are worth it would likely cause some sort of shitstorm. This is what everyone who hasn't owned one says. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2009 02:39
|
|
|
I spent 2 days lovingly printing my photographs for a portfolio using split filters and tons of dodging and burning to learn that they want a CD. gently caress my life
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2009 02:57
|
|
|
a Wizards dick posted:I spent 2 days lovingly printing my photographs for a portfolio using split filters and tons of dodging and burning to learn that they want a CD. gently caress my life what the hell is wrong with them? on the upside you gots some nice prints now! (what's that? film thread print exchange?)
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2009 02:58
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:what the hell is wrong with them?  I printed this one all nice-like with real dodging and burning this time. I have 3 copies I guess htis is somewhat preferable, but I really wish I hadn't wasted my time because I have 4 days left to scan negatives for this portfolio.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2009 03:02
|
|
|
Gnomad posted:I found out the hard way that Canon EOS cameras suck the whole roll back into the cassette.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2009 10:59
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:what's that? film thread print exchange?) That actually sounds like a lot of fun. I rotate my prints frequently in a number of frames in my living room, and it'd be fun to swap up some prints with other people!
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2009 19:58
|
|
|
hybr1d posted:Can anyone tell what model camera this is? Pretty sure it's an M7, because I don't think the M6 reads DX coding. gib posted:Short answer is no, they're not worth it (especially new). They are, however, very nice. None of their competitors are solid-feeling (or heavy) and they have a certain M body cachet. They are extremely reliable since most of them are all-mechanical and well-made, but they do need periodic expensive service. Leica do make some incredible lenses for their rangefinders, but the prices on those are again a bit silly and you can use them just as well on a Bessa/Ikon/Hexar (Japanese made cameras with the same lens mount). By "periodic expensive service" you're referring to about $100-200 every ten years so it's not that bad. If you don't need the features (metering, AE, wide framelines) of the competition, there is no reason not to get a used Leica. Really I think it makes more sense to get a BGN M2 or M3 and pair it with Canon and Voigtlander lenses. Pretty much the same optical quality, but the body quality is that much better.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2009 10:35
|
|
|
I tried this in the general thread but didn't get an answer: Anyone have any recommendations for a place to send out 35mm film for hi-res scanning? I'd like to get some big prints made of film stuff, and not sure what to look for. It'll probably be like 10-15 pictures, none of them are mounted slides if that matters.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2009 14:03
|
|
|
breathstealer posted:By "periodic expensive service" you're referring to about $100-200 every ten years so it's not that bad. If you don't need the features (metering, AE, wide framelines) of the competition, there is no reason not to get a used Leica. Really I think it makes more sense to get a BGN M2 or M3 and pair it with Canon and Voigtlander lenses. Pretty much the same optical quality, but the body quality is that much better. If you buy a camera used for $600 bucks, a $200 CLA is a big chunk of that. Agreed that a used M2/M3 is a way better deal than an $2k+ M7 or even a $1400 M6TTL, but meters and AE are pretty useful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2009 18:17
|
|
|
So I was at the local camera store today and they had a Vivitar 28mm f/2 K-mount. Hell yeah! Let me see it and make sure everything's working okay first. Hmmm. Aperture ring is kind of weird. What's up with that? Oh, are these aperture blades supposed to have these spots of oil on them? No? Broken diaphragm? What's that? Dammit!
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2009 00:41
|
|
|
Spotting negatives is the shittiest chore ever... are there any photoshop tricks that can help get rid of like 65% of the smaller bits so I can focus on the larger, hard-to-remove pieces?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2009 01:12
|
|
|
a Wizards dick posted:Spotting negatives is the shittiest chore ever... are there any photoshop tricks that can help get rid of like 65% of the smaller bits so I can focus on the larger, hard-to-remove pieces? dust and scratches? you lose some finer detail though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2009 03:18
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:dust and scratches? you lose some finer detail though. and it only works on c-41 negs
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2009 03:19
|
|
|
I'm cross-posting this in here and the post-processing thread, because I need help making scans of prints made from slides look as good as the prints. I know that Fuji doesn't make photographic paper for slide prints anymore so it must be prints from scans. But the prints look almost 3-dimensional, whereas the CD of scans I got from the same place - North Coast Photographic Services - look duller and flatter. I have been loving with them in curves in PS but I can't seem to make them pop like the prints. I am completely lost and while these aren't the world's greatest slides or landscapes, I'd really love to get them done and up and out in the world. I can't even show an example of the prints because ha-ha that's kinda the whole problem here. Hopefully somebody with experience in this specific area can help me. Edit: It just occurred to me that the first paragraph may be confusing. These are scans of the transparencies, not the prints of them. The prints are what looks good, the scans do not. pwn fucked around with this message at 03:43 on Mar 12, 2009 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2009 03:40
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:and it only works on c-41 negs I think he means the dust and scratches tool in photoshop as opposed to infrared dust removal in the scanner.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2009 11:34
|
|
|
a Wizards dick posted:Spotting negatives is the shittiest chore ever... are there any photoshop tricks that can help get rid of like 65% of the smaller bits so I can focus on the larger, hard-to-remove pieces? Here's a nice (video) tutorial using the "dust and scratches" tool in photoshop as a brush that I think works reasonably well. http://www.vimeo.com/1017781?pg=embed&sec=1017781
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2009 02:09
|
|
|
Okay, I'm going to go get some developing equipment this weekend. Now the big question is which developer to get? I plan on doing the occasional concert shoot with either Tri-X or HP5+ in addition to the usual "walk in the park" photos. What developer would be best for pushing to 3200? I don't need super fine grain or anything like that since I'm going for more of a retro concert photo look, like all those old photos of The Who or the Stones or whatever. I've got my DSLR for the important assignments, but this is more for fun. Now keep in mind that I'm a newbie here, so the simpler, the better and if I can avoid 2 hour development times, even better. Would good old HC-110 or Rodinal do?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2009 17:51
|
|
|
Rodinal is the developer that can give you insane long development times. Digitaltruth lists that you'd need a development time of 33 minutes to push Tri-x to 3200. I also know that people dilute it 1:100 and have several hour long development times. I've always used XTOL. I've pushed both Tri-x (17m) and HP5 to 3200 (19m). The dilution is normally 1:1 but you can use it undiluted to get lower development times (if that's what you're after). Flickr's a good place to check out what certain developer/film combinations look like.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2009 19:01
|
|
|
Kaerf posted:I've always used XTOL. I've pushed both Tri-x (17m) and HP5 to 3200 (19m). The dilution is normally 1:1 but you can use it undiluted to get lower development times (if that's what you're after). Flickr's a good place to check out what certain developer/film combinations look like. Cool, thanks. I just remembered that there are some hot plates with magnetic stir rods at work that would be perfect for mixing up XTOL. Going through all those developing charts is just like when I go looking for ammo reloading recipes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2009 20:06
|
|
|
HPL posted:
So how long until you start fire-forming 620 film from 120 ?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2009 03:40
|
|
|
Gnomad posted:So how long until you start fire-forming 620 film from 120 ? 120 and 620 is actually pretty much the same. If you have a darkroom/changing bag you can respool 120 onto 620 rolls with ease. The only difference is the thickness and diameter of the spool ends, so that's why 120 won't just drop into cameras made for 620. (Though sometimes you can trim the spool a bit and that's all it takes; depends on the camera.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2009 14:50
|
|
|
Weird question, but how do I keep my stripes of 35mm from trying to coil up? The black and white stuff that I have been developing myself is usually happy to stay flat, but some of the colour stuff I get from labs always wants to coil back up. It makes it a pain to scan. I keep all the negatives in flat sleeves in a notebook binder. Even after having been in there for months, it still wants to coil up. Maybe there is nothing to be done about this?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2009 00:02
|
|
Associate Christ
|
Yay! First roll of film developed. Tri-X 400, pushed to 3200. HC110. The perfect lazy man's developing. 1:100, 21 minutes, don't even bother agitating after the initial. Love the gritty look. Awesome for retro-style concert photos: 
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2009 08:33
|
|
|
HPL posted:Yay! First roll of film developed. Tri-X 400, pushed to 3200. HC110. The perfect lazy man's developing. 1:100, 21 minutes, don't even bother agitating after the initial. Wow, I'd love to hear more about how you did this. That looks like Jimmy Page or Angus Young from the 70s. I've been trying to figure out how to duplicate those old black and white Beatles / British Invasion rock pics from the 1960s and 1970s. Those guys just look so cool on stage in that really grain black and white contrast.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2009 09:01
|
|
|
Gnomad posted: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? I'm curious, would you recommend buying a few rolls before it goes out of production? It's on Amazon at the moment for a reasonable price. I'm very impressed with what I've seen about the place (Flickr mostly) taken on K64, and I'd love to have a stab at it myself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2009 12:30
|
|
|
Nedsmaster posted:Wow, I'd love to hear more about how you did this. That looks like Jimmy Page or Angus Young from the 70s. That was sort of the idea. They're a Led Zepplin tribute band. I figure they would be the perfect subject for this kind of photo. It's actually a flash photo. It was so frigging dark in there you could barely see anything with the naked eye. This is pretty much the way the negative came out. I just adjusted for levels so the blacks are black.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2009 16:46
|
|
|
SquallStrife posted:I'm curious, would you recommend buying a few rolls before it goes out of production? It's on Amazon at the moment for a reasonable price. I don't think it's going out of production immediately. If photographers continue to buy it, Kodak will continue to make it. I worry less about getting it than processing it, you really can't do it at home, and some of the guys with freezers full of K64 could find it useless at some future time. I used to work in a photolab. One of my tasks was printing slides-and my favorite part of that was making 8x10's and 11x14's from Kodachrome slides. The colors and depth of image were amazing. It would almost be like looking into a tank of imaging liquid. You should at least try a couple rolls. I'm waiting for summer here, Kodachrome would be wasted on the winter scenery here at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2009 17:01
|
|
|
Kaluza-Klein posted:Weird question, but how do I keep my stripes of 35mm from trying to coil up? I use a combination of small and large binder clips from Staples or some other office supply store. I use the large ones to clip one end of the film to the support bar on my garage door, and the small clip on the end to weight them AND keep them flat. I then use a squegee sparingly and allow them to dry. I leave them hanging until I cut and scan them, then they go in archive sleeves.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2009 16:36
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Tri-X is a great, versatile film, buy it cheaply as Arita Premium 400 at freestyle photo. Reading some stuff online, it appears that the Arista.EDU Ultra is Fomapan for the ISO 200 versions. I need to restock on 120 ISO 400, and would be interested to know if you're developing it as Tri-X or what.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2009 16:48
|
|
|
Well, I just ordered a shitload of Arista Premium 400. Hope it's as good as everyone is saying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2009 18:12
|
|
|
hybr1d posted:Reading some stuff online, it appears that the Arista.EDU Ultra is Fomapan for the ISO 200 versions. I need to restock on 120 ISO 400, and would be interested to know if you're developing it as Tri-X or what. Those are different films, I didn't say the edu was tri-x. Arista Premium 400 = Tri-x Arista Premium 100 = Plus-X Arista.Edu Ultra = Fomapan Arista.Edu = Fortepan Arista II = Agfa APX
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2009 00:55
|
|
|
hybr1d posted:I use a combination of small and large binder clips from Staples or some other office supply store. I use the large ones to clip one end of the film to the support bar on my garage door, and the small clip on the end to weight them AND keep them flat. I then use a squegee sparingly and allow them to dry. I leave them hanging until I cut and scan them, then they go in archive sleeves. What kind of film scanner do you have? My dad and I are looking to get one so he can scan his lot of kodachrome.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2009 04:26
|
|
|
On the digital SLR side, I'm moving over to Canon, based on the way the Rebel XT I recently acquired works for me. In the process of collecting lenses, I find it cheaper to buy the whole camera second hand that to try to find lenses on their own. It's not such a bad thing to have both digital and 35mm in the same system, so I kept this 35mm Rebel, but I didn't feel like spending $12 on a set of CR2 batteries every 10 rolls or whatever, and really, wouldn't it just kick rear end to have all the photo gear, film, digital, video, using the same rechargable battery? An afternoon in the lab yielded this result.   All materials were junk on hand, oh, the women in our lives want us to throw the stuff out but we know we'll need it some day, won't we? For my next hack, I'm thinking of hooking a cheap kitchen timer to a plug for the remote release and doing star trails the easy way-set it to 20 minutes or so, let 'er rip, go back inside where it's warm. My new hunt is for nice glass with say an Elan IIE or a EOS-1 stuck on the end. May as well get a good film camera to compliment the digi.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2009 07:12
|
|
|
Gnomad posted:oh, the women in our lives want us to throw the stuff out but we know we'll need it some day, won't we? Well, if women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2009 07:14
|
|
|
That is ugly as sin but drat cool.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2009 11:59
|
|
|
I've done something similar with my Rebel XT, I made a small battery-shaped PCB with a voltage regulator, so I can run the camera off a car battery.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2009 16:45
|
|
|
Gnomad posted:An afternoon in the lab yielded this result. Sick! Do you mind posting a tutorial or something? I tried doing something similar w/ 4 AAs. The camera turned on it thought the power was low so the flash wouldn't work. They make rechargeable 2CR5 batteries, but apparently they suck and won't power an ST-E2 properly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2009 19:03
|
|
|
Shiggen posted:What kind of film scanner do you have? My dad and I are looking to get one so he can scan his lot of kodachrome. I have an Epson 4490 (NOT 4990), but the consensus in this thread is the Epson V500: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000VG4AY0?ie=UTF8&tag=jaysblog0f-20&link_code=as3&camp=211189&creative=373489&creativeASIN=B000VG4AY0
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2009 20:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 19:17 |
|
|
gib posted:Sick! Do you mind posting a tutorial or something? I tried doing something similar w/ 4 AAs. The camera turned on it thought the power was low so the flash wouldn't work. They make rechargeable 2CR5 batteries, but apparently they suck and won't power an ST-E2 properly. While I haven't done this myself I can tell you that the NB-2LH battery he's using is a 7.4V 0.7Ah lithium cell, you'd need at least 5 AA (1.5V) cells to match that voltage, 6-7 (1.2V) if you're using NI-MH rechargeables. For a smaller cell you could try a CR123A or similar, they have 3-3.6V and are really cheap off DealExtreme.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2009 22:14
|
|