|
Oh wow. I shot two rolls of HP5+ last night pushed to 1600 in my EOS 1000FN with a 50mm f/1.8 lens. Developed them this morning with HC-110, dilution B, 11 minutes. Incredible results considering the adverse lighting. Gritty and intense. I'll post a link to the Flickr set as soon as I upload it. One nice thing about black and white film is that even if you use a flash, it doesn't look as crappy as it does with colour because you don't get the awful colours that goes along with flash photography. EDIT: Flickr set: http://www.flickr.com/photos/31391300@N04/sets/72157615737930214/ 
HPL fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Mar 22, 2009 |
#
?
Mar 21, 2009 23:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 20:23 |
|
|
Does anyone have some advice on scanning 4x5 color negatives? My school has some 4990's, and I was having some rather mediocre results. One possible factor is that the 4x5 holder was stolen, so I had to just put the negative directly on the tray, which caused it to curl a little bit. When I have time I'm going to try actually printing it in the darkroom to see how workable the negative really is. Also, if it's not a scanning issue, maybe I just don't know the right pp techniques? I'd appreciate any thoughts. I love 4x5 and my B&W prints have been really great... I was expecting the color to be really fabulous, but the scans were just really lackluster. Quite depressing.  This is a multiple exposure (about 16 of them) that is probably about 2 stops overexposed overall. In the darkroom I know the film should be able to handle it and the negative wasn't TOO dense, but scanned I really had to extract the detail with the levels. Also, the color was just ridiculous, but that could be due to the multiple exposure?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2009 04:07
|
|
|
Just developed a roll of Arista Premium 400. Yup, it's pretty much Tri-X. http://www.flickr.com/photos/31391300@N04/sets/72157615787422304/
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2009 07:20
|
|
|
HPL posted:Just developed a roll of Arista Premium 400. Yup, it's pretty much Tri-X. I wish they had Premium 400 in 120. Photos look great!
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2009 07:38
|
|
|
HPL posted:One nice thing about black and white film is that even if you use a flash, it doesn't look as crappy as it does with colour because you don't get the awful colours that goes along with flash photography. It might not work in concert settings, but you can generally gel your flash to match the ambient so that you don't get the weird mix of color temps. Also, very nice shots... I particularly like this one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2009 19:31
|
|
|
Quick question: Does it matter what kind of stop and fixer I use or will any kind do? Right now I use Ilfostop and Ilford Rapid Fixer with HC-110, but I'm tearing through the rapid fixer at a rapid rate since it's 1:9. Would be nice to explore cheaper or more plentiful options.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2009 23:02
|
|
|
HPL posted:Quick question: Does it matter what kind of stop and fixer I use or will any kind do? Right now I use Ilfostop and Ilford Rapid Fixer with HC-110, but I'm tearing through the rapid fixer at a rapid rate since it's 1:9. Would be nice to explore cheaper or more plentiful options. Are you dumping out the fixer or something? My small bottle of Kodafix is supposed to be able to last through 120 rolls of 35mm. From what I've read, fixer is just fixer. I'm not sure about stop baths though, since they can differ in how fast they stop the developer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2009 23:15
|
|
|
Stop bath doesn't really matter. You can reuse fixer and store it for a couple of weeks. I think the rule of thumb for how long to fix is at least double the time it takes for an exposed undeveloped piece of film (the film leader you cut off before developing for example) to turn clear.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2009 23:19
|
|
|
CanuckBassist posted:Are you dumping out the fixer or something? My small bottle of Kodafix is supposed to be able to last through 120 rolls of 35mm. gib posted:You can reuse fixer and store it for a couple of weeks. Argh!  I thought it was single-use. Okay, that solves that end of things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2009 23:29
|
|
|
HPL posted:Argh! Just dilute a reasonable amount, 1-2L (or all if it if you have a big enough container), and keep it in a container. Pour out whatever amount you need each time. If don't want to do the fixer test on an undeveloped piece of film, you can also try hypo-check. If a drop of hypo-check into your fixer turns white, it's time to dump it and mix a new batch. Edit: I spell good. CanuckBassist fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Mar 23, 2009 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2009 23:40
|
|
|
gib posted:You can reuse fixer and store it for a couple of weeks. I've been using the same fixer in excess of 6 months, i just test it I haven't developed in a couple of weeks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2009 23:49
|
|
|
HPL posted:Quick question: Does it matter what kind of stop and fixer I use or will any kind do? Right now I use Ilfostop and Ilford Rapid Fixer with HC-110, but I'm tearing through the rapid fixer at a rapid rate since it's 1:9. Would be nice to explore cheaper or more plentiful options. Stop with water. It's cheap and works just fine, plus you will never accidently forget to dilute the stop bath and let it eat a roll of film. Reuse fix. I do a clip test at the beginning of every development session. It's quick and easy. Just take the film leader throw it in a shot glass, splash in some fix and time it. Then double what ever time it takes for the film to become clear and there you have an accurate fix time. Throw out the fix when It starts taking twice as long to clear the film as when you started. I keep a note book in my box o' B&W stuff and right out all my times and temps for every roll I do that way I have records of what works for me and what doesn't. Developing B&w film is an art unto it's self, especially if you are doing crazy long pushes and experimenting with agitation/time to reduce contrast. Record keeping is what will allow you to repeat a perfect roll.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2009 04:26
|
|
|
gib posted:Stop bath doesn't really matter. It does if you use Diafine since it can burn a hole in your film if you use it...
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2009 02:28
|
|
|
I'm finding black and white film looks better underexposed half a stop or so. Anyone else concur? Also, AP400 pushed to 1600 and developed with HC-110, dilution B for 16 minutes looks awesome.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2009 07:50
|
|
|
That varies completely with every developer/film/development combination. Your particular combo may look better that way, to you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2009 09:39
|
|
|
HPL posted:I'm finding black and white film looks better underexposed half a stop or so. Anyone else concur? You results are going to vary a bit depending on your film developer combo and your scanner's exposure settings and dynamic range. Personally, I prefer the tones you get from the classic 1 stop pull, HP5 and Tri-X both look gorgeous shot/developed at 200. I only ever push because i need the sensitivity, which is actually pretty often, because i love shooting at night and indoors...
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2009 11:40
|
|
|
So, anyone here do (or ever done, or even know how to do) ambrotype photography? It looks insanely fun and potentially easy to create a makeshift camera, since the exposure times are long enough that the precision of modern shutters wouldn't be a concern. Make one like a regular box camera? Really, the hard part is creating the imaging plane. But it seems like it could be doable if one had the chemicals. Also gauging the sensitivity of the wet plate to meter an accurate exposure - even at big apertures like f/5.6, it can take many seconds or even minutes to properly expose. But that'd be fun to try.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2009 12:26
|
|
|
I have Efke 400 and would like to know if anyone is familiar developing using HC-110? After extensive research of all the controversy saying it was repackaged Ilford HP5 I have decided to come to the conclusion it is in fact their own film. That said I really just need an estimated time to develop in dilution B. Really I should just shoot a test roll because I have 100ft of this stuff but I couldn't help it and have already started shooting with it. The grain structure really looks unique and I am looking forward to the results as well as pushing/pulling and all that jazz.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2009 19:58
|
|
|
Got a Canon A2E. Yay. It's one hell of a camera. Tons of features, shoots somewhat quietly (roughly the same or quieter than my 40D, different sort of sound though, more of a muffled thud than a clack) and autofocuses like a champ in low light. The mode dial is a bit wonky as they tend to be on A2E/5 cameras, but while the detents aren't working, it switches modes okay. Might have to keep a piece of tape on the dial so I don't accidentally switch modes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2009 18:10
|
|
|
HPL posted:Quick question: Does it matter what kind of stop and fixer I use or will any kind do? Right now I use Ilfostop and Ilford Rapid Fixer with HC-110, but I'm tearing through the rapid fixer at a rapid rate since it's 1:9. Would be nice to explore cheaper or more plentiful options. Stop bath is really just acetic acid––distilled while vinegar is essentially the same thing. Really it just has to be any kind of acid to neutralise the developer. I've heard you can buy odourless stop based on citric acid, even.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2009 23:14
|
|
|
Mello Clello posted:Stop bath is really just acetic acid––distilled while vinegar is essentially the same thing. Really it just has to be any kind of acid to neutralise the developer. I've heard you can buy odourless stop based on citric acid, even. Their paper developers are quite awesome as well. You can dilute them in various ways to achieve different effects and can also mix them together. It's all detailed on the site.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2009 23:39
|
|
|
I've noticed that most all of the Kiev 88 kits come with an 80mm lens. Do lenses appear wider on a medium format than they would on a 35mm body? I have a 55mm on a crop dslr (around 70mm or so apparent view I would guess) and I find myself wishing I had something wider most of the time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2009 00:22
|
|
Associate Christ
|
Kaluza-Klein posted:I've noticed that most all of the Kiev 88 kits come with an 80mm lens. Do lenses appear wider on a medium format than they would on a 35mm body? I have a 55mm on a crop dslr (around 70mm or so apparent view I would guess) and I find myself wishing I had something wider most of the time. If the Kiev is 6x6 you can get the 35mm equivalent angle of view by multiplying the focal length by 0.55 -- the 80mm would be equivalent to a 44mm lens on a 35mm camera. If you find yourself cropping to 6x4.5 most of the time with the Kiev it'd be more like having a 50mm lens on 35mm.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2009 00:45
|
|
|
Further explanation here (given in the context of depth of field). http://silverbased.org/shallowest-dof/ Also just plain good reading all over that site.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2009 01:18
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Further explanation here (given in the context of depth of field). http://silverbased.org/shallowest-dof/ The background separation given from my RZ67 with a 110mm f/2.8 shot wide open is fantastic. The subject pops out of the frame beautifully. I'll see if I can dig out an example. I should probably scan some of the stuff from 35mm film with the 50mm f/1.2 as well, though I haven't had long to work with the lens and get anything amazing yet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2009 01:36
|
|
|
I have a problem. I shot a roll of Kodak colour negative 400 film this weekend and pushed it to 800. I dropped it off at the lab and they called me and left a message saying that they were unable to push C-41 processed film. What the gently caress do I do? This is an important roll of film.  edit; Is one stop recoverable in Photoshop? pwn fucked around with this message at 03:40 on Mar 30, 2009 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2009 03:05
|
|
|
pwn posted:I have a problem. One stop's not too bad, I think you should be able to recover that. Is it just store policy not to push film there, or is there some reason why a lab would be physically unable to do it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2009 03:46
|
|
is go
|
I have no idea, this lab has otherwise always been super reliable and able to fulfill weird requests. I just woke up tonight (after they'd closed) and this message was in my voicemail. Thanks, I'll just call them in the morning and tell them to process it at rated speed. vvv This town is lucky to have a Sharp photo center, the nearest pro lab is probably somewhere in the Twin Cities, some hundred miles away. :/
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2009 03:55
|
|
|
That's within the range of reasonable dynamic range with CN film. Even without push processing, you should get usable images. Though if you really want to you could try finding a pro-lab.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2009 03:56
|
|
|
Gnomad posted: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. (Belated) Thanks for the advice mate. Is there any danger in buying rolls of K64 that are past the "Use-by" date? I've seen a few deals on eBay, and I'm really tempted, because everywhere I've found that sells it either won't ship outside the USA, or charges obscene amounts for shipping...
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2009 12:24
|
|
|
I've used K64 from 2005 in 2008. The colors still looked pretty good to me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2009 18:45
|
|
|
What's the best place to get 2CR5 batteries from? I bought one at the supermarket, but I felt some big time pain paying that much for one battery.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2009 02:12
|
|
|
I don't know if there is any place better than another. I saw them for roughly $10 to $16, depending on brand, cheapest place was Radio Shack  I found a Maxxum 3000i with a 50mm f1.7 prime, $45 in a pawn shop, bought it. Since a 3000i isn't much of a 35mm camera, it's strictly a P&S with interchangable lenses-you can't even change the ISO, there are no manual controls or choice of program-it's useless to me so I wanted to give it a test and then put it out on CL for basically beer money. I wasn't in the mood to spend $10 on a $5 camera, so I haxxored the 2cr5. When I peeled the label off, I found that a 2CR5 is 2 123 cells in that little carrier, with tabs soldered to the cells in series and the terminals, it was nothing to peel them out, solder in the 2 AAA holders and test the camera. It works and thus far, nobody wants it. All I wanted was the lens anyway, the 50 1.7 seems to go for $100 on evilbay. The picture was taken with the A200, using the 50mm, 3200 iso, inside the house , EV of 5.5 according to the Gossen Luna Pro, for no other reason than I could. Any photo goons who want a Maxxum 3000i, it's yours for postage. Otherwise it may end up at the Starvation Army, or maybe I'll go after it with a set of screwdrivers and see what the guts of a Maxxum look like.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2009 03:07
|
|
|
SquallStrife posted:
It's all about the storage conditions. The stockpilers usually keep it in the fridge or freezer, if stored properly you can extend the life fairly far past the expiration date. I recently used a couple rolls of Kodak Gold 400 that were of a completely indeterminate expiration date, as I found them rattling around in the junk drawer. It could be 10 year old, or just a couple, but it worked fine in my Minolta Maxxum QTsi vs Minolta X700 shootout last weekend. The biggest gripe you'll have with K-Chrome is shipping it to and from the US, I would guess. Apparently the lab charges large money for shipping outside the US.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2009 03:19
|
|
|
Gnomad posted:I don't know if there is any place better than another. I saw them for roughly $10 to $16, depending on brand, cheapest place was Radio Shack Didn't someone recently post something similar to this but with a rechargeable battery from a Canon compact?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2009 18:44
|
|
|
gib posted:Didn't someone recently post something similar to this but with a rechargeable battery from a Canon compact? Yeah, that was me. I used the Canon battery for a couple of reasons-I had assumed that I needed 6v to work the camera, which was actually wrong, and by using the Canon battery I could use the same battery and charger for digital, film and video. This one was a lot easier, I had to fab a "battery" to take the place of the 2 CR2 batteries ( I used part of the spindle from a 100 pack of CDRs) where the 2CR5 came with the battery substitute already made for me. Once you get used to the idea of rechargables, it's rather annoying to have to buy plain old batteries at $10 or more each, knowing that if you dare to use the flash or if the autofocus hunts a lot, you're burning that battery. Not to mention the oops, left it on factor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2009 02:36
|
|
|
Shot a show using my Sigma 30mm f/1.4. It's a crop sensor lens, but it works fine on 35mm. It gives photos a bit of a nice vignette around the corners which works well on dark photos. ]
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2009 03:06
|
|
|
Okay, I need help figuring out if the lab I sent these to ruined some of my pictures or if I'm to blame. I went to a park with my girlfriend and brought along my Nikon F100 and 2 rolls of slightly old Kodak 400 (Not sure which line of film it was). I sent them off to York Photo and about 70% of my prints look beautiful, but the other 30% or so look terribly yellow. I'm thinking of a few possible problems. 1. Crappy scanning 2. My camera's white balance hosed up and they didn't color correct 3. They hosed up the color correction I have no way to know, until the prints come back to me in the mail whether it was just the scanner or not. The pictures I received online to follow. Pretty berries:  Terribly yellowed platform:  Now, the berries picture was taken at my house, but I've ruled out that there's any connection to location because I also have a picture I took at my house that has the same yellowing problem, so it has nothing to do with the actual location I was shooting at.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2009 16:44
|
|
|
They both look like poor quality auto curves/auto levels adjustments, so probably the scanner. It's possible the prints were made from the scan as well, so you need to look at the negative to get a good idea of exactly what happened. There's no such thing as auto white balance on film. The film itself is balanced to a specific colour temperature and you change film depending on whether you're going to be shooting under daylight or tungsten light.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2009 16:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 20:23 |
|
|
TokenBrit posted:They both look like poor quality auto curves/auto levels adjustments, so probably the scanner. I was thinking the problem could be the age of the film, but most of the pictures look beautiful, so it wouldn't make sense that there are only certain frames that are bad. I'm also thinking that the prints have a 99% chance of being made from the scans since most places, at least the ones I have experience with, all use the same equipment that they print digital photos with. Most places don't make print by hand. Also, ignore my comment about the white balance. I had a brain fart and I was thinking digital. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2009 16:51
|
|