|
Most flat-beds with their default film holders often have sharpness trouble. Mostly it has to do with a failure to focus on curved film surfaces, so try to keep the film as flat as possible; put it in a heavy book overnight if its overly curvy and be careful putting it into the film holder. I also have a canoscan 8800f and I can get reasonably sharp results up to about 6 megapixels for 35mm frames (2000 or 2400 DPI depending on my mood). If I'm really desperate for more sharpness/resolution there's always the old "tape it to the glass and pray for no newton rings" trick too, just be careful doing it and cleaning up after.
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2009 02:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 20:31 |
|
|
ah, good thing we're talking about scanning, I wasn't sure whether to post this in the equipment thread or here : I have an epson perfection 4490, and I'm kind of "over" the epson interface for scanning right now. I've heard lots of great things about VueScan, but I can't seem to get it to work on my system (intel iMac, OS 10.5.7). I start vuescan and my scanner, but it doesnt seem to detect the scanner no matter what way I try. The help files haven't been helping me too much. Any suggestions?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2009 02:20
|
|
|
dunno posted:Most flat-beds with their default film holders often have sharpness trouble. Mostly it has to do with a failure to focus on curved film surfaces, so try to keep the film as flat as possible; put it in a heavy book overnight if its overly curvy and be careful putting it into the film holder. Or just shoot film that's flat to start with.  That said, Adox films seem to be cut oddly, some of them fit perfectly in the Epson holder, some need a little trimming at the rebate to stop them from curling up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2009 03:10
|
|
|
TokenBrit posted:Or just shoot film that's flat to start with. Yeah, I found that getting my hair dryer technique down with wet film helped scanning big time because I didn't have to wrestle the film strips into the negative holders anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2009 03:12
|
|
|
HPL posted:Yeah, I found that getting my hair dryer technique down with wet film helped scanning big time because I didn't have to wrestle the film strips into the negative holders anymore. Tell me more about this hair dryer technique.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2009 03:19
|
|
|
HPL posted:Yeah, I found that getting my hair dryer technique down with wet film helped scanning big time because I didn't have to wrestle the film strips into the negative holders anymore. I meant shooting sheet film as opposed to roll film. Using a hair dryer to dry film terrifies me, it seems that it would be a very effective way to blow dust all over your still-wet emulsion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2009 03:24
|
|
|
TokenBrit posted:I meant shooting sheet film as opposed to roll film. That's what I thought before I actually tried it. The key to it all is that the film right out of the tank tends to curve away from the emulsion side and will keep on doing that until it's dry. Take the hair dryer and dry the film from the emulsion side (the easy way to remember is to blow the air on the side of the film that's bulging out in order to make it go the other way) and it will magically straighten out and snap back in the other direction, but in a much less curved fashion. If you play it right and apply heat strategically, you can even get your negatives flat as the prairies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2009 03:40
|
|
|
HPL posted:That's what I thought before I actually tried it. Wait, what? "From the emulsion side" as in blow air on the emulsion side, right? My film bulges out on the shiny side.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2009 16:31
|
|
|
CanuckBassist posted:Wait, what? There's shiny and then there's shiny shiny. Either way, blow air on the side that bulges out and it'll eventually dry out and straighten.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2009 16:57
|
|
|
I have some Arista EDU Ultra 200 120 film that I just shot and the only developer I have is HC110. Digitaltruth doesn't have timing for 120 but they do for 35mm. http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?Film=Arista+EDU&Developer=HC-110&mdc=Search Would I be fine just to go with dilution B and the timing for 35mm?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2009 22:35
|
|
|
It's rebranded Fomapan 200 iirc, here are the times for that. http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?Film=Fomapan+200&Developer=HC-110&mdc=Search Also, I'd recommend using dilution H with HC-110, as B gets overly contrasty and has really, really short dev times (which lead to inconsistencies).
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2009 22:39
|
|
|
God dammit, I wish I had seen the Mamiya M645 package on Luxmore's web site before I went and bought that 80mm f/1.9.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2009 23:54
|
|
|
HPL posted:God dammit, I wish I had seen the Mamiya M645 package on Luxmore's web site before I went and bought that 80mm f/1.9. The who what now? Links man, LINKS!!!
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2009 09:46
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:The who what now? Links man, LINKS!!! http://www.camera-traders.com And on a related note, I found out that Kerrisdale Cameras can develop 120 and 220 film, so that works out well for me since there's one near my house. It takes a few days, but I'd rather do that than spend ages driving into Vancouver on a weekday during rush hour. They charge around $4 a roll for colour, $10 for black and white, but anyone shooting black and white film should be developing their own anyway. HPL fucked around with this message at 17:22 on Jul 2, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2009 17:19
|
|
|
HPL posted:$10 for black and white, but anyone shooting black and white film should be developing their own anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2009 08:23
|
|
|
If you have a lab available and they're competent, the only question is how much you value your time 
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2009 08:34
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:If you have a lab available and they're competent, the only question is how much you value your time And your level of control over results.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2009 08:38
|
|
|
My time is more valuable than my happiness 
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2009 08:45
|
|
|
notlodar posted:My time is more valuable than my happiness  
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2009 09:01
|
|
|
I do all sorts of crazy push developing (3 stops or so) that I've fine-tuned over time and wouldn't really trust a lab to do so that's why I do it myself. That and I shoot a lot of film so if I shoot 5 rolls in one go, that's a lot of money. A lot of labs also charge extra for push developing. If you're the type that does one roll a month at bone stock exposures then of course it makes more sense to have a lab do it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2009 09:33
|
|
|
After reading this thread end to end I was overcome with high school nostalgia and decided to make a rash (awesome) purchase off eBay. I picked up this almost perfect Asahi Pentax K1000 for a pretty good price. Everything works fine, and all the seals are nice if a bit soft, and there is only one or two minor scratches. I can only assume its sat in a cupboard somewhere for years. Also picked up a SMC Pentax-M 50mm 1.7 Lens to start with and a few rolls of Ilford PAN 400. I love it, that shutter noise is amazing... BRING THA NOIZE.   
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2009 11:52
|
|
|
Oh God. I've just got into an exhibition based solely around the fact the exhibited photos are taken with film, and I've packed away my Hasselblad in a box somewhere. And I have no exhibitable photos. And the only film I have is three rolls of Velvia 50 and there is no place nearby, or that I can get to in the next few days to purchase better film, like Reala 100, which is what I like. So I've got a really hard to use film, with no light metre besides the D700 which doesn't go down to ISO 50 and is generally useless as a light metre anyway because the ISO values seem to be so different nowadays. And I have to take the photo before this weekend, get it developed, get it scanned, and then I've barely got enough time to get it framed before the exhibition opens. Kinda stressed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2009 12:56
|
|
|
a dslr should work relatively well to meter slides, since the highlights blow similarly. Giver 'er a try in shutter or aperture priority at iso 200, have an eye out for overexposure and keep the 2-stop difference in mind when setting the film camera. Alternatively, make a mockery of it by buying a few 35mm disposables, shooting a bunch and offering up a drug store print, or better yet, shoot digital and fake it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2009 13:26
|
|
|
Also, randomly, I just wanted to note that I'm shooting some HP5 at box speed. I look forward to a tonal range not restricted by the fact that I am pushing 2-stops like I have been for the past year.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2009 13:30
|
|
|
Does anyone have experience with Dwayne's for processing 120 and 220 film? Their prices and turn-around time are good, but the results seem meh. I'm used to bright vivid colors from my old Yashica and everything came out kind of dull and underexposed. An earlier roll off this same pack of film looked fantastic when developed locally. So either my light meter has finally given up the ghost or Dwayne's sucks. I'm inclined to say light meter, but I didn't know if anyone else had experience with their MF developing. That said, my new Bronica ETRsi is performing great. It's a thing of beauty and except for the underexposed results the lens and body are a joy to use after spending 10+ years on an old TLR.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2009 14:31
|
|
|
Are you going by the negatives, the prints or the scans?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2009 15:45
|
|
|
TokenBrit posted:Are you going by the negatives, the prints or the scans? The prints seem washed out. Some of the shots were taken indoors without a flash so I expected those to come out poorly, but even the outdoor pictures with partly cloudy skies came out underexposed. This was using two different cameras and two different film types. The only constants are me, my meter, and the developer. I am going to scan in some of the images tonight and I can post them to see if anyone knows where I went wrong. Hopefully it's not the developer. It costs $15 and over 2 weeks to develop 1 roll of 120 locally. Dwaynes' did over 90 shots for $30 in a little over a week.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2009 16:25
|
|
|
Tentacle Party posted:After reading this thread end to end I was overcome with high school nostalgia and decided to make a rash (awesome) purchase off eBay. I picked up this almost perfect Asahi Pentax K1000 for a pretty good price. Everything works fine, and all the seals are nice if a bit soft, and there is only one or two minor scratches. I can only assume its sat in a cupboard somewhere for years. Also picked up a SMC Pentax-M 50mm 1.7 Lens to start with and a few rolls of Ilford PAN 400. I love it, that shutter noise is amazing... Try grabbing an ME Super off of eBay or somewhere. They're dirt cheap and in my opinion, the best of the M-series bodies. They have fast shutters (1/2000), aperture-priority auto exposure and they actually run quieter and smoother than other K-mount bodies like the MX and Super Program. The shutter and mirror sound is still solid-sounding, but quieter and less sharp. They're not quite as rock solid mechanically as the MX and they don't go up to ISO 3200 like the Super Program but I find that as far as going out in the real world and taking photos go, the ME Super and a 50mm f/1.7 or 28mm f/2.8 is a tough combo to beat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2009 16:25
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:Oh God. I've just got into an exhibition based solely around the fact the exhibited photos are taken with film, and I've packed away my Hasselblad in a box somewhere. And yet, you have time to come here on the interwebs and share your stress with us? I like the disposable camera option myself.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2009 02:45
|
|
|
Gnomad posted:I like the disposable camera option myself. Totally. You'll have the Lomo hipster crowd in the palm of your hand. Gnomad posted:So would it be worthwhile to pick up a Contax 139 with a Ziess 50mm 1.7 for $30? A 50mm f/1.7 alone of just about any brand costs more than that, never mind a Zeiss. Don't Yashica and Contax have the same mounts or something like that? HPL fucked around with this message at 02:54 on Jul 8, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2009 02:48
|
|
|
So would it be worthwhile to pick up a Contax 139 with a Ziess 50mm 1.7 for $30? And do you think I'm going to tell you where it is so you can beat me to it? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2009 02:49
|
|
|
Tentacle Party posted:After reading this thread end to end I was overcome with high school nostalgia and decided to make a rash (awesome) purchase off eBay. I picked up this almost perfect Asahi Pentax K1000 for a pretty good price. Everything works fine, and all the seals are nice if a bit soft, and there is only one or two minor scratches. I can only assume its sat in a cupboard somewhere for years. Also picked up a SMC Pentax-M 50mm 1.7 Lens to start with and a few rolls of Ilford PAN 400. I love it, that shutter noise is amazing... Very nice! I have a Pentax KX that I inherited from my dad (well, "stole" is the more appropriate term as he is still living and didn't really say I could take it). I've had problems with the light meter flipping out and not working, so I sent it away to this dude who used to work for Honeywell and Pentax and he fixed it up, along with cleaning it, fixing the seals, and probably some other stuff that I don't remember for $100 including labor. So if you're considering getting it looked at any time in the future I would highly recommend him--and his estimates are free (well, you ship it out to him and if you refuse service he'll ship it back to you free of charge)...so, you know, you might wanna bookmark his site.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2009 03:13
|
|
|
Decided to finally use my stainless dev tank tonight, as I've had it but couldn't figure out how to use it for ages. It took a good 20 minutes to figure out how to load it properly, but I eventually got the film on there. Now that I know how, it's not much harder than the plastic reels I've been using (the Arista ones that are basically foolproof). What's really bugging me is that I can't pour chemicals into them fast at all, I have to pour a little bit, let it drip in, and then repeat it a few more times, which takes almost a minute. If I was using any developer than Diafine I'd have ruined my film. So tell me, how the heck do people use these reels with any success?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2009 07:19
|
|
|
I tilt the tank a bit when I pour my chemicals and don't have much problem filling the tank. Some tanks are different than others, I have 3 different tanks and they are really all different. The reels all fit every tank but the tops don't. Go figure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2009 07:48
|
|
|
My first several rolls I developed ended up dusty as hell when I scanned them. Yesterday I ran the shower for a minute while a roll was drying, and then cut off a 6 frame section, scanned it, and immediatly put it in a plastic binder sleeve that I just got. Rinse and repeat until the roll was done. There's almost no dust on that roll. Finally! I don't wanna put my dusty rolls (thata re now even dustier from sitting around) in plastic sleeves before I clean them. How should I do that? I was thinking just rinsing them with water and hanging them up to dry. Is that a good idea?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2009 15:32
|
|
|
I re-wash my negatives if I need to. Put them back on the spool in the tank, run water through the tank, then fill the tank, add a few drops of wetting agent, take spool out slowly, hang strips up and dry.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2009 15:41
|
|
|
Developed my first reel in a year last night, super excited. http://portland.craigslist.org/clk/art/1256559892.html Is this a good idea at all? 400' for $40, but it's motion picture. It probably doesn't matter, but I'm not quite sure if it's a good deal I should pick up on?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2009 22:39
|
|
|
porcellus posted:Developed my first reel in a year last night, super excited. Do you have bulk loading equipment? Do you know a place where you can get the film processed if it's not C-41 film?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2009 23:53
|
|
|
Oh good call! I'll ask about what process type it is. I don't have bulk loading, but I think it's about the time to buy some, a Watson model off ebay or freestyle. Would it be a big problem since it's 400' and the loader accepts only 100'? I guess I'd have to unravel and cut it..
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2009 00:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 20:31 |
|
|
If it's like the film Seattle Film Works was using, it's going to be hard to get developed because of the coating that clogs C41 machines and the contrast might be sort of flat. Research would be critical. If it was black and white, I'd say go for it, not so sure about color though. edit-I googled the heck out of Fuji 8551/F250T and found nothing useful. TBH I don't know if I'd bother with the stuff. Gnomad fucked around with this message at 03:24 on Jul 11, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2009 03:04
|
|