|
^ actually it's the rope tied to her collar, she is old and is pretty easily confused by how to not get tangeled in it. :PSnaily posted:Does not compute. Can you give an estimate to how many rolls you've run through? Started out with only a liter, and have run about 30 rolls of 35mm through it. I have a little under half of a liter left, which is getting close to the minimum amount to develop one roll of 35mm in my tank.
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2009 14:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 22:27 |
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:I picked up 4 rolls of Kodachrome today, suggestions on how to make the most of it? I have a few rolls of Kodachrome too - I'm saving mine for trips with friends or family...sort of trying to use it as it was used back in the 70's. I always fly out to visit relatives in New York in the summer and I'll probably get some NYC pictures, beach photos, and pictures of my grandparents while they're still around. Then next spring break I'm going to travel Europe for 2 weeks with some friends and I'm definitely bringing a couple rolls of Kodachrome along. So basically, I plan on using it for things I want to remember that are important to me. I have plenty of other film to use for artistic shots, or macro pictures of bugs, or landscapes, but I want to make sure the Kodachrome means something to me. Just my two cents.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2009 16:28
|
|
|
penneydude posted:So basically, I plan on using it for things I want to remember that are important to me. I have plenty of other film to use for artistic shots, or macro pictures of bugs, or landscapes, but I want to make sure the Kodachrome means something to me. I'm seeing a lot of this recently from people who have never shot Kodachrome before. Shoot a roll first to "learn" the film. It takes a bit to work out what the film treats well and what it doesn't. Don't go straight into shooting it and thinking you've got the shot when really you've got an unprintable frame of something unrepeatable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2009 17:26
|
|
|
TokenBrit posted:I'm seeing a lot of this recently from people who have never shot Kodachrome before. Do you have any tips that might help me out? It's kind of a tricky spot, because I don't want to screw up any pictures I want to be able to keep, but I also don't want to shoot a test roll on something that's not "Kodachrome-worthy," because the rolls that I have now are the only ones I'm ever going to get to shoot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2009 18:08
|
|
|
TokenBrit posted:I'm seeing a lot of this recently from people who have never shot Kodachrome before. That makes sense, but in my case I have a single roll of Kodachrome available and I'm not sending it to the other side of the world just to have normal snapshots developed. I haven't figured out what to do with it even though I've held on to it for a year.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2009 18:42
|
|
|
breathstealer posted:That makes sense, but in my case I have a single roll of Kodachrome available and I'm not sending it to the other side of the world just to have normal snapshots developed. I haven't figured out what to do with it even though I've held on to it for a year. I used what may very well be my only roll of Kodachrome on a trip to Asia. I just got the slides back, and they have a certain something about them that I find very attractive. I'm not sure I did anything "special" with them in regards to exposure, though, so my suggestion is to just use it (tm).
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2009 20:13
|
|
|
I'm not saying waste it, but if you can, just shoot one normally before you shoot anything important. Same goes for anything you change in photography. I wouldn't shoot a wedding on a different film stock from usual and use different chemistry for the first time so I wouldn't do it for anything else that's important to me. I found that I leave too much in the shadows by default, probably because that's how I instinctively shoot B&W film which is the only 35mm film I normally use. My medium/large format slides are always well exposed. I also don't get reds right with kodachrome, so I probably need to change how they feature in the image. I also didn't appreciate how the contrast is different to other films, so my use of contrast to pick out subjects against backgrounds instead of depth of field doesn't work quite so well with kodachrome compared to, say, velvia. All sorts of little things that you may have become used to in your general photography may become stumbling blocks when you use a new film.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2009 20:23
|
|
|
TokenBrit posted:I'm not saying waste it, but if you can, just shoot one normally before you shoot anything important. Well, yes, if you expect to produce at a technically highly proficient level, you have to try any new stock out. Within the context of snapshots (and in the light of Kodachrome's imminent demise), I found that, for my slightly lower wants, shooting away as usual (or maybe with a wariness in regards to exposure latitude) worked just fine. There's also the risk that if you compensate for all the quirks of the film, you won't get as much of the Kodachrome character, which may or may not be you desire.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2009 20:39
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:I think after a little over a year of use, my Diafine has finally hit its stride, just loving the tones I've gotten over the past few rolls. Unfortunately, I'm running real low on on solution A, so I gotta replenish soon. EI640, eh? Why's that, may I ask? I know there are some people that like to shoot TX with more exposure than the recommended EI of 1250, but I'd like to hear your opinion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2009 21:51
|
|
|
Radbot posted:EI640, eh? Why's that, may I ask? I know there are some people that like to shoot TX with more exposure than the recommended EI of 1250, but I'd like to hear your opinion. That's the point where I've non-scientifically found I seem to get the tones I like out of it. Sometimes I shoot as high as 1600-3200 with it though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2009 22:22
|
|
|
penneydude posted:Do you have any tips that might help me out?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2009 08:48
|
|
|
So I just moved to Seattle. I was hoping for some recommendations on where to get 120 developed. I would prefer scans but also need to find a decent place to get prints. For the record I live in Northgate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2009 19:24
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Shooting white people with chrome is a recipe for disaster, for one. If you ever look at Lonely Planet's travel guides for Southeast Asia, it's obvious the photographer(s) think Velvia is the perfect catchall film, even for portraits. I wonder how many people arrive and are surprised to find out the natives don't in fact have orange skin. Just developed two straggler rolls of B&W film that have been chilling on my shelf for two months and a year, respectively. They were both expired and the older one felt a bit brittle when I took it out of the cannister. Both seem to have come through fine though, although the reel was being an rear end in a top hat and I messed up some of the perforations on one of them a bit. Also tried using some Photo-flo this time and it worked like a charm, great stuff to have. Shooting and developing your own B&W film is very addictive. Edit: Also, was wondering if anyone had some recommendations for books on shooting/developing techniques for B&W. I have "The Darkroom Handbook" which is nice but most of the focus is on wet printing, which I'm not really in to at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2009 20:05
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Edit: Also, was wondering if anyone had some recommendations for books on shooting/developing techniques for B&W. I have "The Darkroom Handbook" which is nice but most of the focus is on wet printing, which I'm not really in to at the moment. The only book I have specifically on B&W shooting/processing is Ansel Adam's The Negative which I would suggest getting. If you're not aware of the zone system it's a great, and very thorough, explanation of it and how Adam's utilized it. You don't have to take it to the level that he did but you can definitely make use of his ideas.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2009 20:35
|
|
|
Just got my Olympus XA in the mail, will run a test roll through it tonight and then develop it tomorrow. What a great little design... it's amazing a rangefinder can be this small. The metering design is brilliant (the CdS sensor slides one way to set the ISO, and the exposure "mask" slides the other when the aperture is set).
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2009 21:23
|
|
|
You know what kind of annoys me? When I was a kid, the only camera my parents would allow me to use was an Olympus XA because back then it was crappy enough that they didn't have to worry about me breaking it, unlike their SLRs and autofocus zoom point and shoots what not. Unfortunately, I didn't know poo poo about taking photos and took some pretty awful ones(not like that has changed any in the decades since). Anyways, point being that now that I actually give a drat about the XA and there's one somewhere in my parents' house, they have no idea where it is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2009 23:42
|
|
|
Anyone interested in a film swap? I'm probably not the only person who buys in bulk, and it'd be cool to have some more variety. Heck, still I've got two rolls of 120 (Ilford 400 and Portra 400) and don't even own a functional medium format camera anymore.  I also ask because 10 rolls of Portra 160 showed up at my door today, and it'd probably take me a long time to go through it. Kodak was giving away some expired old stock they had laying around in their vaults through Flickr, I found out about it through RFF and didn't think to post about it here until the next day... by then it was all long gone 
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2009 00:37
|
|
|
GOD drat YOU POMPOUS  You lucky bastard. I wish I got $60 of Portra NC dropped on my doorstep. edit: Noticing the extra roll of Ektar 100 there, it all looks like it's shrink-wrapped on a big promotional back for Ektar... the Portra is expired... Kodak isn't killing Portra too, are they? 
pwn fucked around with this message at 01:00 on Aug 20, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2009 00:56
|
|
|
pwn posted:GOD drat YOU POMPOUS Oh nothing like that (AFAIK), they just go through their vaults every once and a while and clean out the stuff that's expired. I think it's cool they give it away to people: I'm definitely going to shoot with it, make some prints, and send them a nice letter + some copies of what I did with it. Another guy in the RFF thread got a more diverse assortment with 400 and 800, which I would have preferred but obviously I'm not going to sneer at 10 free rolls of 160. They're shrink-wrapped together, the Ektar (fresh!) and promotional sheet were loose in the bag. I like that they threw that in too, I've been wanting to try it out but my local camera store didn't have any when I checked, and I was sort of between mail orders.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2009 01:10
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Anyone interested in a film swap? I'm probably not the only person who buys in bulk, and it'd be cool to have some more variety. Heck, still I've got two rolls of 120 (Ilford 400 and Portra 400) and don't even own a functional medium format camera anymore. I've got some Arista II 400 135-24 from Freestyle when they were clearing out the Arista II line. PM me if you're interested in a swap! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2009 01:22
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:I think it's cool they give it away to people Yeah, that's a pretty cool way of acknowledging the people who are pretty much the sole reason your company is still operating. Well hmmm... Is there anything else Kodak does that's making money these days? Their digital cameras are kind of crap.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2009 01:28
|
|
|
Snatched a ME Super SE off eBay to use different film along with the ME Super I have already. I kind of felt like a chump being the only one who bid on it, but at $50, it seems like a good deal. I wish "cheap" film gear would stop following me home. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2009 01:31
|
|
|
HPL posted:Well hmmm... Is there anything else Kodak does that's making money these days? Their digital cameras are kind of crap.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2009 01:36
|
|
|
HPL posted:Yeah, that's a pretty cool way of acknowledging the people who are pretty much the sole reason your company is still operating. Well aside from selling consumer film to the large amount of artists, students, and professional photographers who do still use film for some applications they probably make a fair chunk of their profit from industrial/military imaging and aerial surveillance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2009 01:37
|
|
|
CanuckBassist posted:Snatched a ME Super SE off eBay to use different film along with the ME Super I have already. I kind of felt like a chump being the only one who bid on it, but at $50, it seems like a good deal. I wish "cheap" film gear would stop following me home. I know the feeling, but I think I may finally be getting over my GAS. I passed up a working 35mm Rebel with a kit lens, for $9.95. I did find a Fujica FS1, minus the grip at a thrift store. AFAIK, it's useless without the grip....but I can hack all kinds of wierd stuff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2009 02:59
|
|
|
Gnomad posted:I know the feeling, but I think I may finally be getting over my GAS. I passed up a working 35mm Rebel with a kit lens, for $9.95. drat, that Rebel probably would have been worth it if only to trade or re-sell it. I picked up a Rebel 2000 with 28-80 lens lens at a yard sale for $10, eventually sold it with a crappier lens for $40 when I picked up a Ti (with the crappier lens) for the same price. The Ti is nice, the grip looks funky but it fits my hand a lot more comfortably, it's a nice small, lightweight AF body to drop in a backpack with a prime on it. I've never seen anything even remotely nice at a thrift store, it's always just a handful of lovely P&S's.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2009 03:28
|
|
|
CanuckBassist posted:Snatched a ME Super SE off eBay to use different film along with the ME Super I have already. I kind of felt like a chump being the only one who bid on it, but at $50, it seems like a good deal. I wish "cheap" film gear would stop following me home. $50 is a screaming deal if it's in good condition. If you ever get tired of it, send it to me. I love ME Super SEs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2009 03:30
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Anyone interested in a film swap? I'm probably not the only person who buys in bulk, and it'd be cool to have some more variety. Heck, still I've got two rolls of 120 (Ilford 400 and Portra 400) and don't even own a functional medium format camera anymore. Lemme know if you want to trade for a 100 foot spool of Ektachrome 100 expired in 1994!
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2009 03:39
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:drat, that Rebel probably would have been worth it if only to trade or re-sell it. I picked up a Rebel 2000 with 28-80 lens lens at a yard sale for $10, eventually sold it with a crappier lens for $40 when I picked up a Ti (with the crappier lens) for the same price. The Ti is nice, the grip looks funky but it fits my hand a lot more comfortably, it's a nice small, lightweight AF body to drop in a backpack with a prime on it. I already have a couple of Rebels I'd like to get rid of, and didn't want to get another one, even though it had to be worth $9.95 for the lens, sure it's a kit lens, it still takes decent pictures. Rebels may feel like lomo cameras but are pretty capable film cameras once you get past the plastic fantastic feel. I also have a Ti, you're right about the grip. In addition, I have a Rebel 2000 that I bought for the grand total of $1.50 as the battery door was broken off. I performed a patented camera field engineering solution and stuffed a set of 123's in the grip, soldering a jumper across the bottom of the 123's. Another thrift store yielded a Sigma 28-70 EF lens, but if I zoom it above 45mm it stutters, makes buzzing sounds and the camera eventually does a lens error thing. It did end up being a usable 35mm camera for a grand total of $8.50. I could swing by and pick that Rebel up if someone wanted it-it would be a $20 rebel with shipping. For that matter, I can post the deals I find on here if folks are interested. P&S's I think you could buy by the pound here. There are bins full of them. I ceck on the off chance a XA shows up in there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2009 05:39
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Anyone interested in a film swap? I'm probably not the only person who buys in bulk, and it'd be cool to have some more variety. Heck, still I've got two rolls of 120 (Ilford 400 and Portra 400) and don't even own a functional medium format camera anymore. Long expired Kodachrome 64 (4 or 5 rolls I think)? I didn't get any film from the giveaway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2009 08:38
|
|
|
What's the consensus on Kodak P3200? I've had bad luck pushing Arista 400 Premium/Tri-X to 1600 and the roll or two I've shot with Delta 3200 was alright. It seems you can get 5-year old bricks of the stuff for relatively cheap on eBay. ($100 for 40 rolls?) If anyone was interested in quantities of 5 or more @ $2.50 a roll (+ cost of shipping), I could buy that and split it up. I doubt I'd want more than 10-15 for myself. pseudonordic posted:I've got some Arista II 400 135-24 from Freestyle when they were clearing out the Arista II line. PM me if you're interested in a swap! Arista 400 is the only film I'm really set on besides Portra right now, I'm afraid :-\ Radbot posted:Lemme know if you want to trade for a 100 foot spool of Ektachrome 100 expired in 1994! If I bulk-loaded and it was a little fresher I'd be all over that... have you shot much with it? Reichstag posted:Long expired Kodachrome 64 (4 or 5 rolls I think)? I've got 4 rolls of fresh K64 on the way, but you can never have too much Kodachrome, can you? How long is long?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2009 14:17
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:What's the consensus on Kodak P3200? I used to shoot a lot of Tmax 3200 before I switched to home developing and mostly Tri-x. It's really only about an ISO 1000 film, it just gets pushed by default. It's grainier with more contrast than Delta 3200. It has less contrast at higher EIs than Tri-x but more grain. It pushed well up to about EI 12800. Bear in mind that I wasn't home developing it. My old lab uses T-max developer exclusively, so I have no idea what this film will do in something else.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2009 19:04
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:What's the consensus on Kodak P3200? I've had bad luck pushing Arista 400 Premium/Tri-X to 1600 and the roll or two I've shot with Delta 3200 was alright. What developer are you using? I've had good luck with Xtol and HC-110 up to 3200 with AP400.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2009 19:14
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:What's the consensus on Kodak P3200? I've had bad luck pushing Arista 400 Premium/Tri-X to 1600 and the roll or two I've shot with Delta 3200 was alright. Uh oh. What's your developing like? I was hoping to push two rolls or AP400 to 1600 next week
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2009 20:00
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Uh oh. What's your developing like? I was hoping to push two rolls or AP400 to 1600 next week Trix/AP400 pushes just fine to 1600 and even 3200. I use Xtol 1:1. If I'm shooting in low light it's what I grab. Time's I use are 16m30s at 70F, 3x agitation every 30s. At 1600 digitaltruth says 13m25s at 68F (for Xtol 1:1 as well).
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2009 21:13
|
|
|
HPL posted:What developer are you using? I've had good luck with Xtol and HC-110 up to 3200 with AP400. D-76... I just googled it and someone on Flickr was saying 9.5 minutes in stock solution at 68, so I went with that. I probably should have been better at metering for the shadows as well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2009 22:30
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:I've got 4 rolls of fresh K64 on the way, but you can never have too much Kodachrome, can you? How long is long? 11/97, it's branded as the official film of the olympic games.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2009 22:53
|
|
|
can't find any solid numbers for AP400@1600 with Ilfosol 3, I guess I should probably shoot a test roll and try it before I commit a real night's shooting
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2009 23:00
|
|
|
I got my betterscanning medium format film holder for my Epson V500. Now I can scan a whole strip of medium format film instead of scanning half and then flipping it around like you have to do with the factory holder. Unfortunately, automatic thumbnailing doesn't work with it, but I'm not too choked since I'm saving a ton of time and hassle by being able to do it all in one go instead of two. I've only done a couple of scans, but I'm not really noticing any huge improvements in scan quality over the regular holder if any at all. That may change as I fine-tune things. Scanning curly film like Shanghai GP3 is no problem at all because I am not a big babby. Overall, if you've got a V500 and scan a lot of medium format, the betterscanning holder is probably a good upgrade since it costs less than upgrading to a bigger scanner like a V700 and will get you about twice the scanning area as before. I can scan 4 6x4.5 photos at once, or 3 6x6 photos.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2009 23:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 22:27 |
|
|
How much was it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2009 00:35
|
|