|
hybr1d posted:I hadn't planned on sharing lenses- I am way beyond hoping to save any money with this habit It's kind of an in-between I guess? 100 is the choice for nice fine grain, 400 is a great compromise between speed and grain, and then you get into drat THE GRAIN FULL SPEED AHEAD territory. You can get good results pushing 400 film to 800 for sure, and possibly a lot farther. I've seen pictures of Tri-X 400 pushed to 25,600 (Tri-X rules for this and everything else). They're not something you'd want to frame but they're usable, at least. Strangely, I'm reading that pushing some 400 speed films to high speed actually produces better results than just using high speed film (Delta 3200, I'm looking at you). Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 17:30 on Aug 26, 2009 |
#
?
Aug 26, 2009 17:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 17:02 |
|
|
nevermind, I basically wrote the exact same thing as Paul. That's what I get for not reading.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2009 01:06
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Strangely, I'm reading that pushing some 400 speed films to high speed actually produces better results than just using high speed film (Delta 3200, I'm looking at you). I can confirm that. Delta 3200 grain is nuts. Black and white 400 film is incredibly easy to push to 800. 800 film would be a waste of money.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2009 02:01
|
|
|
3200 speed films are not truly ISO 3200, they are generally low contrast ISO 1600 or 1250 films that push well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2009 02:22
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:3200 speed films are not truly ISO 3200, they are generally low contrast ISO 1600 or 1250 films that push well. And they do that by using huge chunks of silver halide as opposed to normal sized chunks on 400 film. Speaking of 400 film, I shot a concert last night on Ilford Delta 400. Oh my, that is a sweet film.    Rest of set: http://mikechow.smugmug.com/Concerts-2009/Stampede-QueenBurning-Borders/9420995_2Mj37#631420051_Kvgwo The only annoying thing is that Delta 400 is about $8 a bulk roll more than HP5+.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2009 03:37
|
|
|
HPL posted:Speaking of 400 film, I shot a concert last night on Ilford Delta 400. Oh my, that is a sweet film. What shutter speed did you tend to run at? Wondering if you spot-metered, locked and recomposed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2009 04:26
|
|
|
HPL posted:Speaking of 400 film, I shot a concert last night on Ilford Delta 400.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2009 04:26
|
|
|
Kaerf posted:Really? Delta 400 is the one film I've tried and absolutely hated. Much prefer HP5 or Tri-x. That is because T grained film looks awful.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2009 04:33
|
|
|
pwn posted:drat, that's rich. Great shot. Ran aperture priority, so I couldn't tell you the exact shutter speed. Spot metered and AFed, then recomposed and shot. The EOS A2E can't separate exposure and AF like the DSLRs otherwise I would have done that like I do with my 40D. Shot three rolls of bulk loaded Delta 400. As for Delta vs HP5+, it's a matter of what you're looking for more than anything. There's no absolute universal film, though HP5+ does come pretty close. I'm not a snob when it comes to T-grain vs traditional. I'll use whatever looks best for the given situation. Sometimes you want gritty and grainy, sometimes you don't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2009 04:50
|
|
|
Does anyone know if the Bronica ETRS(i) and SQA(i) bodies can use the same lenses?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2009 18:22
|
|
|
hybr1d posted:Does anyone know if the Bronica ETRS(i) and SQA(i) bodies can use the same lenses? Negative. Different sized image circle. 8th-samurai posted:That is because T grained film looks awful. I thought this until I used Acros in Rodinal, or the new version of TMAX 400 (TMY-2). TMAX 100 (TMX) is really nice, too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2009 21:46
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I thought this until I used Acros in Rodinal, or the new version of TMAX 400 (TMY-2). TMAX 100 (TMX) is really nice, too. Acros in Rodinal in 5x4 is amazing. I'm currently shooting all my landscapes and architecture on FP4+ at EI 80, though I'm tempted to move to Delta 100 for my fine stuff, and HP5+/Tri-X (old, 320 style) for when I want some grit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2009 21:50
|
|
|
I'm a big fan of Acros 100 in XTOL. I wish Freestyle sold Legacy Pro 100 in 120 format. I've been meaning to try FP4, but I've got so much Acros sitting around that it'll be a while before I need more.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2009 22:59
|
|
|
I was at the local lab yesterday, getting some negatives developed and chatting with the owner, and somehow left with a Beseler enlarger (set up for 6x6 and missing only the baseboard), and all the gear needed to make wet prints (grain focuser, trays, tongs, even a safety light)! Apparently, he was ready to throw it away, and was about to call me to see if I wanted it before I came in! 
365 Nog Hogger fucked around with this message at 08:21 on Aug 29, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2009 08:18
|
|
|
Mannequin fucked around with this message at 09:19 on Aug 29, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2009 09:00
|
|
|
okay so i'm up real late scanning films and look who pops out at me a dust mite? i was scanning at 3000dpi so whatever he is, he's 0.28mm long.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2009 14:10
|
|
|
Fairly recently I was given a gift by my girlfriend's grandmother after she discovered I was so interested in photography. Apparently her late husband was a very keen amateur photographer, and for years now the equipment he used in his hobby has lain undisturbed in a box. So it was gifted to me, with the only condition attached being that I should make sure I use it. I opened the box and found this - http://www.lumieresenboite.com/collection2.php?l=2&c=Foca_Sport_II I'd never heard of FOCA before. But I've since tried to learn a little about it. Also in the box was one of these - http://www.cosmonet.org/camera/leic3f_e.htm The rangefinder in the FOCA is quite faint, while in the Leica it's very contrasty - and it has a small OKARO filter to help focus. I think the Leica's going to be easier to use, as I'm told that although it's not been used for a very long time it was serviced only a few years ago. There are two 50mm lenses with the Leica. One is a Summitar which needs repaired. The other is a Jupiter-8. I haven't used a rangefinder before. I only use a DSLR. In fact I've only had about one year of using 35mm film back in the mid 1980s. So for the past few weeks I've been reading as much as I can. I'm looking forward to using them, but does anyone have any advice or tips about this type of camera or anything about rangefinders in general?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 00:14
|
|
|
oncearoundaltair posted:Fairly recently I was given a gift by my girlfriend's grandmother after she discovered I was so interested in photography. Apparently her late husband was a very keen amateur photographer, and for years now the equipment he used in his hobby has lain undisturbed in a box. So it was gifted to me, with the only condition attached being that I should make sure I use it. I opened the box and found this - Rangefinders are awesome. I love 'em. They are very easy to focus in low light provided you have something with contrast. How long has the Leica been sitting around? You should check all the shutter speeds to make sure they are at least somewhat accurate, and you should also try to check the rangefinder alignment and have it adjusted if necessary. Try focusing on something far away at infinity and see if the alignment is correct, and then try some closer up items to make sure it isn't way off.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 00:19
|
|
|
killabyte posted:
Thanks for the tips. I'd looked at the alignment already, although not at an object close up. I've done it now and it seems fine. To answer your question, it was serviced at the end of 2007. The shutter speeds were checked then, along with such as the shutter curtains checked for holes (none were found - but I'm so ignorant of this stuff...) and it seems to be in really excellent working order and condition. There's one thing I'm not sure about. I've read conflicting advice about cutting/not cutting the film, using a template, etc. Some say it's recommended, others that it's not needed. I don't want to cause any damage. So, any suggestion about cutting and loading the film?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 00:34
|
|
|
oncearoundaltair posted:Thanks for the tips. I'd looked at the alignment already, although not at an object close up. I've done it now and it seems fine. RFF is the best place to go for rangefinder info. How to load a Leica Bottom-Loader: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22421
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 00:36
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:RFF is the best place to go for rangefinder info. Thanks. I'd read that thread before and thought the first post was the way to go. But then I continued reading further down and there was talk of using a business card between the shutter housing and the film, and so I wasn't convinced. But if the first method is the definitive one, I'll give it a try.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 00:45
|
|
|
I kinda said "eh, nah" before, but maybe a dedicated RF thread would be worthwhile. If someone wants to write up Leica stuff I'll do the 3rd party things. Edit: is there a fixer equivalent to HC-110? (Something you mix up from a small amount of concentrate and use once?) Pompous Rhombus fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Aug 30, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 19:45
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:I kinda said "eh, nah" before, but maybe a dedicated RF thread would be worthwhile. If someone wants to write up Leica stuff I'll do the 3rd party things. I could write about Leica. What kind of information would you think needs to be covered? Or what are people curious about? quote:Edit: is there a fixer equivalent to HC-110? (Something you mix up from a small amount of concentrate and use once?)
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 21:41
|
|
|
This might be a stupid question, but what do you guys do about cutting your negs into little strips if the edges of each frame are indistinct? I have a whole roll of low light or night shots, and I'll be damnned if I can tell where most of the frames start and end.Kaerf posted:Plus, you really don't want to be throwing fix down the drain. Do you mean that more like "you don't want to be throwing it away after every use" or "you need to dispose of it properly"? I'm in no danger of running low on fixer, but I suppose I'll have to get rid of this batch sometime so I'd like to dispose of it properly if I can. some kinda jackal fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Aug 30, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 22:15
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:This might be a stupid question, but what do you guys do about cutting your negs into little strips if the edges of each frame are indistinct? I have a whole roll of low light or night shots, and I'll be damnned if I can tell where most of the frames start and end. Fram arrows are also on 120 film, but seem to only work with 6x4.5
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 22:21
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Do you mean that more like "you don't want to be throwing it away after every use" or "you need to dispose of it properly"? Well, both really. You can dispose of it after each use, but that's a waste of money, since it lasts well past one roll. You do need to dispose of it properly, as well. Most university's, if they have a black and white darkroom, will take in used fixer if you ask. Otherwise, there are toxic/hazardous waste disposal places.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 22:35
|
|
|
My high school photography teacher told us that dumping fixer down the drain is horrible. The silver gets in the water, then in the fish, and then in us when we eat the fish.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 22:41
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:This might be a stupid question, but what do you guys do about cutting your negs into little strips if the edges of each frame are indistinct? I have a whole roll of low light or night shots, and I'll be damnned if I can tell where most of the frames start and end. You're supposed to be disposing of fixer properly. My college got fined several hundred thousand dollars by the EPA a few years ago, partly because the photo kids were dumping fixer down the drain in significantly-detectable amounts. Get yourself a well-sealed chemical bucket, say, five gallons or so, and store your used fixer in that until you can get it to a disposal facility. Granted, it's unlikely that anyone will be testing a residential drain, but it's still wasteful and unwise to dump a silver-containing solution like that. As far as your negative cutting issue goes... if your film advance is working properly, each frame should be 36mm wide (8 perforations) with a 2mm gap between frames. If you can find the edges of one frame, measure accordingly to find where the gaps should be. I usually use the first successfully-cut strip as a template for the rest whenever the frame edges are lost. Dr. Cogwerks fucked around with this message at 23:03 on Aug 30, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 22:53
|
|
is go
|
Kaerf posted:I could write about Leica. What kind of information would you think needs to be covered? Or what are people curious about? For Leica, maybe a basic rundown of the models, history of the system, why they're so expensive (  ), how they work, advantages versus an SLR, etc. I was going to cover the FSU, Bessa, and Canon offerings (I don't really know poo poo about older Contax or Nikon RF other than the latter being ludicrously expensive, if anyone else does feel free to chip in). As for the fixer, I'm putting together a travel developing kit, so trying to keep weight/bulk down as much as possible. I know you can/should re-use it (what I've been doing so far), but was hoping there was a one-shot solution I could mix from concentrate so I'm not carrying around 600mL of fluid. Looks like I'll just have to suck it up and find a durable metal flask. On the same note, does anyone with a smallish thermometer want to trade? I got a darkroom bulb thermometer on eBay and it's literally like 5mm too tall to fit down in my tank with the lid closed (there's a dimple on the center of the lid that bulges inward I didn't take into account). I can take an exact measurement when I get home, it's a 2-reel Patterson tank.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 23:08
|
|
|
I doubt anyone is going to be able to write up something better than Stephen Gandy, so why not save yourselves a bunch of trouble and just include a bunch of links to Cameraquest?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 23:12
|
|
|
The edges of the black adhesive stuff on the back of my Yashica 5000 is starting to peel at the edges. Is there a fix for this to get it to stay in place?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 23:33
|
|
|
hybr1d posted:The edges of the black adhesive stuff on the back of my Yashica 5000 is starting to peel at the edges. Is there a fix for this to get it to stay in place? Rubber cement might work. If it's in really bad shape, you could be fancy and just tear off all the original leatherette and replace it. I don't see the Yashica 5000 on this site, but the other lynx kits might work... Cameraleather.com 
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2009 00:39
|
|
|
This the only appropriate place to say it, but there is nothing quite like getting back film you were too drunk to remember shooting and have most of it turn out tack sharp and more or less correctly exposed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2009 02:41
|
|
|
notlodar posted:On 35mm, there are little triangles that mark where a frame begins. If you are manually loading the film, it's a little harder. You can always use a roll of unexposed film as a guide. Yeah, I'm manually loading. I see arrows on both my AP400 and T-X400 but they don't line up with the beginning of my frames at all, rather just reside somewhere inside them. Dr. Cogwerks posted:As far as your negative cutting issue goes... if your film advance is working properly, each frame should be 36mm wide (8 perforations) with a 2mm gap between frames. If you can find the edges of one frame, measure accordingly to find where the gaps should be. I usually use the first successfully-cut strip as a template for the rest whenever the frame edges are lost. Thanks, this helped me out a lot, and I used a four-frame strip from another roll to help measure what was what. Thankfully my first shot had a distinct edge that I could start with. Looks like my winder might be slipping every now and then, I'm seeing a visibly smaller gap between one or two frames once every few rolls, but nothing major. I think I need to get a small paper cutter though, or some other method of cutting negs that isn't just me holding scissors up and eyeballing a perpendicular cut. some kinda jackal fucked around with this message at 06:28 on Aug 31, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2009 06:22
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:My mind wasn't working right -- I was thinking about the goggled Summarons and somehow got Summicrons into the mix. Quoting myself, sorry.... Ended up buying an Acall 35/3.5 after doing some research, should be here when I get back home from the trip-to-hell. $150+shipping+hood and if it's as good as described I will be very happy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2009 21:42
|
|
|
notlodar posted:ASMP's newsleffter had an interesting article
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2009 02:02
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:I think I need to get a small paper cutter though, or some other method of cutting negs that isn't just me holding scissors up and eyeballing a perpendicular cut. To be honest I felt like I was going crazy for the same reason with those first couple of rolls that underexposed/underdeveloped, but for shots that come out it's really not hard to eyeball it at all. notlodar posted:I have decided to do this bootleg style. I'll get a reversing ring tomorrow and use some screws and wood or sheet metal or something to rig something together. ASMP Newsletter claims good quality, I look forward to crisp 14mb files. Do a write-up, I'm interested to see how it goes!
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 02:10
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Do a write-up, I'm interested to see how it goes! Seconded, this should be interesting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 02:18
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:To be honest I felt like I was going crazy for the same reason with those first couple of rolls that underexposed/underdeveloped, but for shots that come out it's really not hard to eyeball it at all. Ok, just got a reversing ring, then threw this together in 15 minutes. (took some time to fold the cardboard right) Stuff used: 1 Canon 5D 1 Canon 50mm 1.4 1 reversing ring 2 alligator clips 2 mending braces I had laying around 1 stobe/umbrella (but any light should work) 1 tripod 1 nut/bolt 1 those cardboard back things that come with comic books sometimes phone snap  The mending brace wedged between the tripod and camera, with the joining bolt going through one of the holes. They form an angle so I could easily adjust the distance, to get it straight I eyeballed it. When I have my drill I'll just use one mending brace perpendicular to the camera and second mending brace fixed at the correct focal distance and perfectly parallel to the camera (sensor) Bootleg second attempt (the first attempt was handheld on my light table because I was lazy. I don't think I changed anything besides fixing the WB because I forgot to do it in camera.  There was slight vignetting with one of the handhelds but I don't see it here 1:1  arbitrary zoom  I think that's the film grain, which is awesome because 35mm scans of slide film never ends well for me. This "writeup" took longer than the process. I am also bad at writing things up so suggestions for the final writeup that comes who knows when would be nice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 03:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 17:02 |
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:Quoting myself, sorry.... Oh, alright. I was about to suggest the 35/3.5 Summaron or Elmar, which both have the "character" to match your Summitar - I use a Summaron on my RD-1 and it bothers me to no end because I'm more of the omg sharp fred miranda type.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 03:35
|
|
