|
I'm gonna have to get me a reversing ring and try this out properly. This is the most successful result of my 'hold a 50 backwards in front of another 50' method, with a flatbed scan on the right.
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 03:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 00:00 |
|
|
I just used one, even light is pretty important edit: this is like being in the darkroom but not. I can possibly fake tiltshift if I want. I think I sometimes lose sharpness around the edges... it's kinda cool edit 2: definite softness and CA around the edges, but acceptable when compared to an epson V500. proper macro equipment would definitely have better results. notlodar fucked around with this message at 05:20 on Sep 2, 2009 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 03:59
|
|
|
Just wanted to add that I just picked up a Canon CanoScan 8800f, and it's pretty drat good, even with stock film holders. The 35mm quality is passable, and the medium format quality is fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 09:32
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Just wanted to add that I just picked up a Canon CanoScan 8800f, and it's pretty drat good, even with stock film holders. The 35mm quality is passable, and the medium format quality is fantastic. Can you post a 35mm sample by any chance? I need to upgrade from my Minolta Quickscan 35+ now that I bit the bullet on MF and the prices on the 8800f seem reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 12:08
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Can you post a 35mm sample by any chance? I need to upgrade from my Minolta Quickscan 35+ now that I bit the bullet on MF and the prices on the 8800f seem reasonable.  (click on the image to see it larger) That's a 35mm scan of a 8-or-so year old black and white negative. Color negatives will fare better with FARE (heh) and dyes instead of silver grains, but I don't have any color negs lying around right now. Radbot fucked around with this message at 17:22 on Sep 2, 2009 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 17:16
|
|
|
notlodar posted: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. Thanks for doing this. I had no idea you could get results this good, and have all the gear for doing it already.  Will have to break out my Ektachromes when I get back home and try it out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 17:32
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:Thanks for doing this. I had no idea you could get results this good, and have all the gear for doing it already.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 17:57
|
|
|
This might be a  question, but if you buy a dedicated slide copier attachment, is it good for doing things other than slides as well (B&W, color positive film, etc)?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 19:05
|
|
|
Radbot posted:That's a 35mm scan of a 8-or-so year old black and white negative. Color negatives will fare better with FARE (heh) and dyes instead of silver grains, but I don't have any color negs lying around right now. TBH that looks fine to me. As good as or better than what my 90 year old QuickScan churns out. Edit: I don't see very pronounced grain but I don't know if that's your software, the scanner, or that it was a low-grain shot
some kinda jackal fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Sep 2, 2009 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 19:41
|
|
|
I shot 3 rolls of 120 this week with my new Bronica, using my Sekonic for metering. I went out last night and took similar photos using my Nikon D80, and for grins still started using the Sekonic. The problem is that my digital shots were over-exposed by 2-3 stops. I'm assuming my 120 film is going to be over-exposed as well, what should I do to 'pull' the development, assuming that's the correct approach? I double checked, and my ISO was set the same on the meter which is the only thing I can think of that would do this. Edit: It's Ilford Delta Pro 400, and my solution is HC110 B, which the dev chart says is 7.5 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2009 13:37
|
|
|
Personally I'd develop one of the rolls for about 4.5 - 5 minutes, see how that looks and then base your development of the two remaining rolls off that.
TokenBrit fucked around with this message at 13:54 on Sep 3, 2009 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2009 13:51
|
|
|
Has anyone shot the new Ektar 100 yet? I just bought some for and I'll post about it when I have it scanned.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2009 15:17
|
|
|
have it your weigh posted:Has anyone shot the new Ektar 100 yet? I just bought some for and I'll post about it when I have it scanned. It's not bad. Nice, fine grain. Colours can be a bit wacky though, especially on people. Something cheap like store-brand Fuji Superia 200 may serve you better for general purpose use.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2009 15:54
|
|
|
My local Henry's doesn't carry any 120 film, so I have to order it and then I just pick it up at the store. Anyway, I thought I ordered five rolls of HP5+ but it turns out the girl at the counter keyed in Delta 400 instead, and I didn't pay close enough attention to my order sheet. Can anyone tell me what I should be expecting to see in practice? I read that it's a finer grain film which I'm OK with -- is there anything else I should know before I decide whether I want to cancel the shipment or just shoot with the Delta? I'm trying to judge by comparing flickr pools, but they look pretty similar tbh.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2009 17:13
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Can anyone tell me what I should be expecting to see in practice? I read that it's a finer grain film which I'm OK with -- is there anything else I should know before I decide whether I want to cancel the shipment or just shoot with the Delta? Delta 400 is fine. It's only five rolls anyway. It's not like you ordered a case of it. Take it and run with it. You won't get the exact same images as HP5+ but you'll be happy with them anyway unless you're the film snob of film snobs. Also, I can't believe that Henry's of all stores wouldn't have 120 film in stock.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2009 17:26
|
|
|
HPL posted:Delta 400 is fine. It's only five rolls anyway. It's not like you ordered a case of it. Take it and run with it. You won't get the exact same images as HP5+ but you'll be happy with them anyway unless you're the film snob of film snobs. They don't have ANY 120 in stock because it's a relatively small store in a stripmall in the burbs. Proper Henry's carry all manners of film though. On the upside, the HP5+ is half a dollar cheaper than where I usually buy it, and I don't have to drive 20 minutes to pick up a roll, so I'm more than happy to just order it. Also, they just got rid of their used hardware section and the guy I talked to said they're getting rid of their film processing stock ASAP. They can still order it in, but it won't be in store. A little ridiculous since they've basically already got empty space after getting rid of their used stock one or two months ago, so I'm not exactly sure what they'll do with all their newfound shelf space. I'm going to pick up some HC-110 next time I'm in Toronto because it keeps well, and my bottle of Ilfosol 3 is already nearing half empty. I'm going to have a hard time getting the syringe in there to get it out soon  Edit: Also, definitely not a film snob. These will only be my 15-20th or so TOTAL rolls of film, I just didn't know if I should be expecting anything radically different some kinda jackal fucked around with this message at 17:32 on Sep 3, 2009 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2009 17:29
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:They don't have ANY 120 in stock because it's a relatively small store in a stripmall in the burbs. Proper Henry's carry all manners of film though. On the upside, the HP5+ is half a dollar cheaper than where I usually buy it, and I don't have to drive 20 minutes to pick up a roll, so I'm more than happy to just order it. Check out http://www.photo-co.com . I've ordered from them lots of times. Their prices are excellent, their shipping is very reasonable and their selection isn't super happy awesome, but it's probably better than most of the brick and mortar stores in any given area. Unfortunately, shipping liquid film chemistry in Canada involves ridiculous handling fees, but powdered stuff is still okay, so you can order developers like XTOL with no problems. Otherwise, HC-110 is an excellent choice if you can get it locally. You should be able to order it through the Henry's branch for an in-store pickup or something. Also, if you want a cheaper everyday film, you can try Shanghai GP3. There are lots of sellers in China and Taiwan on eBay that are selling it. It's not the greatest, sort of like 400 film quality in a 100 film, but it's cheap enough that it doesn't matter so much.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2009 17:42
|
|
|
HPL posted:Check out http://www.photo-co.com . I've ordered from them lots of times. Their prices are excellent, their shipping is very reasonable and their selection isn't super happy awesome, but it's probably better than most of the brick and mortar stores in any given area. I'd skip the Shanghai... I like trying cheap papers but I think life is too short for generic film (except the Arista stuff, which I love, but it's rebranded high quality film). Why not go with a cheap well-known film like Foma or Forte, or even Fuji Acros which, while a bit more, should be available in Canada and is very cheap in 120. I happen to like Ektar 100 quite a bit. HPL's right, it's not a great portrait film, but it's very saturated and very cheap for a pro film, and it's cheap to process. I'd shoot Ektar over, say Velvia 100F any day when considering total roll costs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2009 18:18
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I happen to like Ektar 100 quite a bit. HPL's right, it's not a great portrait film, but it's very saturated and very cheap for a pro film, and it's cheap to process. I'd shoot Ektar over, say Velvia 100F any day when considering total roll costs. I've heard something similar to that, that it's as close to slide film as you can get with a color negative film, which is nice considering you can take it to any corner drugstore and get it developed for a couple bucks in an hour, versus sending it out and paying $6-10 (plus having to wait). TBH it's not like I have a lifelong love affair with slide film, I've shot a fair bit of it but all but one roll (Velvia 100) has been cross processed. At any rate, definitely want to try out the roll of Ektar I've got in the fridge.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2009 19:37
|
|
|
While we're on the subject, can anyone recommend some colour 120? I'd like something slightly with desaturated or muted colours, though I don't know how much of that (if any) is a factor of processing and not film. Ideally something that wouldn't break the bank on an individual purchase level, so I wouldn't need to buy a brick to make it worthwhile. I've been recommended Kodak (Porta?) 100NC, anything else I should be looking at?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2009 19:50
|
|
|
hybr1d posted:I shot 3 rolls of 120 this week with my new Bronica, using my Sekonic for metering. I went out last night and took similar photos using my Nikon D80, and for grins still started using the Sekonic. The problem is that my digital shots were over-exposed by 2-3 stops. I'm assuming my 120 film is going to be over-exposed as well, what should I do to 'pull' the development, assuming that's the correct approach? I double checked, and my ISO was set the same on the meter which is the only thing I can think of that would do this. Were they truly overexposed by 2-3 stops, or did you just have some blown highlights? It's still probably a good idea to compensate slightly, but I wouldn't assume such a radical change (also remember B/W film is much more tolerant than digital).
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2009 19:50
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:While we're on the subject, can anyone recommend some colour 120? I'd like something slightly with desaturated or muted colours, though I don't know how much of that (if any) is a factor of processing and not film. Ideally something that wouldn't break the bank on an individual purchase level, so I wouldn't need to buy a brick to make it worthwhile. Fuji Reala 100 kicks rear end. Portra 160NC is actually a little too cool, though that may be what you're looking for. As for Acros, I'm quite familiar having shot it extensively and I'm working my way through a batch of Shanghai that I ordered a month or so ago. Shanghai is fine for general purpose use, like going out for a walk in the park on an average day or something like that where you don't want to be busting out the expensive film. I haven't had any problems with it in my Mamiya 645 Pro. Given the price of Acros in Canada, you can save one or two dollars a roll with Shanghai, which adds up if you're buying in quantity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2009 19:56
|
|
|
I got some 'expired' Ilford FP4 from my local photo store. When I got home, it turns out it expired in 1997. What can I expect? Awesome fogging?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2009 22:46
|
|
|
Depends on how it was stored, at the least, probably a little speed loss.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2009 22:48
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Depends on how it was stored, at the least, probably a little speed loss. Supposedly it's been frozen, but the rolls were out on a shelf. I'll make sure to run it at rated speed in Diafine. I'm happy I didn't buy their expired slide film, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2009 22:53
|
|
|
Snaily posted:I got some 'expired' Ilford FP4 from my local photo store. When I got home, it turns out it expired in 1997. What can I expect? Awesome fogging? How much did you get? HC-110 is apparently pretty good for reducing the effects of base fog, though perhaps at the expense of shadow detail.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2009 22:55
|
|
|
I just got a 100mm macro because I'm crazy about this taking pictures of pictures stuff. Amazing results, man, amazing. Will upload some stuff once I take them (once my strobe stops smoking)
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2009 01:47
|
|
|
new setup, "scanned" 120 slides in about an hour and a half. would have been faster (and will be faster) with uncut rolls of film. The best part is that you can adjust exposure and bracket underexposed/overexposed slides if needed. The increased DoF of the canon 2.8 100mm macro is super useful, the auto-focus is essential and the center to edge sharpness is amazing. Printing is limited by the 5D or the actual quality of the film, as of now, the 5D outdoes 35mm it seems, but this doesn't mean it will enlarge as nicely. (Though I hear some pretty greats thing about how huge Brad has printed photos taken with his 5D) Next up I'm going to make a 120 holder out of some more cardboard. Overexposed by one stop during "scan" to compensate for shadycat =^^=, 1:1 crop, click for full 1:1  new (still bootleg) setup: 
notlodar fucked around with this message at 04:51 on Sep 4, 2009 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2009 04:48
|
|
|
I made a REALLY ghetto film "scanner" based on the ideas in this thread, except I made a crappy lightbox out of some cardboard, paper, and a halogen desk lamp... And instead of a fancy DSLR (no money), I'm using a Canon SD1000 in "macro" mode. Lame equipment aside, however, I was absolutely blown away by the quality I got out of this thing. I was expecting lovely barely usable pictures, if they were even usable at all, that I could maybe post online at like 640x480 just to get an idea of what the picture was supposed to look like, but I might actually end up getting some cheap prints of these and hanging them up somewhere (not very big ones, obviously).      And a 100% crop:  Some people might disagree, but I think for a cardboard box, printer paper, a desk lamp, and an old point-and-shoot, the results are pretty incredible. Granted, there is a little bit of grain introduced by the less-than-stellar camera, and the colors are somewhat muted, but I actually like the effect on some of my pictures, and I think the fade out thing that happens toward the edges plus the edge of the film being visible adds to the effect.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2009 01:15
|
|
|
Holy poo poo. I'm fretting about finding a cheap scanner to do 120, I might try the box method tomorrow if I can find a way to macro on my K10.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2009 03:15
|
|
|
penneydude posted:I made a REALLY ghetto film "scanner" based on the ideas in this thread, except I made a crappy lightbox out of some cardboard, paper, and a halogen desk lamp... When I invert my colour film it just turns blue . How did you invert yours?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2009 06:20
|
|
|
I just picked up an original Olympus Stylus at goodwill for 2 dollars. So far lots of fun.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2009 07:09
|
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:When I invert my colour film it just turns blue . How did you invert yours? I had the same problem - I manually set the white balance when I had the camera focused on the negative, which fixed the blue shift, and then tweaked the levels just a touch in Photoshop to "undull" the colors. If you take a picture of your negative and the whole thing has kind of a brown or orange tint to it, it's going to look blue when you invert it. You want to minimize that in-camera as much as you can for the best results (it's going to still look a little orange, but I found there was a big difference when I set the white balance on the negative vs. when I set it to just the light itself).
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2009 08:33
|
|
|
Using a blue-ish light would probably help compensate for the orange mask of a negative to some extent. You can get rid of the blue-ness tint with photoshop's auto-level tool, but sometimes it screws up the colors and you have to tweak the levels manually.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2009 17:22
|
|
|
There's also a photoshop curves preset (at least in CS3) for inverting and compensating for the c-41 orange layer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2009 20:51
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:While we're on the subject, can anyone recommend some colour 120? I'd like something slightly with desaturated or muted colours, though I don't know how much of that (if any) is a factor of processing and not film. Ideally something that wouldn't break the bank on an individual purchase level, so I wouldn't need to buy a brick to make it worthwhile. A lot of people like the Fuji 160 stuff, like Fuji 160S, for natural/muted color. http://photography.nyman.at/FujiPro160.htm
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2009 21:22
|
|
|
Oh, I think you mentioned this in IRC but I forgot to respond. Reala 100 is the poo poo. Very balanced colors, very accurate reproduction, very sharp. Think Velvia in print form without the crazy saturation, or something like that. It is crazy cheap for 120 film, roughly $3.19 from BH/Adorama. If I could get about $100 of it with free shipping I would be all over that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2009 22:35
|
|
|
I'll check out all your suggestions for colour film and decide myself. It should be a neat experiment. In the meantime: OOPS! I accidentally had 35mm camera set to +1EV for this last roll of HP5-400. Should I just follow directions for developing at some kinda jackal fucked around with this message at 17:02 on Sep 8, 2009 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2009 16:58
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:I'll check out all your suggestions for colour film and decide myself. It should be a neat experiment. It's hardly an oops. It's a (very) long story, but personal EI (aka the ISO you expose at using your unique shooting method and your unique camera) often ends up being lower than box speed. I personally shoot HP5+ one or two thirds of a stop overexposed as SOP. You've got it right, just follow the directions (at digitaltruth.com 's Massive Dev Chart or other places) to develop at ISO 200. Since you gave more exposure, you'll be developing less, and you may come out with a negative that has slightly lower contrast than you're used to. I personally think it's much easier to work with low contrast negatives, as it's much easier to print on a hard grade of paper or scan in and make it contrastier than it is to recover lost highlights and shadows with an overly contrasty neg. In other words, you may have made a "yay" versus an "oops".
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2009 00:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 00:00 |
|
|
Hmm. I can hardly wait to scan these in now :B So theoretically since my Mamiya 645 doesn't have an actual +/-EV dial, I could just use my ASA knob to compensate if I need to, right? Like if I needed to +1EV my shot on 400 film (which I'm shooting at 400), I would just set it to 200 for that one frame? Or would this completely gently caress up my roll because that's just not how things are done in developing? Actually, now that I think about it I would probably be better off taking the reading from the metering prism and going into manual mode compensating for whatever EV I think I need for that one shot rather than playing with my ASA. some kinda jackal fucked around with this message at 02:25 on Sep 9, 2009 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2009 02:21
|
|