|
Martytoof posted:Hmm. I can hardly wait to scan these in now :B Yes and yes. You can absolutely change the ASA/ISO dial to compensate EVs, but it's often easier depending on the camera to just go into manual mode and work from there.
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2009 04:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 18:58 |
|
|
Film has gobs of latitude, go ahead and shoot a stop over/under if you need to. For a while there I was shooting tons of C41 400 at 800, developed at 400, comes out just fine and often even better than fine. It will make things contrastier depending on the film, so keep that in mind. I always just spin the ISO dial to where I want it, but then again I don't use DX. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2009 04:20
|
|
|
ISO changing will work fine as long as (as pwn mentioned) you're not shooting a camera in DX-encoding mode. Just don't forget to change it back later (!).
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2009 04:33
|
|
|
Yeah, none of my cameras are DX, and the one I'm specifically talking about is my Mamiya 645 1000s. I know later models of the AE prism have EV compensation but I only have the ASA dial. This will be a neat trick to try when I need to compensate, thanks gang. PS I loving love my 645 
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2009 05:21
|
|
|
Why would you even use EV compensation when adjusting your meter is so easy to do? On another note, I got a Polaroid 210 for a buck on ebay, and after making myself a tape/aluminum foil/AAA battery pack, it seems to be working fine.   vv: I mean why bother using a compensation dial when you can either adjust your meter, or simply adjust your exposure to achieve the effect you're after. 365 Nog Hogger fucked around with this message at 05:51 on Sep 9, 2009 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2009 05:37
|
|
|
How else can I adjust my meter besides EV or ASA compensation?Reichstag posted:vv: I mean why bother using a compensation dial when you can either adjust your meter, or simply adjust your exposure to achieve the effect you're after. Oh. I don't really know; I shot digital way before I shot film so adjusting EV is just natural to me. I basically have my 645 in Av mode so I think it would be easier to adjust the ASA dial rather than putting the camera into manual mode, selecting the desired shutter speed and aperture combination, then resetting it. Plus the meter itself completely stops functioning once I assign a shutter speed manually, so I don't have any kind of device to check my readings with. But to be completely honest, I haven't shot it manually at all yet, only in Av mode, so my experience is limited. I think you said you played with a M645 earlier in the thread and I'm always open to learning other/better ways of doing things. some kinda jackal fucked around with this message at 06:11 on Sep 9, 2009 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2009 05:46
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted: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. Got any shots from it to post as examples? I'm in the market for 100-speed film with more "natural, true-to-life" colors lately.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2009 22:35
|
|
|
So my first assignment in my photography 101 class was making photograms. I am really uncreative when it comes to making art out of nothing, so I totally cheated. I took one of my black and white pictures, inverted it and printed it out on paper. This basicaly gave me an 8.5x11 inch paper negative, which I just contact printed. It worked surprisingly well. Luckily the teacher thought it was a great idea.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2009 02:33
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:Got any shots from it to post as examples? I'm in the market for 100-speed film with more "natural, true-to-life" colors lately. How about these:        e: For reference, I don't know how much post has been done on those. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 05:55 on Sep 10, 2009 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2009 05:12
|
|
|
That's some HUGE range in terms of saturation and vibrance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2009 05:55
|
|
|
Haha, yeah... apparently Reala is both 160S and Velvia 50 at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2009 18:56
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Haha, yeah... apparently Reala is both 160S and Velvia 50 at the same time. Why don't they just make 100S? Sigh...
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2009 18:52
|
|
|
Psst... Here's a secret, you can just expose 160S as though it were 100 and the worst thing that is going to happen is that your shadows will open up a bit more (though this will reduce contrast and make your photos look flatter, you can always post-process in a different direction, personally I love a flat look).
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2009 20:15
|
|
|
I'm actually on vacation right now on some remote island (with curiously strong cell phone signal, hence this post) and just happen to be shooting both Reala 100 and Portra 160S at 100, so whenever I get back and get my film processed, it will be interesting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2009 23:40
|
|
|
(I've had a few bottle of wine but) Have decided to start getting into film after I discovered negative scanners aren't as expensive as I first thought, Anyone got any recommendations to a scanner below $400? Im looking at the Plustek OpticFilm 7300, Plustek OpticFilm 7200 or the Epson Perfection V300. As for the film camera I havent decided yet, but im thinking it will stop me being so lazy and take a bit more pride in the stuff I shoot, Im sick of just looking at it on a monitor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2009 23:55
|
|
|
I went to the local camera store for some Tri-X today and discovered that they were selling all of their chemicals and paper at 50% of cost. Needless to say I walked out with a lot more than I expected and developed all the B&W film I've shot over the last 4 years and have never sent off to a lab. Unless someone in Oklahoma can sell me an enlarger, my question is the same as above: the best cheap-ish 35mm/slide scanner? Seems like the best spot for price/performance is Nikon's Coolscan IV or V. I've used them before and I know they're great, but any other suggestions?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2009 00:32
|
|
|
Those Plusteks seem like pretty solid bargains, considering I've seen the 7300 for less than $200 new. here's some random flickr guy's very big scan from one: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2601/3838207432_befb20c99c_o.jpg
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2009 01:29
|
|
|
Interrupting Moss posted:I I still have a Durst F30 that I'll send off for the price of postage. Scannerwise, I'm starting to think the canoscan8800 might not be the best unit for 35mm. I just can't quite seem to get the results I want from it, even with turning off all filtering in the scanner driver and doing it all in either PS Elements or the PhotoStudio that came with the scanner. This seems to be the best I've gotten from the 8800 lately. Plus-X, Yashica Electro CC that I wanted to try out over the weekend. 
Gnomad fucked around with this message at 02:37 on Sep 12, 2009 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2009 02:26
|
|
|
I now think macro lens + nice digital camera is the best option for 35mm, if you have them laying around... I think you may lose bit depth but also gain dynamic range (it seems that most dedicated film scanners can't capture the entire dynamic range of high contrast film, like velvia)
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2009 03:03
|
|
|
A dSLR won't capture the entire dynamic range of a B/W negative either.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2009 03:04
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:A dSLR won't capture the entire dynamic range of a B/W negative either.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2009 03:09
|
|
|
Really Gnomad it doesn't look that bad... there might be some minor artifacts in the OOF areas and a bit of oversharpening, but it looks pretty decent to my eyes at this resolution (unlike that weird Dust & Scratches watercolor look some of your older ones had). Is it the dynamic range you're not happy with?Interrupting Moss posted:I went to the local camera store for some Tri-X today and discovered that they were selling all of their chemicals and paper at 50% of cost. Needless to say I walked out with a lot more than I expected and developed all the B&W film I've shot over the last 4 years and have never sent off to a lab. Enlargers can be had for free or close to it on Craigslist, although I guess if you're not in a densely populated area they might be fewer and far between. You could try throwing up a "wanted" ad in the photo/video section of whatever's in driving range and see if you get any bites. I've got an Epson V500 that I'm more or less happy with for 35mm (disclaimer: I only scan for proofing and posting on the web), although everyone swears by dedicated 35mm scanners if that's what you mainly shoot. The Minolta DiMage IV is a name I hear a lot for those in the budget catagory, it's usually around $250 or so.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2009 03:13
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Really Gnomad it doesn't look that bad... there might be some minor artifacts in the OOF areas and a bit of oversharpening, but it looks pretty decent to my eyes at this resolution (unlike that weird Dust & Scratches watercolor look some of your older ones had). Is it the dynamic range you're not happy with? The artifacts in the OOF area are likely the wierd bokeh from the CC lens-it has a 2 bladed arperture. As for the dynamic range, it's a problem that has bedeviled me for ages. I do my processing, save as a maximum quality jpeg (for web stuff anyway)and usually I'm satisfied with the results-then upload and *bleh* things tend to flatten out. If nothing else, some more time spent experimenting is in order. That last one was scanned at 9600 dpi, at a 2500x1900 size, then reduced to 1000 pixels for upload. I plan to try to scan more from the roll, but the CC seems to have underexposed the film a bit. Well, what can I expect from a $3 camera?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2009 04:47
|
|
|
Gnomad posted:The artifacts in the OOF area are likely the wierd bokeh from the CC lens-it has a 2 bladed arperture. As for the dynamic range, it's a problem that has bedeviled me for ages. I do my processing, save as a maximum quality jpeg (for web stuff anyway)and usually I'm satisfied with the results-then upload and *bleh* things tend to flatten out. You save as a big jpeg, it looks fine, then you upload it and it looks flattened out (maybe less range or vibrancy)? Maybe it is a save for web or colorspace issue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2009 06:22
|
|
|
e: wrong thread
Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 07:41 on Sep 12, 2009 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2009 07:26
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:The Minolta DiMage IV is a name I hear a lot for those in the budget catagory, it's usually around $250 or so. I have a Minolta DiMage Dual Scan III, ive been pretty happy with the results but only if I do more than 4 samples. The noise is noticeable if I do less. Also it doesnt seem to work very well with windows 7, I think im going to have to set it up one a XP box. Also forgot I shoot a roll of tri-x at 1600 asa the other day and developed it at 400. Kids make sure you note with sharpie on the canister what you shot film at.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2009 14:46
|
|
|
Sadi posted:I have a Minolta DiMage Dual Scan III, ive been pretty happy with the results but only if I do more than 4 samples. The noise is noticeable if I do less. Also it doesnt seem to work very well with windows 7, I think im going to have to set it up one a XP box. The ScanDuals are limited to 35mm, correct? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2009 17:28
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:A dSLR won't capture the entire dynamic range of a B/W negative either. You can always bracket and recombine. Earlier this year I had a project at work digitizing 19th/early 20th century stereoviews, we had 8 hours to do as much of this private collection as possible. We had one flatbed scanner that did a great job but was slow and couldn't do any of the numberous curved ones: I set up my 5D on a copystand and had it bracket two stops in either direction (total of 3 pictures) and shot about 44GB worth. I don't handle image processing (thank god) but it apparently worked out quite well. Fake edit: these were prints and not negatives but I'd assume the principle holds true.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2009 00:16
|
|
|
Shot my first rolls of Ilford 100 (for MF) and TMAX 100 (for 35mm). My first time shooting b&w out of a controlled environment, so I'm really excited for how they're gonna turn out. I also have a huge bag of like 40 rolls of tri-x 400 (for MF) sitting around, and just wanted to know if it was really possible to push tri-x 400 up to like 1600 and still have it look decent? I know b&w is more malleable in terms of that stuff, but is it THAT drastic?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2009 00:42
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:Shot my first rolls of Ilford 100 (for MF) and TMAX 100 (for 35mm). My first time shooting b&w out of a controlled environment, so I'm really excited for how they're gonna turn out. I also have a huge bag of like 40 rolls of tri-x 400 (for MF) sitting around, and just wanted to know if it was really possible to push tri-x 400 up to like 1600 and still have it look decent? I know b&w is more malleable in terms of that stuff, but is it THAT drastic? Yes you can push the poo poo out of it. Search flickr and you will find plenty of examples. Xtol is good for pushing Tri-X to 3200.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2009 01:13
|
|
|
Tri-X kicks rear end for pushing. Try it as 1250 or 1600 in Diafine, or push it in Xtol like killabyte said. It's gonna get contrasty quick, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2009 01:34
|
|
|
killabyte posted:Yes you can push the poo poo out of it. Search flickr and you will find plenty of examples. Xtol is good for pushing Tri-X to 3200. Yeah, here's two rolls of 35mm I pushed to 1600 in D-76 last week: football Looks fine, would have no problems with doing it again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2009 01:43
|
|
|
Or better yet, pull it to 200 or 100, it looks like thick grey chocolate...
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2009 01:57
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:just wanted to know if it was really possible to push tri-x 400 up to like 1600 and still have it look decent? dorkasaurus_rex posted:I know b&w is more malleable in terms of that stuff, but is it THAT drastic? Example: 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2009 03:30
|
|
|
Tri-X will often push to 3200 better than 3200 films, f.ex Delta 3200.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2009 05:57
|
|
|
I want to try Xtol, but I'm just worried about it failing on me. I know, it's gotten more reliable and I can do clip tests, but that's a hassle. Then again, the speed-preserving/boosting ability I've seen from Xtol is second to none for a single bath developer. I'm thinking about trying the Xtol clone from Freestyle, sold under the Legacy Pro brand. Kaerf: That looks wonderful for TX@3200.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2009 06:06
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I want to try Xtol, but I'm just worried about it failing on me. I know, it's gotten more reliable and I can do clip tests, but that's a hassle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2009 06:14
|
|
|
Stopped at a garage sale, found a Minolta Maxxum 7000, 28-80zoom, 50 1.7, a XG-1, 50mm 1.4, and a couple of junky third party MD mount zooms. $50. And I left it on the table, just having bought a Maxxam 7000 with the 50mm 1.7 yesterday at a thrift store for $9.99. The only thing I didn't have was that 28-80, the rest was all duplicates of stuff I already have. Restraint, it's a crazy thing!
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2009 07:37
|
|
|
Just bought a 20 pack of Superia 400/36, a 10 pack of Kodak max 800/24 and an 8 pack of NPZ800/36, as well as an XA to go with my XA2. Also looking to buy a Ricoh GR1 if anyone knows a reputable seller.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2009 15:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 18:58 |
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:The ScanDuals are limited to 35mm, correct? Yeah its a real bummer. Im probably going to get a V500 around the end of the year for scanning MF and maybe 4x5 if my large format dreams ever come true.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2009 15:23
|
|