|
Well I guess there's the Olympus E-P1 and the Leica M9 so if those sell like hotcakes then the other manufacturers will follow suit. Even the Pentax K7 has sort of retro styling.
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2009 07:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 07:58 |
|
|
A body with retro styling and a best-of mix of features from the EP1 and the pana M43 camera (plus a good EVF) would be pretty sex, yes 8)
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2009 13:04
|
|
|
Stregone posted:Nice. Was that thing repainted or something, it looks brand new! Mine is in really good condition, but there is still a bit of brassing around the strap rings and on the corners. Nope. It sat in it's leather case (which fell apart) for the last 10 years or so. It still worked the second I picked it up, but I'm gonna grab a new battery for it anyway. There's a bit of dusty crud around the dials, but everything looks to be tip-top.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2009 14:32
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Not to downplay the film nature of this thread, but if Canon or Nikon came out with a digital body with the aesthetics of a 70s/80s camera, I would be all over that in a heartbeat. That seems like a project for MAKE magazine or something, taking a film SLR and just putting a CCD in there. EDIT: I'm jealous of the A-1, I've been watching ebay for the past month or so, looking to pick up a non-squeaky one in good shape.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2009 15:49
|
|
|
I am developing some fomapan 400 for the first time. I just did a clip test for fix time and it cleared in 30 seconds or less. Should I seriously only fix for one minute or should I do something like 3 or 4 minutes just to be sure?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2009 02:13
|
|
|
Fix for at least 6 minutes, 8 if you can spare the time, you can't really overfix film. Also, you did dilute the fixer correctly, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2009 02:50
|
|
|
Yeah this is the same batch I have been using with tri-x for about a half dozen rolls.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2009 03:01
|
|
|
Shot a hockey game on film. From my seat. Manual focus. Turned out better than I thought, especially given that the players were skating towards and away from me so I had to get used to tracking them like that. Couldn't cheat by putting the aperture to f/8 because of the netting. http://www.mikechow.com/Nature-and-Stuff/Zanes-Birthday-Vancouver/10036809_KRrFU#687565643_HpdQn
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2009 03:02
|
|
|
Stregone posted:I am developing some fomapan 400 for the first time. I just did a clip test for fix time and it cleared in 30 seconds or less. Should I seriously only fix for one minute or should I do something like 3 or 4 minutes just to be sure? Once the film's been in the fix for about a minute you're safe to inspect it. I usually fix my film for at least 8 minutes. Sometimes when I check it at the end of that it won't be finished so I'll leave it in for 5 more minutes. I generally just let it sit (agitation at the beginning of the 8 minutes then at the end). My fix is pretty old so my times are probably unique to me. But if your film looks good after a minute then there's no real reason to leave it longer. Though, from experience, I've never had film fully clear in that short of a time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2009 04:22
|
|
|
Kaerf posted:Though, from experience, I've never had film fully clear in that short of a time. It happens. If you use a film with a thinner emulsion like, say, Shanghai GP3 and you mix up your fixer at maximum strength, it's fast as hell.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2009 04:52
|
|
|
Yeah loading the film into my negative sheets I noticed it was thinner than tri-x. I fixed for 6 minutes and it looks ok. Thanks for the info guys.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2009 05:05
|
|
|
HPL posted:Shot a hockey game on film. From my seat. Manual focus. Turned out better than I thought, especially given that the players were skating towards and away from me so I had to get used to tracking them like that. Couldn't cheat by putting the aperture to f/8 because of the netting. I hate to keep giving one sentence replies, but this is AAAwesome. Fake edit: What were you shooting, and what speeds did you manage?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2009 05:41
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:I hate to keep giving one sentence replies, but this is AAAwesome. I usually put that kind of info on the gallery page. But since you asked nicely, I was using an Olympus OM-2SP with Delta 400@1600, manual mode, 1/1000, aperture wide open which varied anywhere from 3.5 to 5.4 depending on lens and zoom length. Of the two telephotos I used (Vivitar 200mm f/3.5, Tamron Adaptall-2 60-300 f/3.8-5.4), the Tamron was probably the most surprising for the sharpness it gave. I already knew the Vivitar was good, but I wasn't expecting much from the Tamron and it did fine. Most of the image quality problems were from missed focus more than anything else. To be honest, it wasn't as bad shooting manual film as I thought it would be. I missed a lot of prime opportunities because of manual focus, but I could see that happening less and less if I kept at it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2009 06:06
|
|
|
HPL posted:It happens. If you use a film with a thinner emulsion like, say, Shanghai GP3 and you mix up your fixer at maximum strength, it's fast as hell. That just makes too much sense. :p
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2009 06:15
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Fix for at least 6 minutes, 8 if you can spare the time, you can't really overfix film. You can over fix film. A few extra minutes probably won't do much damage but leaving it too long in the fix will wash out some silver bleaching the highlights. One time I took a phone call while fixing some Tri-X and lost track of what I was doing messed them up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2009 09:06
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Fix for at least 6 minutes, 8 if you can spare the time, you can't really overfix film. I usually do 7, that's with regular Kodak fixer (not rapid-fix).
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2009 13:53
|
|
|
HPL posted:I usually put that kind of info on the gallery page. Buh, my bad. I scrolled down to the photos the second the page loaded 
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2009 18:04
|
|
|
Just thought I'd let you guys know I've got a Canonet QL17 GIII and a Dog Case fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Oct 23, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2009 23:34
|
|
|
Alright, so I've been scouring the camera bins for an Olympus XA, working on the theory that the average thrift store gnome wouldn't know that it is actually collectible and desirable and they'd lump them in with the plastic fantastic point and shoots. Thursday I score a XA2, well, not an XA but I figure I'd best grab it. For $5, can't go wrong, eh? This morning I stop off at another thrift store and find a XA. With the flash. In a case. $4. When it rains, it pours. Took the film out of the XA2, put it in the XA.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2009 01:23
|
|
|
Gnomad posted:Alright, so I've been scouring the camera bins for an Olympus XA, working on the theory that the average thrift store gnome wouldn't know that it is actually collectible and desirable and they'd lump them in with the plastic fantastic point and shoots. Thursday I score a XA2, well, not an XA but I figure I'd best grab it. For $5, can't go wrong, eh? Nice find, camera-wise all my local thrift stores seem to have is garbage. I picked up an XA for $10 on Craiglist but it's a bit of a basket case and needs servicing (aperture selection is extremely sticky, RF is off). They're great little cameras though, I'll probably cough up the $60 to get it fixed pretty soon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2009 01:30
|
|
|
I got my first roll of colour film developed and confirmed a few things. I suck (obviously). But it's definitely good to do some photography because I was incredibly ignorant before thinking that it's point and shoot and you're done. Always good to get another perspective on something and it's still fun. Camera definitely needs some new light seals. The minilab must be incredibly dirty, some of the stuff on the negatives is pretty bad. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2009 06:10
|
|
|
What DPI do you guys suggest scanning negatives at for "just to have around" quality? I suppose I should be scanning them pretty low unless I need to blow them up a lot. I just scanned a 6x4.5 colour negative at 3200dpi and the file was something like 299mb. Ridiculous. Edit: In hindsight I guess it's kind of a dumb question because it's a personal preference, so I guess I'll change the question to that. What do you prefer to scan at?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2009 06:34
|
|
|
I typically go for the highest "optical" resolution my scanner can support (4800 dpi). The question for me, though, is what format to save them in. Even at lower resolutions, TIFF and DNG seem bigger than they should be (compared to DSLR RAW, at least). Lately I've been saving them as DNGs, but I haven't really felt much of a benefit, so I may just go back to JPG. I could always re-scan if necessary.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2009 06:47
|
|
|
Yeah, my 299mb experiment was Vuescan at 3200dpi, 4x sampling, 24bit RBG TIFF-DNG output. I'm going to start toying with halving the dpi, and I've probably got twenty or so other settings I can play with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2009 08:14
|
|
|
HPL posted:Shot a hockey game on film. From my seat. Manual focus. Turned out better than I thought, especially given that the players were skating towards and away from me so I had to get used to tracking them like that. Couldn't cheat by putting the aperture to f/8 because of the netting. Wow, nice job. Those look great.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2009 08:21
|
|
|
I generally scan my film at 1200dpi, since all I use the scans for is web presentation. That, and my scanner isn't very good to begin with. :-/
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2009 12:11
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:Wow, nice job. Those look great. Thanks. First time shooting sports on film. Sure is a leap of faith when there's no screen to fall back on. I find that in general, shooting film has made me far more confident in my abilities than years of shooting digital ever would. As for scanning, I usually scan at 1200 for regular stuff for web. For prints, I find that 2400 is more than enough. Any higher than that and I'm wasting hard drive space and time. 1200 is a good compromise between quality and speed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2009 13:32
|
|
|
man thats gross posted:Lookie what I found! wow, that looks in great shape. On a related note: Lookie what I just bought!   Also came with: a Vivitar 80-200mm which seems to have a different type of mount (which is compatible), original camera booklet - which is quite informative, no lens cap though  also note the broken battery latch door.Can't wait to start using it, this will be my first good film camera  Not sure if this has already been covered but I was looking for a list of film brands and types with the quality/type of images they tend to produce.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2009 20:41
|
|
|
wickles posted:Not sure if this has already been covered but I was looking for a list of film brands and types with the quality/type of images they tend to produce. Not at all comprehensive, just based on my experiences: Fuji Velvia 50/100: slow (especially the 50) low grain, saturated, especially reds. Bad for skin, good for landscapes. Kodak Tri-X 400: a bit grainy, but pushes/pulls well. Great if you don't want to carry around lots of different speeds of B&W film. The old standard for photojournalism. Can be bought for cheaper as "Arista 400 Premium" (in 35mm only so far) at Freestyle. Fuji Natura 1600: high speed color C41 film. Fairly grainy and low saturation. Honestly I'd rather just shoot B&W at this speed. Kodak B&W 400: a black and white C-41 film (can be processed at a normal photolab). Grain is pretty reasonable but I don't like the tonality compared to real black and white film. Good if you're too lazy to do your own developing or don't have a scanner (the machine at my local CVS can scan this but not true B&W film)
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2009 21:12
|
|
|
Kodak Ektar 100: a fairly new film, it was released a year or so ago in 35mm, and they started producing 120 in april. It's kinda slow (obviously) but has hilariously unnoticeable grain (Kodak calls it the world's finest grained film) and produces excellent true-to-life colors.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2009 22:09
|
|
|
Does anyone know of a safe way to mail film overseas? I want to use ilfords black and white processing service, but ive heard the scanners used on parcels can be strong. I had a whole batch of films ruined earlier in the year after putting them through hand luggage scanners at an airport.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2009 22:59
|
|
|
Gnomad posted:Alright, so I've been scouring the camera bins for an Olympus XA, working on the theory that the average thrift store gnome wouldn't know that it is actually collectible and desirable and they'd lump them in with the plastic fantastic point and shoots. Thursday I score a XA2, well, not an XA but I figure I'd best grab it. For $5, can't go wrong, eh? I had almost the exact same thing happen. I found an XA2 with flash in the bin with the cheap point and shoot junk for $4.99. Then the next day I found an XA and another XA2 both with flash for $4.99 each again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2009 03:53
|
|
|
Kodak Portra: Not a film for general use, it's exactly what the name implies, a portraiture film. Comes in three speeds and two types. The NC (Natural Colour) variety is noted for gentle, subtle colours and rich blacks, needs lots of light so if you're in dim conditions (either because of actual light or lens speed) pick up the 400 speed type. The VC (Vivid Colour) variety has more saturated, vibrant colours. I've only shot 160 and 400, never tried the 800. Most if not all combinations of type and speed are available in both 135 and 120 format. Examples of each type at 160. The first shot by me, NC 135 around sunset. The second was shot by Walker Esner, VC 120, flash.  
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2009 08:16
|
|
|
Fuji Acros 100: A great modern t-grain b+w film, develop in Xtol 1:1 for some great results. A side note on Tri-X: 400TX is what people think of as "Tri-X". 320TXP is a studio kind of film, it has good tonality but won't produce the mad pushes of 400TX. Oh, and there's Fuji Reala 100 too. It is a great "everyday" sort of color negative film.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2009 17:23
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Fuji Natura 1600: high speed color C41 film. Fairly grainy and low saturation. Honestly I'd rather just shoot B&W at this speed. Never heard of this and had to look it up. I dunno, for 1600 i'm pretty impressed with this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bobby_stokes/sets/72157601850866139/
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2009 20:09
|
|
|
I guess I should try some direct marketing to the SA Film Crew: I have a Microtek 4000tf film and slide scanner for sale in SA Mart in this thread. Comes with everything you see in the picture and produces great results. It's just been sitting around since I haven't used film in quite a while and would like to see someone put it to good use. autojive fucked around with this message at 21:19 on Oct 26, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2009 21:11
|
|
|
I'm about to start developing my own B&W at home. I'm planning on using HC-110 and pushing films pretty far. The problem I'm wondering about though is that we keep our house at 80 degrees (I live in Florida). I've got a minifridge I can dedicate to chemicals, would it be a good idea to chill my developer to 66 so it will warm up during development and even out the temperature extremes? I can't even find a time<->temp chart that goes to 80F. Are any of the other chemicals dependent on being cooler to work well? VVV Yeah, I guess my biggest worry is if I want to do semi-stand development. Sitting for 15 minutes is probably going to warm it up a lot. Has anyone else had to combat this? w_hat fucked around with this message at 23:17 on Oct 26, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2009 22:42
|
|
|
If you pre-mix your water to be at the right temperature, my guess would be that adding slightly warmer chemicals in such a low ratio wouldn't affect the overall temperature that adversely. Maybe mix your water to half a degree below the ideal and then add the developer? I usually mix my water to 20c and then don't even bother checking once I add the developer. I'm working with a 1+9 mixture (Ilfosol 3) though, I haven't had the pleasure of using HC-110 yet so I can't speak for it. I guess I'm advocating sloppy developing Edit: The only thing I'd worry about in such a warm environment is letting the dilution sit for a long time once it's been mixed. Have all your stuff ready to go, all laid out so you can mix your developer and tank it right away. some kinda jackal fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Oct 26, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2009 23:03
|
|
|
If you're concerned about the tank warming up, put it in a water bath and adjust as required using ice or cold water. You may find it insulates better than you expect, though, and for such a short period I don't think any potential temperature increase will be a major issue. Fill the tank with 68° water, seal it up, let it sit for 15 minutes, and check it at the end... That'll give you a good idea how it's going to warm up. The other chemicals you can use at more or less any warm enough temperature as far as functioning, but it's better for the emulsion if you keep the whole process within a several-degree range (Ilford says 9F, Kodak says 7F). On modern emulsions it's not nearly as big of a deal, but if you're shooting Foma/Forte/Lucky or something you can get nasty reticulation from too much temperature variation. Molten Llama fucked around with this message at 00:29 on Oct 27, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2009 00:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 07:58 |
|
|
Experiment and figure out a good developing time that works for you with the least trouble. Manufacturer developing times are generalities at best. There are so many variables besides temperature. The higher temperature will actually work in your favour if you're doing lots of pushing because you will be able to develop the film in less time than at the listed times.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2009 00:53
|
|