|
So I've been looking at film cameras for a while now, and I'm slowly posing hope of finding a decent rangefinder (Minolta 35, Canonet 17). I did come across a dude selling a good condition R3 (with a 50 and a 90 elmarit-R). Too bad it kinda defeats the purpose of the cameras I intended to get (small body, fast glass to throw BW film in and take everywhere) or I'd go take a look at it.
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2009 01:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 04:56 |
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:So I've been looking at film cameras for a while now, and I'm slowly posing hope of finding a decent rangefinder (Minolta 35, Canonet 17). I did come across a dude selling a good condition R3 (with a 50 and a 90 elmarit-R). Too bad it kinda defeats the purpose of the cameras I intended to get (small body, fast glass to throw BW film in and take everywhere) or I'd go take a look at it. If you want something easy, you'll probably want something with some kind of metering, which Leicas don't have. We went through this whole song and dance a few pages back, but don't count out compact SLRs from the 70's as they'll have all the features you're looking for, will be quite affordable and will have fast glass available at good prices, especially if you're looking for something really common like a 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.7. Make sure that the camera uses common batteries or else you'll have to go figure out some sort of replacement or substitute, which will almost always be the case if you can find a rangefinder with a meter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2009 02:00
|
|
|
evil_bunny posted:So I've been looking at film cameras for a while now, and I'm slowly posing hope of finding a decent rangefinder (Minolta 35, Canonet 17). I did come across a dude selling a good condition R3 (with a 50 and a 90 elmarit-R). Too bad it kinda defeats the purpose of the cameras I intended to get (small body, fast glass to throw BW film in and take everywhere) or I'd go take a look at it. Yeah, I wouldn't get too hung up on the idea of a rangefinder (although they are nice). I was thinking about picking up an AE-1 and one of those older FL primes to go on it as the ultimate low-light beater: I've got an R3a that I love to pieces but fast glass in LTM/M mount isn't cheap the way dead SLR systems' is. What's your budget? If you get something Leica mount, a Jupiter-8 50mm f/2 is like $10 (plus another 25 shipping from Russia) and a fantastic buy. It's a tad slow for dimly-lit indoor stuff unless you're shooting at 3200 though. The Jupiter-3 is a 50mm f/1.5 that costs about $100, I've considered getting one but they're more of a crapshoot as far as Russian-lens RF-focusing tolerances.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2009 02:51
|
|
|
Get something like a canon A-1. It has metering, and uses really cheap glass. Its also rather small and all metal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2009 04:54
|
|
|
Since I was curious about that Jupiter-8 that Pompous Rhombus was talking about, I searched around eBay. I stumbled upon a Zorki-4 rangefinder with one of these lenses and they're relatively cheap and seem to produce some nice images. Does anyone have any experience with these and would they be worth it as a basic rangefinder?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2009 05:23
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:So I've been looking at film cameras for a while now, and I'm slowly posing hope of finding a decent rangefinder (Minolta 35, Canonet 17). I did come across a dude selling a good condition R3 (with a 50 and a 90 elmarit-R). Too bad it kinda defeats the purpose of the cameras I intended to get (small body, fast glass to throw BW film in and take everywhere) or I'd go take a look at it. Bunny if you want to try a rangefinder, be on the look out for a Kodak Retina. I *loved* mine but it was stolen in The Great Burglary of Summer '07. I shore do miss that camera and who needs a metering system anyways? [slams down wine glass...]. Admittedly, I have trouble focusing with rangefinders but I have poor eyesight that's getting worse by the day which may be why I'm not rushing to replace it [pours another]. But if you want something SUPER easy to start with...you know what? There is no shame in keeping a point-and-shoot in your pocket. I *always* have one in my purse and use it several times a week. I especially like keeping 100 ASA in it and shooting in bright light or nighttime close ups with flash. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2009 05:49
|
|
|
beastathon posted:Since I was curious about that Jupiter-8 that Pompous Rhombus was talking about, I searched around eBay. I stumbled upon a Zorki-4 rangefinder with one of these lenses and they're relatively cheap and seem to produce some nice images. Does anyone have any experience with these and would they be worth it as a basic rangefinder? I almost tossed in something saying "if you're going to go the trouble of buying a J-8 from Russia, might as well get one with a FED or Zorki attached to it" since they're not that expensive. I've never owned one, but the basic rundown is the FED-2 is a little smaller (and cooler-looking IMO) but has a smaller, dimmer viewfinder than the Zorki does. Another bonnus is that they can use the Jupiter-12, which is a 35mm f/2.8. Most other LTM and M mount camera's can't because of its bulbous rear element, and it's the least expensive wide-ish option for the system by a considerable margin. The Zorki doesn't come with a meter (some of the later FED's do but they're lovely selenium ones and the cameras are ugly as sin). Cosina/Voigtlander makes a flash-shoe mounted one that gets rave reviews, although it costs about $150 used. Expensive, but something you can use with any camera. You could also go the pocket meter route, cheat off a meter-equipped camera (my strategy), or guestimate. Print and B&W film are fairly forgiving of exposure errors. Anyways, on the Russian cameras and some lenses QC can be iffy: most sellers nowadays are pretty good about returns, but you're still out almost the value of the camera if you've got to ship something back to Mother Russia. It pays to spend a little more on one that you know is going to work or at least won't cost you an arm and a leg to return, which is why my strategy is biding my time and waiting for it to come up for sale in the US. You could also try checking on photography sites, especially Rangefinder Forum. They've got an FSU camera subforum and I bought my 85mm f/2 (notorious for bad copies, I had already returned two stinkers from eBay for fungus/RF issues) from a guy on there. Another interchangeable-lens rangefinder that was recommended to me in this thread a long time ago is one of the old Canon's. They're also LTM, and some of the later models have selectable framelines (so you don't need to use an external VF for every non-50mm lens). They have meters, but they're old and the selenium ones are likely to be shot. They also come in around $200+, which is edging into Bessa territory so maybe not really worth it unless you're a purist or whatever. Cosina makes modern rangefinders under the Bessa/Voigtlander name. They take LTM (Bessa R) and M (R2x, R3x, R4x) Leica lenses and have built in meters that run on easily-found SR-44 batteries. Used R's go for around $200-250, although you can't use newer M-mount lenses in them. You can use LTM lenses in any M-mount camera with a cheap adapter. I've got an R3a, which has aperture-priority shooting and a 1:1 viewfinder. I'm not going to go into Leica (or much detail on Bessas) because http://www.cameraquest.com/classics.htm has way more information than I could add. spritely posted:But if you want something SUPER easy to start with...you know what? There is no shame in keeping a point-and-shoot in your pocket. I *always* have one in my purse and use it several times a week. I especially like keeping 100 ASA in it and shooting in bright light or nighttime close ups with flash. This probably sounds douchey as hell but I just can't use digital P&S's anymore, they're so clunky and I feel like I have to fight with the camera to get it to do what I want. They're okay for banging out snapshots of friends/family or whatever but I honestly felt kinda glad when I lost my lovely Panasonic last year. There aren't many pocketable film cameras that do low light well though, so I'm holding out for a good digital to be made. It seems like manufacturers are getting a lot closer lately. Pompous Rhombus fucked around with this message at 06:38 on Nov 3, 2009 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2009 06:31
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:This probably sounds douchey as hell but I just can't use digital P&S's anymore, they're so clunky and I feel like I have to fight with the camera to get it to do what I want. They're okay for banging out snapshots of friends/family or whatever but I honestly felt kinda glad when I lost my lovely Panasonic last year. There aren't many pocketable film cameras that do low light well though, so I'm holding out for a good digital to be made. It seems like manufacturers are getting a lot closer lately. Um... who said anything about a digital point and shoot? The Olympus Stylus Epic is the perfect pocket film camera for party shots.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2009 07:04
|
|
|
HPL posted:Um... who said anything about a digital point and shoot? The Olympus Stylus Epic is the perfect pocket film camera for party shots. Eh, I had an XA converted to shoot 1600 but a 2.8 lens is still too slow for available light. When you're just nuking with onboard flash I feel like a digital would get the job done just as well, with the added bonus of instant viewing/sharing of results rather than "whenever I get around to developing the roll".
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2009 09:05
|
|
|
I loving love Ektar. It's really something magical to see such ridiculous color appear from this washed out orange strip of plastic after running it through a scanner and silverfast. Shot with a Mamiya C330.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2009 09:26
|
|
|
Wow, thanks for the information Pompous Rhombus! I've done some more looking around and there doesn't seem to be much of a difference between the FED-2 and the ZORKI-4. The Industar-61 that comes with the FED seems to be preferable with some people than the Jupiter-8. I'm a tiny bit concerned with the smaller viewfinder and no 1/1000 speed, but these don't really seem to be problems, especially since the FED-2 is approximately $20 cheaper.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2009 10:06
|
|
|
HPL posted:Um... who said anything about a digital point and shoot? The Olympus Stylus Epic is the perfect pocket film camera for party shots. And under 5 bucks at Goodwill. Seriously awesome camera for the money. Bonus points if you can find a limited one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2009 10:07
|
|
|
HPL posted:If you want something easy, you'll probably want something with some kind of metering, which Leicas don't have. We went through this whole song and dance a few pages back, but don't count out compact SLRs from the 70's as they'll have all the features you're looking for, will be quite affordable and will have fast glass available at good prices, especially if you're looking for something really common like a 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.7. Make sure that the camera uses common batteries or else you'll have to go figure out some sort of replacement or substitute, which will almost always be the case if you can find a rangefinder with a meter. The R3 is an SLR, and it has center/full metering. It uses the same 3 cam lenses that all the newer R Leicas can take. And if that 50 he found is the Summicron, it's just about the sharpest lens you'll ever see. I do all my shooting with an R4, and most of the time I shoot with my Summy 50.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2009 17:37
|
|
|
HPL posted:If you want something easy, you'll probably want something with some kind of metering, which Leicas don't have. It's kind of a dangerous way to go about it but I don't have a fixed budget, as long as I end up with something usable by a digi-newbie and with features worth the money. So stuff like metering Leica rangefinders are pretty much out, and I'm more looking for stuff like decent shape QL17, 35RD's (pretty much nobody wants to part with those, it's ridiculous), things like that. The goal's really to get something smaller/lighter than my D90+Sig 30 combo, as that's what I carry everywhere now, and it gets aggravating when I have my work laptop+adapter plus a bunch of work-related hardware/reports in my bag already. It seems the thing to do is not be afraid to look at camera's from the UK/Germany, as the stinky loving Dutch only ever bought cheap rangefinders with slow lenses. Still no 35RD in sight, but there's quite a few QL17's for decent prices. I'd really rather get away from a mirror-slapping beast if I could at all. Thanks for the advice the lot of you, I feel the same as when I got my D90: the more I read the more I see the amount of poo poo I don't know. evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Nov 3, 2009 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2009 19:51
|
|
|
Howdy guys, quick question. I am pushing Tri-x 400 to ISO1000 (highest my camera goes to). When pushing, do I use the development times for iso800 push, or do I try to bump up the time to account for the discrepancy? If so, how much time?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2009 19:48
|
|
|
Putrid Grin posted:Howdy guys, quick question. I am pushing Tri-x 400 to ISO1000 (highest my camera goes to). When pushing, do I use the development times for iso800 push, or do I try to bump up the time to account for the discrepancy? If so, how much time? What soup are you using?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2009 22:42
|
|
|
Found an exposed roll of 116 Verichrome (the original, REALLY old kind). I just developed it in HC-110B...when I turned the lights on, it looked completely black, but upon closer inspection, there were a couple of photos that I could see fairly clearly. I'll definitely scan them as soon as they dry, but I'm not sure if my scanner will be able to see anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 04:00
|
|
|
Putrid Grin posted:Howdy guys, quick question. I am pushing Tri-x 400 to ISO1000 (highest my camera goes to). When pushing, do I use the development times for iso800 push, or do I try to bump up the time to account for the discrepancy? If so, how much time? Just use Diafine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 04:32
|
|
|
spritely posted:What soup are you using? HC-110 Solution B
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 06:36
|
|
|
The most linear of developers. Go like half or 1/3 between 800 and 1600 times.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 07:45
|
|
|
FasterThanLight posted:Found an exposed roll of 116 Verichrome (the original, REALLY old kind). I just developed it in HC-110B...when I turned the lights on, it looked completely black, but upon closer inspection, there were a couple of photos that I could see fairly clearly.   I'm not sure if I could have done anything differently in developing, or if the film was just really fogged (supposedly the old Verichrome doesn't stand up to time nearly as well as the Pan stuff)...probably a little of both. Either way, its fun to see what you can get from stuff like this, and I'll definitely have to keep an eye out for old film in the future.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2009 18:10
|
|
|
notlodar posted: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. Thanks for working this out. I made up a rig to copy some medium format today, worked great. Couldn't get the film to stay flat, but I'm playing around with low-fi anyway so I just ran with it.   
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2009 05:41
|
|
|
FasterThanLight posted:
I love this. I had some similar experiences with some scans of some drastically underexposed films I had, seeing what I could push out of them in Photoshop.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2009 07:13
|
|
|
FasterThanLight posted:and here we are:
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2009 08:23
|
|
|
FasterThanLight posted:and here we are: That is really damned cool. Speaking of surreal and damaged film, have you seen Decasia? It's a whole feature-length movie made out of damaged and/or abandoned film, some parts of it look exactly like your scans. Example clip (apologies if it's been posted in this thread before)
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2009 09:09
|
|
is go
|
Jahoodie posted:Thanks for working this out. I made up a rig to copy some medium format today, worked great. Couldn't get the film to stay flat, but I'm playing around with low-fi anyway so I just ran with it. I am printing 13x19 with this method, the only issue, of course, is FILM gain, which isn't really a problem to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2009 11:00
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:And under 5 bucks at Goodwill. Seriously awesome camera for the money. Bonus points if you can find a limited one. I just picked up a European version [mju:]-II zoom 115 for $3. I needed another Stylus as my daughter has taken over the old one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2009 00:35
|
|
|
Uh guys I'm hitting a retard wall here for some reason. I'm going to be using HC-110 from syrup for the first time and I'm trying to figure out the dilution ratios for Dilution B. I'll be developing rolls of 120 so I need 590ml according to my tank, so let's say 600ml: As far as I understand it, Dilution B is 1 part developer to 7 parts water, so my math is as follows: (600ml/8 total parts) * 1 = 75ml dev (600ml/8 total parts) * 7 = 525ml water Now I tried to check these numbers online and I'm seeing lots of sheets where they list Dilution B as 1:31 (such as the crib sheet on the first page, as well as the covingtoninnovations page). In which case my math would be (600ml/32 total parts) * 1 = ~19ml dev (600ml/32 total parts) * 31 = ~581ml water So I'm cool with that, it would mean I use less developer. However the bottle clearly says 1 to 7 and I'm having a really hard time coming to terms with what Kodak wants me to do  Edit: AUGH gently caress, Stock solution != Concentrate. So I assume that the 1:31 is correct for FROM CONCENTRATE dilution B mixtures. some kinda jackal fucked around with this message at 00:59 on Nov 12, 2009 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2009 00:53
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the first one is what you want. Are you re-using your developer?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2009 01:13
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Edit: AUGH gently caress, Stock solution != Concentrate. So I assume that the 1:31 is correct for FROM CONCENTRATE dilution B mixtures. Dilution B is indeed 1 part syrup to 31 parts water.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2009 01:36
|
|
|
FasterThanLight posted:Yeah, I'm pretty sure the first one is what you want. Are you re-using your developer? Nope, one shot. HPL posted:Dilution B is indeed 1 part syrup to 31 parts water. Yeah, I'm glad I thought to doublecheck the figures with INTERNET before I dumped 74ml of developer in the tank. About to do two rolls of Il-Delta 400 @ 1600. Going to do the first at ~14 minutes and see how it comes out and adjust based on that. One inversion per minute.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2009 01:46
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:About to do two rolls of Il-Delta 400 @ 1600. Going to do the first at ~14 minutes and see how it comes out and adjust based on that. One inversion per minute. Never done Delta 400@1600 in HC-110, but I can tell you that it works great with XTOL. XTOL is a good pushing developer. I find that in general HC-110 is okay, but gives rougher grain than XTOL.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2009 02:01
|
|
|
IIRC someone mentioned that Delta is less grainy and smoother than HP5+ that I'm used to, so I wonder if the less grainy nature of the film and the higher grain of HC-110 will cancel each other out somehow. My go-to setup until now was HP5+ or TriX-400 in Ilfosol 3, but I recently ran out of both film and developer, so this should be an interesting result. Hope it turns out well!
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2009 02:13
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:IIRC someone mentioned that Delta is less grainy and smoother than HP5+ that I'm used to, so I wonder if the less grainy nature of the film and the higher grain of HC-110 will cancel each other out somehow. That was me. I used it to shoot some concerts. If you're shooting non-concerty stuff and not pushing it to the bleeding edge, you probably won't notice much difference between Delta 400 and HP5.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2009 02:33
|
|
|
Well, just out of the tank everything looks great. Pushed to 1600 everything looks properly exposed, nothing obviously blown out or crunched. We'll see what happens when I run the scanner over it I guess. I've got one more 1600 to do then one roll at 400 even and that's a wrap. Thanks for your help HPL. Edit: gently caress this film bag I got is way too small. I can barely juggle my things in there with my tiny tank in it as well, goddamn.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2009 02:55
|
|
|
Now I'm confused...are the instructions on the bottle are wrong? I've been using 1:7 and it has worked exactly as I would have expected.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2009 03:26
|
|
|
1:7 on the bottle is to make dilution B from stock solution. Stock solution is something like 1:3 form concentrate So essentially to go from retail bottle to developing tank following their directions, you'd make a stock solution by diluting the entire bottle or syrup 1:3, then you'd follow the bottle directions to further dilute THAT 1:7 for dilution B. At least that's my understanding. I'm not sure why anyone would want to bother with a stock solution when you can make it straight from bottle so easily. You're not the first person I've heard of to use 1:7 from syrup and have it work out though. I can't say for sure what is happening, but if you can do with 18ml what you can do with 75ml, you probably don't want to keep wasting that extra ~60ml per develop. I just did both rolls and they both look great out of tank, one pushed to 1600 and one at 400, both at 1:31. Excited to get these in the scanner. some kinda jackal fucked around with this message at 03:48 on Nov 12, 2009 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2009 03:43
|
|
|
Yes, it helps if you read all of the instructions! I've only done a couple of rolls, but the grain on those (Plus-X and TMX) still seemed very fine, not at all like something that I overdeveloped. I'll have to try it again the right way and compare.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2009 04:59
|
|
|
The best resource for mixing up HC-110 :http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/index.html It rules.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2009 06:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 04:56 |
|
|
Yeah, I have to say I'm pretty loving happy with Delta 400 and HC-110. This is pushed to 1600 and still looks pretty loving smooth. Now, I love me some grain, but the fact that I can get a nice smooth image at 1600 makes me pretty happy. This was 30 seconds of slow initial inversions, followed by one inversion every minute. Total time in developer was 13.5 minutes as recommended by massive dev chart. But now I'm super pissed that I did all this in my dusty room. I basically spent the last 20 minutes going over 90% of this photo with the clone brush. I hope it doesn't show too much.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2009 06:50
|
|