|
Last roll of the Lucky film, so from here on out it's (outdated) Plus X and Delta 100. Minolta Maxxum 7000 with a couple of lenses, the 50mm F1.7 and a Tamron 28-200 zoom with the adaptall Minolta mount. $10 thrift store camera and a $20 lens. This time, I scanned the negs at 9600 dpi, flexible size, no correction done at scan, no auto shading, no sharpening, no grain reduction, just straight scans and afterwards a unsharp mask. Seems to me that the less the scanner tries to do, the better.     <img src='http://www.fotothing.com/photos/09f/09fa2ba2e2f243bce201f8ff466635d0.jpg'>
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2009 08:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 18:29 |
|
|
Gnomad posted:Last roll of the Lucky film, so from here on out it's (outdated) Plus X and Delta 100. They all seem to be pretty overexposed or maybe overdeveloped. How do the negs look compared to those scans? Is there detail in any of those highlights?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2009 08:17
|
|
|
Just won an Olympus 35 RD 8-)
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2009 11:48
|
|
|
I want to get deep blacks and contrasty images. I am using Sprint Developer at school, and generally Kodak 400TX as the film. I'm not wet printing, I'm scanning/using a copy stand. Do I push, pull, over develop... no idea really, just getting into film. Someone suggested I try and expose at 320ISO and develop for 400ISO to increase contrast.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2009 20:49
|
|
|
Maybe agitate more during developing? You'll probably crush your shadows though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2009 21:17
|
|
|
Jahoodie posted:Do I push, pull, over develop... no idea really, just getting into film. Someone suggested I try and expose at 320ISO and develop for 400ISO to increase contrast. I would go the other way. If you're shooting at 400, expose at 1600 and develop for 1600.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2009 21:37
|
|
|
It's better shadows vs better highlights. Pick what's more important for what you're doing. More agitation usually means more contrast. Underexposing will give you deeper shadows even when printed to copensate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2009 22:03
|
|
|
"Developed" my first film today at a workshop for the uni photography society. What actually happened was: there was no hot water so we had to wait ages to wait for the mixtures to come to room temp the developer appears to have been expired the fixer seems to be expired too. Basically the negs turned out almost completely blank and were still kinda purple. I was shooting HP5 400 in an Olympus Trip 35. Film was a couple months out of date, and the camera is old, but I think it works fine. Reckon it was the developing, or my camera?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2009 17:52
|
|
|
That seriously sounds like a terrible workshop.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2009 17:58
|
|
|
I'd guess developer that was overused/too old and not warm enough. I keep mine stored in a cabinet, and its usually around 60 degrees when I take it out to use it...if I forget to warm it up, my negatives usually look underdeveloped. Probably needed to fix longer too.
FasterThanLight fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Nov 14, 2009 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2009 18:01
|
|
|
Pantsmaster Bill posted:"Developed" my first film today at a workshop for the uni photography society. Questions: *Did others have results similar to yours? And when you say the film turned out "almost completely blank" - was there SOME image or no image at all? If the exposure numbers came out and nothing else, it was operator error in the camera. *When you say the developer was expired, I assume you mean that the developer had already been mixed and exposed to the air and/or that it had been re-used one too many times, which of course will ruin the film as well. *Bad fix of course will ruin your film, albeit much more slowly and you would see some result before the images disappear into a rusty mess.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2009 18:09
|
|
|
Yeah, it was pretty badly organised. In fairness, the girl offered to do it all again, she was just completely disorganised. There weren't even exposure numbers on the film, which would lead me to think it was an error with the development, rather than my camera (unless for some reason my camera doesn't record the numbers). There was a very very very faint image...the film was almost completely see through. The other dude had similar results, except he got some numbers etc - we weren't expecting much because he had an expired roll of 3200 film. I don't know what was wrong with the developer, it was a fairly small bottle and was nearly empty, but it hadn't been mixed before. Maybe it was just old. Can't remember the brand. I think it was a mixture of the temperatures, and old chemicals. I don't mind too much, I'm going back again for another course and at least I learnt how to load film, and the basic process.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2009 18:24
|
|
|
But why would you go again? Loading film and developing it ain't THAT difficult, unless you're doing color film. I learned to do it myself in my bathroom and it turned out pretty good for a first time ever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2009 18:44
|
|
|
Pantsmaster Bill posted:
Agreed. It sounds like the chemistry was under 68 degrees in which case the film didn't cook long enough produce an image. And if the bottle wasn't capped tightly, it could have been a little exhausted to begin with. Keep going! Almost there!
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2009 19:06
|
|
|
Well, mainly to learn how to print. Plus, free chemicals 
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2009 19:07
|
|
|
Honestly, the bulk of what you'll need to know is in the guide on the first page of the thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2009 19:12
|
|
|
HPL posted:Honestly, the bulk of what you'll need to know is in the guide on the first page of the thread. Yup. I started with that a while ago. I have been developing 2 rolls a week or so for a while now. Its a piece of cake. Just need a dark room.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2009 02:17
|
|
|
I'll be on travel for about a month in India through December and I'm trying to figure what films I want to bring with me and how I want to work out the logistics of getting film developed or buying there. I was planning on only shooting color and was thinking of bringing the following: Velvia 50/100 for landscapes Provia 100 for portraits 800Z for street photos I don't know if there's a good alternative to 800z that is fast and still has good contrast and saturation. Based on what I've seen online, it seems better than Porta but there's a lot of variables in looking at stuff online. Also, anyone know if it's dicey to buy/process film abroad? My trip is bookended by stays in Delhi, so I figure I can find a place there but maybe someone has some experience?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2009 08:55
|
|
|
Fuji Reala 100 is a killer film for just about everything except low light. As for processing, colour negative film developing is fairly standardized unlike black and white film processing. As long as the lab is half decent, they should be able to do it just fine. Slide film may be a little dicier. Just be aware that if you get your film developed, airport security may have to confiscate it since you can use the film strip as a garrote.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2009 16:58
|
|
|
guidoanselmi posted:I'll be on travel for about a month in India through December and I'm trying to figure what films I want to bring with me and how I want to work out the logistics of getting film developed or buying there. You won't likely find any of those three films outside of a specialized store in a big city, so you should bring it from home, ditto for processing E-6. I'm sure you could scare that film up in Delhi, but it would likely be more expensive than in the US. Processing I'm not sure about, it depends. I'd consider taking some B&W: you can get something like Tri-X and shoot it anywhere from ASA200-3200 (or higher, really). I've generally had okay experiences with C41 processing at minilabs in developing countries, with the exception of one place in Bangkok that claimed to have given my 7 rolls of negatives to a customer who never returned with them (oh sure, they must have had the same receipt/ticket number as me  ). I just got a "Whoops, sorry". Having said that, the service/quality of work at a pro lab I went to there was great and processing prices were reasonable compared to back home.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2009 17:23
|
|
|
It's a lot easier to bring home canisters, I wouldn't bother developing until you got back home. For a fast film, like Pompous Rhombus said, black and white might be the way to go. I like Neopan 1600 (35mm only, I think) @ 1600/3200, Neopan 400 @ 1600/3200 and Delt 3200 @ 3200, all in xtol I think the delta has better midtones and the Neopans have darker shadows, or something, i usually like the look of neopan, as it seems more dramatic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2009 18:13
|
|
|
Or just buy Tri-X or HP5 and use it for everything since it's about as flexible as film gets. Delta 3200 is crap. You pay a lot of money for worse results than HP5 pushed to 3200. Just be sure to bring along a Sharpie to mark what speed you shoot your film at.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2009 20:09
|
|
|
HPL posted:Or just buy Tri-X or HP5 and use it for everything since it's about as flexible as film gets. Delta 3200 is crap. You pay a lot of money for worse results than HP5 pushed to 3200. You say this a lot as if noone should ever want to take a photo that looks different from one taken with TX or HP5. Delta 3200 is more expensive than HP5, given, but saying that it gives worse results is really kind of subjective dude. edit: and also results vary widely based on the processing too Twenties Superstar fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Nov 18, 2009 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2009 20:19
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:You say this a lot as if noone should ever want to take a photo that looks different from one taken with TX or HP5. Delta 3200 is more expensive than HP5, given, but saying that it gives worse results is really kind of subjective dude. The subject was film to take on a trip, not which film to use for intentionally extra grainy photos. I'm not saying that Tri-X or HP5 are the best films, just that they're the most versatile and the best bang for the buck.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2009 00:11
|
|
|
You actually said: "Delta 3200 is crap. You pay a lot of money for worse results than HP5 pushed to 3200."
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2009 01:23
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:You actually said: "Delta 3200 is crap. You pay a lot of money for worse results than HP5 pushed to 3200." Okay, sorry for hurting your feelings about Delta 3200. I concede that Delta 3200 is fine if that's the look you're going for, though I still maintain it's more money than it's worth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2009 01:35
|
|
|
You can push Delta 3200 further and retain shadow detail/density/contrast/whatever. If you are shooting at night you are going to have way more shadowed areas, so it's important. (TMZ is also an option if you shoot 35mm)
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2009 06:21
|
|
|
I like Delta 3200 in 120. In 35mm you get tighter grain pushing Tri-X than shooting TMZ at box speed. Shadow detail is pretty much dependent on the scenes contrast. I used to shoot a lot of TMZ until I learned to process my own film.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2009 07:41
|
|
|
notlodar posted:I think the delta has better midtones and the Neopans have darker shadows, or something, i usually like the look of neopan, as it seems more dramatic. i have some neopan and hp5 i haven't even broken open, but tbh i'll probably be shooting color, really.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2009 08:57
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:I like Delta 3200 in 120. In 35mm you get tighter grain pushing Tri-X than shooting TMZ at box speed. Shadow detail is pretty much dependent on the scenes contrast.  In the same scene, Delta 3200 should capture more shadow detail, as in, the shades of dark will be more distinct and things will be less likely to blend into each other.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2009 16:13
|
|
|
Pantsmaster Bill posted:(unless for some reason my camera doesn't record the numbers) The numbers are "pre-recorded" on the film. Some later film cameras have a data back though, which can record the date and time with the picture.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2009 23:53
|
|
|
The really cool ones can also record exif-like information (shutter speed, aperture, etc.) IIRC, some put it between shots and others put it all on a frame at the end of the roll.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2009 01:17
|
|
|
Okay I have a quick question. If I wanted to try pushing film (say Delta 3200) to 6400. I can either use a Minolta X-700 or SRT 201 for this. Problem is although the SRT's ISO scale goes up to 6400 the X-700 only goes to 1600 but has exposure adjustment of up to plus and minus 2 stops. My question is: If I set the X-700's ISO scale to 1600 and set the EV adjust to -2 stops. Will I get similar results to using the SRT at 6400? When testing this out without film the shutter speeds look "about" right but I don't know for sure. Of course I could just use my SRT but the match meter is more annoying to use in the dark and I still don't have a battery with the correct voltage for it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2009 05:08
|
|
|
That seems right. Underexpose by two stops and push the film two stops from two stops underexposed for proper exposure word diggity
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2009 05:12
|
|
|
Will the camera actually go to -2 stops at 1600? I've found that usually when you set a camera to the highest ISO setting, only the + part of +/- works because the meter is maxed out and can't go any faster.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2009 05:15
|
|
|
HPL posted:Will the camera actually go to -2 stops at 1600? I've found that usually when you set a camera to the highest ISO setting, only the + part of +/- works because the meter is maxed out and can't go any faster. Changing it does make the suggested shutter speed faster by two levels even at 1600 (the viewfinder shows the actual suggested shutter speed rather than a + o - style display). I figure it must be designed to work this way but I thought I better check just incase doing this would have some bizarre effect I hadn't thought of.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2009 05:37
|
|
|
notlodar posted:I have only read about TMZ TMZ's actual ISO is around 1000 and Delta 3200's is 1600 so yes a smidge more shadow detail in theory. Once again that will depend on how you develop them and the contrast of the scene you are shooting. A high contrast scene with deep shadows and bright highlights will be pretty much a wash on shadow detail with both film stocks shot and developed identically.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2009 06:00
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:TMZ's actual ISO is around 1000 and Delta 3200's is 1600 so yes a smidge more shadow detail in theory. Once again that will depend on how you develop them and the contrast of the scene you are shooting. A high contrast scene with deep shadows and bright highlights will be pretty much a wash on shadow detail with both film stocks shot and developed identically. I also don't factor in price.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2009 23:17
|
|
|
Got my early (and hopefully not premature) graduation present to myself in the mail today: a Canon 7s, 100mm f/2, and 50mm f/1.2 with some assorted odds and ends. I was originally planning to sell the 7s and 100mm f/2, but goddamnit they're growing on me. Compared to my Bessa, the 7s is a bit bigger, but feels more smooth/solid in operation. I love the finder: it's less cluttered and has more useful (to me) selectable framelines: 35, 50, 85/100, and 135, which are even labeled. The meter seems to work, but it's kinda clumsy/awkward compared to modern systems. Looks like one or both of the lenses is going to need a CLA: the 50mm has a couple issues (haze, bent filter ring, stiff aperture, and an annoying infinity lock), and some idiot must have reassembled the otherwise pristine 100mm wrong because it won't engage the RF cam to infinity and there's a phillips head screw towards the back that definitely does't belong there. Still, I only paid a bit over $500 for the lot of them, so even after repairs I think I'll come out ahead. tl:dr - Canon rangefinder 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2009 00:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 18:29 |
|
|
notlodar posted:I hear delta 3200 is closer to 1000/1200 as well. The point is that step or two makes a world of difference, not a smidge. It's not a step or two, it's a quarter to a half a step. Which is not a lot when most of the scene is zone 0. It will if you are shooting something that is lower contrast and gives you some developer wiggle room. Real world though people shoot TMZ and Delta 3200 in low light high contrast situations where you will be sacrificing more shadow detail than saving (highlights too). Once again not trying to be a jerk, just to spread around some of the things I learned shooting high speed B&W.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2009 07:20
|
|