|
Kaluza-Klein posted:Also, can someone recommend a development tank? I have two identical black plastic tanks that hold two 35mm rolls each. The white plastic rolls that you ratchet the film onto are shot. They don't seem to last very long. I'm surprised that the reels wore out. Did you buy them new? I have a couple of Paterson tanks and reels, and they're made of some kind of very solid high-impact plastic that seems very hard to damage (and obviously they're made to stand up to chemicals). All of mine I got used from flea markets and thrift stores, though, so maybe new ones use a different type of plastic. Pompous Rhombus posted:I also got a stainless steel tank with a pair of 35mm reels (as well as 4-5 spools for 120) that came with the enlarger I picked up last week, but they look like they'd be more of a PITA to use than the plastic ones. Haven't tried/risked any film on them yet. I used to use stainless steel reels exclusively. They take a fair bit of practise to learn to load, but once you get it they're actually faster than a Paterson reel. Given that basically no one is working with film in a high-pressure environment any more, it probably doesn't matter. You can load them while they're wet, though, and you can develop subminiature film by putting a cylindrical section of soda bottle around a 120 reel and taping the film to it in a spiral, emulsion side out.
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 01:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 02:51 |
|
|
Kaluza-Klein posted:Sure, I was just wondering if there is a brand I should try to find, or any I should try to avoid. I don't know if these didn't hold up because I was rough with them, or if they are just cheap. Can you post a picture of the tanks? AP reels will fit in Paterson tanks but Paterson reels don't fit so well in AP tanks. If you're looking for an all-in-one solution, get the AP 2-reel tank. It comes with reels, unlike the Paterson tanks. Plus the AP reels are super easy to load.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 01:54
|
|
|
orange lime posted:I used to use stainless steel reels exclusively. They take a fair bit of practise to learn to load, but once you get it they're actually faster than a Paterson reel. Given that basically no one is working with film in a high-pressure environment any more, it probably doesn't matter. You can load them while they're wet, though, and you can develop subminiature film by putting a cylindrical section of soda bottle around a 120 reel and taping the film to it in a spiral, emulsion side out. I've heard they're better for doing C-41 and E-6, as the stainless steel conducts heat better than plastic (so the temperature of your bath = the temperature of your chemicals/film). I've actually been considering giving home color processing a whirl, as I'm getting in to 4x5 and have a stockpile of color film that would probably cost me at least $650 in processing (not to mention postage) if I sent it all out. Wouldn't be the same reels, but since I'd have the chemicals on hand might be worth giving it a whirl for 35mm.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 02:01
|
|
|
Anyone tried those Jobo processors or anything? What I'd like is one of those things that rolls the tank so I can go do something else while waiting for those 25 minute developments. On a side note, I tried doing the "two rolls of 120 on one reel" trick and it worked fine. I used the same amount of developer as two rolls to make sure there was enough juice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 02:05
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:I've heard they're better for doing C-41 and E-6, as the stainless steel conducts heat better than plastic (so the temperature of your bath = the temperature of your chemicals/film). I've actually been considering giving home color processing a whirl, as I'm getting in to 4x5 and have a stockpile of color film that would probably cost me at least $650 in processing (not to mention postage) if I sent it all out. Wouldn't be the same reels, but since I'd have the chemicals on hand might be worth giving it a whirl for 35mm. I've heard the opposite, that plastic is better for color because it helps insulate the chemicals and keeps them at whatever temperature they already are. I think it depends a lot on your methods for keeping the temperature steady and whether you like the plastic or metal reels.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 02:12
|
|
|
HPL posted:Can you post a picture of the tanks? AP reels will fit in Paterson tanks but Paterson reels don't fit so well in AP tanks.   "Made in Spain" is the only identifying mark that I can see. The tanks are from a friend, so they are used. No idea how old they are or how much abuse they had prior to me ruining them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 02:48
|
|
Associate Christ
|
Another scanner question - has anyone here used the Plustek OpticFilm 7200? It's old/cheap but offers a significant sharpness/resolution advantage over my Canon flatbed. My only concern is - I searched flickr for photos from it, and I see a lot of blown highlights, I'm not sure if this is a problem with the scanner or just crappy photos/scanning technique.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 03:12
|
|
|
Kaluza-Klein posted:"Made in Spain" is the only identifying mark that I can see. Those look like the lower-end AP tanks. They're made in Spain. The reels look like older ones. The current AP reels have big flanges on the inside for easy loading.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 03:30
|
|
|
I can't imagine loading film with those tiny flanges. The new style reels make it so ridiculously easy, but they feel almost like a necessity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 03:32
|
|
|
Film can stick to plastic tanks, sire, its mostly off frame, but it's still annoying to have splotches on your film no matter where it is. I pushed some film to 6400 and the edges on both sides were totally black, exact;y where the film would touch the edges of the plastic ridges 
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 03:39
|
|
|
Is anyone here an expert in scanners and scanning? I have a peculiar situation. So I've got three different film formats to scan, in both negative and reversal: 135, 120 and 9.5mm Minox. I have a Canon flatbed scanner, which does a great job scanning prints and documents, at up to 4800 dpi (though I really only use 2400). It came with an illuminator that works pretty decently for 135 and *sort of* for the Minox film, and not at all for 120. So I'm building myself a new full-bed illuminator out of an old LCD screen's lamp and diffuser, and a piece of plexiglas to hold the film flat. I figure I'll tape the film to the bottom of the plexiglas (or even wet-mount if I get really hardcore) and support it with shims (pieces of photo paper, probably) at the same height that the included illuminator supports the film. Add or remove shims to adjust focus, etc. The major problem is that the Canoscan software is kind of weak. When I set it to scan a negative, it only scans in the thin strip where the 135 illuminator fits. I don't understand why it does this, when the whole strip moves, but eh. Anyway this is obviously useless for scanning 120 film. Setting it to scan an opaque document uses the whole bed, but the colors seem muted and dull. So, is there a way to get raw data out of a Canon flatbed scanner? And does anyone know what is happening with the color differences between transparent and opaque media settings? Any other tips for getting the best scans from a flatbed? I can scan plain paper with my flatbed to such a high resolution that the fibers become a nuisance, so there should be no reason that with the proper setup and mounting I can't get the same from film.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 04:19
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:I've heard they're better for doing C-41 and E-6, as the stainless steel conducts heat better than plastic (so the temperature of your bath = the temperature of your chemicals/film). I've actually been considering giving home color processing a whirl, as I'm getting in to 4x5 and have a stockpile of color film that would probably cost me at least $650 in processing (not to mention postage) if I sent it all out. Wouldn't be the same reels, but since I'd have the chemicals on hand might be worth giving it a whirl for 35mm. You can get good 35mm reels from Freestyle...they are made by the Hewes company of England and they beat the pants off of any plastic reel for ease of loading and durability. They have a "fork" which slots in to the sprocket holes of the 35mm reel. All you have to do is drag the film across it and it will snag and you can wind as normal. Super simple. http://freestylephoto.biz/140135-Hewes-Pro-Stainless-Steel-Reel-35mm
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 04:24
|
|
|
killabyte posted:You can get good 35mm reels from Freestyle...they are made by the Hewes company of England and they beat the pants off of any plastic reel for ease of loading and durability. They have a "fork" which slots in to the sprocket holes of the 35mm reel. All you have to do is drag the film across it and it will snag and you can wind as normal. Super simple. Seconding those Hewes reels. I have a couple and I spent a few days practice loading them while watching TV until I don't even have to think about it when loading in my changing bag. I actually find them easier to load than the plastic ratcheting type now, and much faster. If you get steel reels, just search Youtube for videos of how to load. Once I saw it done, it was no problem.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 04:37
|
|
|
Hewes kicks rear end. Those plastic ratcheting reels seemed okay for medium format, but for 35mm, I love my metal reels and tanks. After one fuckup during the first week of Photo 1, they've never been a problem again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 04:48
|
|
is go
|
When I got back into film, I bought what I learned on (stainless tanks & reels). They are a little harder to learn for some, but I love them. Not sure about heat/temp transfer, but then again I get my bathroom to temp several hours before I do anything and have all the gear in there before I start. The water temp shouldn't really be impacted by metal or plastic too much.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 06:22
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:I can't imagine loading film with those tiny flanges. The new style reels make it so ridiculously easy, but they feel almost like a necessity. They are all I have known . I always thought they were easy enough. The problem is that the grooves that you slide the two halves of the reel together on are shot, and the ratcheting action doesn't work most of the time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 17:33
|
|
|
I am starting to get into film and looking to buy a film camera. I am looking at the Canon A-1 or Nikon F3....what do you guys suggest? Help a noob out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 22:43
|
|
|
Tez posted:I am starting to get into film and looking to buy a film camera. I am looking at the Canon A-1 or Nikon F3....what do you guys suggest? Help a noob out. What are you shooting right now?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 22:58
|
|
|
Im shooting with the Canon 40D. Im leaning towards the F3, got a deal with the body 20mm 3.5 and 50mm 1.2. Which is all i need i think. But my lady friend got a AE-1 recently so i could share lens with her if i got the A-1 i suppose. What do you think?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 23:05
|
|
|
I'd get the F3 just for the 50/1.2, but you should be aware it's not exactly a lightweight combination. Get your friend another Nikon 
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 23:11
|
|
|
You could get a film EOS body. That way it'll work with all your EF lenses.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 23:22
|
|
|
HPL posted:You could get a film EOS body. That way it'll work with all your EF lenses. True. Any suggestions on a good EOS film camera? I just thought it'd be good seeing either camera i get i would have a bunch of the lenses that come with it anyways. I only have a couple of lens with my 40D anyways.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 23:27
|
|
|
Tez posted:True. Any suggestions on a good EOS film camera? The EOS 3 is a great pro level camera on the cheap (I have one). An EOS 1 is like having a film 1D for the price of a rebel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 23:33
|
|
|
Film Rebel bodies are so cheap, people use them as door stops.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 23:35
|
|
|
Now that I've got a few rolls of film developed, I think it would be a good investment to buy a negative scanner. What kind of negative scanner can I expect to get under $150? If nothing under that price, what's the next cheapest option that'll actually give me decent results?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 23:36
|
|
|
Epson V500 is what I have. Also, Cannon 800F or something. The Epson is ok, but there's got to be better scan sw.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 23:48
|
|
|
The Nikon 50mm f/1.2 is worth like $400 or so on its own. It's a nice lens, and would be great for portraits on your 40D. Seconding the V500, I like mine. The negs are often pretty bowed out in the middle on the holders but it doesn't usually seem to effect my scans that much. Disclaimer: I pretty much just scan for sharing on the web. HPL posted:Film Rebel bodies are so cheap, people use them as door stops. They're too light and plasticky to use as an effective doorstop  But yeah I paid $10 for my Rebel 2000 (later traded for a Ti) and $20 each for my Elan II's.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 00:16
|
|
|
It seems the V500 is out of stock everywhere I looked (B&H, Henry's, etc). I guess I'll need to keep an eye open for it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 00:27
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:The Nikon 50mm f/1.2 is worth like $400 or so on its own. It's a nice lens, and would be great for portraits on your 40D. Sweet...i think i really am leaning towards the F3. Are the Canon LIDE 600F any good? I can pick up one 2nd hand for about $50AUD. Is it worth it? I heard it is really slow scanning negatives.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 00:31
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:They're too light and plasticky to use as an effective doorstop Fill them with rocks like I do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 00:55
|
|
|
HPL posted:Fill them with rocks like I do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 00:58
|
|
|
DRP Solved! posted:Now that I've got a few rolls of film developed, I think it would be a good investment to buy a negative scanner. What kind of negative scanner can I expect to get under $150? If nothing under that price, what's the next cheapest option that'll actually give me decent results? Check out the Canoscan 8800F. I bought one a while back and I like it a lot. The software is easy enough to use and it comes with holders for 35mm, slides, and 120 film. The only downside is it seems sorta slow to me (around 2 minutes @ 1200dpi ((goes up to 4800dpi)) for a full strip ((6-35mm frames or 4-120 frames))) but then again I haven't used any other scanner so I'm not a good judge. I think I paid around 150-180 US$ for mine, so it might be in your budget. It was pretty much the best bang for the buck negative scanner I found after doing a bunch of research.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 01:07
|
|
|
Interrupting Moss posted:Fill all Canon bodies with rocks My Canon has 21 megapebbles.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 01:09
|
|
|
Brozekiel posted:Check out the Canoscan 8800F. I bought one a while back and I like it a lot. The software is easy enough to use and it comes with holders for 35mm, slides, and 120 film. The only downside is it seems sorta slow to me (around 2 minutes @ 1200dpi ((goes up to 4800dpi)) for a full strip ((6-35mm frames or 4-120 frames))) but then again I haven't used any other scanner so I'm not a good judge. I think I paid around 150-180 US$ for mine, so it might be in your budget. It was pretty much the best bang for the buck negative scanner I found after doing a bunch of research. I've got one of these and it is ok. Its perfectly fine for posting stuff online, and thats all I wanted out of it. Also according to more than one review the detail is limited by the optics, so settings higher than 1200dpi are pointless.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 01:16
|
|
|
Stregone posted:I've got one of these and it is ok. Its perfectly fine for posting stuff online, and thats all I wanted out of it. Also according to more than one review the detail is limited by the optics, so settings higher than 1200dpi are pointless. Yeah same with me, although I have made a few prints from 35mm scans and they've come out fine when printed at 11x14 so it's not out of the question or anything. If you're trying to use it to sell prints, you might be able to get away with it but in that case you'd probably want to drop a bit more than 150 bucks on a film scanner.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 02:40
|
|
|
Try looking for a Epson Perfection 4490, not as  as the 4990, but since the demand is low try finding one for cheap used. I had one for a while I was trying to unload and ended up giving it to a friend.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 02:44
|
|
|
Hey I'm going to shoot some expired film next weekend and I was wondering how much degraded the images would be. There are about a fifty rolls of "Seattle FilmWorks 35mm Professional Film" which have a useby date to aug '98. It doesn't sound like there's any special process to develop these but I have no idea if anyone's ever heard of this film company or be able to develop it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 04:08
|
|
|
Fiannaiocht posted:Hey I'm going to shoot some expired film next weekend and I was wondering how much degraded the images would be. There are about a fifty rolls of "Seattle FilmWorks 35mm Professional Film" which have a useby date to aug '98. It doesn't sound like there's any special process to develop these but I have no idea if anyone's ever heard of this film company or be able to develop it. Throw it in the garbage. It's tailings from motion picture film and uses a completely different process and very few places do it. To top it off, it is crappy film that fades easily. It's awful stuff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 04:35
|
|
|
Seattle Filmworks actually did use a different process (though they may have had some C41, don't remember for sure). I think there are a few labs out there that specialize in old processes that might be able to develop it, but its probably going to be more expensive than just buying a bunch of new film and developing it at Target. If it is C41, I'd just bracket the hell out of one roll to see what looks good. My guess would be to overexpose by 1-2 stops.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 04:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 02:51 |
|
|
On that note, I've never looked into Target. Do they have something similar to Walmart, where their mail out service goes straight to a Fuji lab and is cheap?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 05:19
|
|