|
trueblue posted:drat I just spent like an hour practising loading film into my Paterson reel with my eyes closed. I can do it pretty quickly now but I occasionally load it completely wrong and lose all confidence. Don't worry, it gets easier!
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2010 16:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 13:13 |
|
|
krnhotwings posted:Anybody hear the news that Fujifilm is supposedly phasing out 160S, 160C, 800Z, and T64 for all sizes and Neopan 400 for 120? Nooooooooooo! Fuji is my favourite colour negative film, god dammit. Well, if there's a silver lining, it's that I don't shoot colour film much anymore.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2010 16:30
|
|
|
Ooh, haven't made a list like this in awhile! Probably missing something, but... 35mm 2x Olympus XA (one with a bad meter, one with fungus on one element, need to frankenstein these two together at some point) Konica C35 rangefinder w/ 38/2.8 Yashica Electro GSN w/ 45/1.7 Pentax K1000, various lenses Nikon N6006, various lenses Nikon N90 Zeiss Tenax Automatic w/ 50/2.8 120 Mamiya 645J old Voigtlander 6x9 folder (unknown model) Agfa Isolette Argoflex 75 116 Kodak Autographic 1A 4x5 pre-Anniversary Speed Graphic Toyo View 45C LF lenses: Schneider Super-Angulon 90/8, Rodenstock Ysaron 127/4.7, Zeiss Tessar 150/4.5 (w/ broken shutter), Schneider Symmar-S 210/5.6
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2010 17:16
|
|
|
krnhotwings posted:Anybody hear the news that Fujifilm is supposedly phasing out 160S, 160C, 800Z, and T64 for all sizes and Neopan 400 for 120? If I had a penny for every time someone on APUG claimed to have a meeting with Executive X and Product Y is getting killed off, I'd live on a moon base and have laser sharks for pets. Stranger things have happened, but APUG is chicken little central. It's a little odd to think Fuji's spending money on a "Fuji's committed to film! Our films are awesome!" campaign and launching a new medium format camera... and then turning around and axing anything that isn't chrome. Especially when so much of the positive press and their ads have revolved around how well 160S/160C/800Z work in mixed light (which definitely isn't true of Fujichrome, blech). "Here's a camera, now buy Kodak?" I don't know. I hope it's an early April Fool's prank. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2010 17:34
|
|
|
35mm: Pentax ME w/ SMCP 35mm f/3.5 Pentax K1000 SE w/ SMCP 50mm f/1.4 Agfa Karat 36 w/ Solinar 50mm f/2.8 120: Pentax 67, 4 lenses SMCP-67 55mm f/4, SMCT 75/4.5, SMCT 90/2.8 LS, SMCT 150mm f/2.8 Digital: Canon 40D w/ kit lens and 50/1.8 Not frequently used: Rodenstock 6x4.5 folder w/ Rodenstock Trinar Anastigmat 7.5cm f/4.5 - just got, under repair FED-5b with Industar-61 L/D 53/2.8 - just got Yashica-D w/ Yashinon 2.8/3.5 - I'm  about focus and while my results are fine,  Yashica GSN - need to fix seals Does anyone have direct experience with the Pentax 6x7 90/2.8 versus the 105/2.4? I started with the 90/2.8 and I'm curious if I'm missing out on anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2010 17:37
|
|
|
I got a stupid cheap box of various old 35mm cameras and a couple from my family so my collection is kind of stupid right now. 35mm: Cosina Hi-Lite DLR (with 3 M42 lenses and a really nice box) - gift Rollei 35S - bought Olympus Trip 35 - gift Yashica Electro 35 MC - from the cheap box Yashica Electro 35 - box 2x Voigtländer Vito Automatic - box Minolta Hi-Matic E - box Medium format: 2x Rolleicord III Pontiac Bloc Métal 45 (really need to respool some 120 so I can test this one out) 4x5: Graflex Super Speed Graphic I honestly haven't even tried using the ones from the cheap box but they're pretty.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2010 19:46
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:oh, and like two or three sheets of 4x5 400nc. have you posted any of your LF shots yet? 35mm: Zenit E Nikon FG20 Konica Autoflex T4 MF: Pentax 645N Digital: Pentax K10D Pentax K7 Going to a camera show next week to see if I can find a nice, cheap LF camera  I'm drat happy with my 645N...should probably write a review here on it. Also, I got it for $450 with back & 75 AF lens whereas it's like well over a grand anywhere else.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2010 20:42
|
|
|
I'm sorry everybody, I didn't mean to start a camera gear dickwaving derail!
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2010 21:39
|
|
|
It's not necessarily a derail! You can spot people who have gear you envy and ask them what they like and don't like about it. Maybe it will result in new reviews for the review thread. How do you like your GW690? I would like a review if you have time, if not, a synopsis? I would love a GSW670 but they don't exist. I don't really need the extra negative space (I print 8x10s mostly). It's a waste, but more importantly, cropping down the negative makes it much less wide. The Pentax 67 55mm f/4 on a Fuji rangefinder body... 
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2010 23:01
|
|
|
saw this fuji GX680: http://losangeles.craigslist.org/wst/pho/1635915270.html God it looks sexy. Can't really justify it though :-/
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2010 23:09
|
|
|
I posted last week wondering about a scanner for my 35mm and 120 negatives. Since I'm a cheap guy (and just spent $300 on a MF camera), I was wondering if you guys new of a cheap way of making or buying a negative holder for the scanner that's already built into my printer (a Samsung SCX-4x26). What kind of quality I can expect with this scanner if its max DPI is 600, and what would that translate in usable print size?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2010 02:27
|
|
|
Properly scanning negatives requires transparency scanning (Light source opposite the CCD), not reflective (light source same side as CCD bouncing off surface). You won't get good, or really even usable results that way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2010 02:30
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Properly scanning negatives requires transparency scanning (Light source opposite the CCD), not reflective (light source same side as CCD bouncing off surface). You won't get good, or really even usable results that way. seconding this, I thought I could get away without using the transparency modes and it looked terrible: Epson V300 in reflective mode, stock importer:  Epson 3200 transparency mode, Silverfast:  Not the best shot ever, but this was my first time shooting 4x5 so I'll sweep the missed focus and exposure problems under that rug, and I think it illustrates the difference between scanning negatives in reflective mode vs transparency mode. GrAviTy84 fucked around with this message at 02:38 on Mar 13, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2010 02:35
|
|
|
Wow, that's quite a difference. I suppose I will just suck it up and pay the lab to scan it for me instead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2010 02:47
|
|
|
So out of curiosity, if I had a pinhole camera with an aperture of f/133, what kind of flash power would I need to get proper exposure in the dark?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2010 02:53
|
|
|
HPL posted:So out of curiosity, if I had a pinhole camera with an aperture of f/133, what kind of flash power would I need to get proper exposure in the dark? At ISO 100 at 10 feet it'd be a GN of 1330. Like three AB1600's firing with the spotlight reflector attached.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2010 07:33
|
|
|
rear end is my canvas posted:At ISO 100 at 10 feet it'd be a GN of 1330. Like three AB1600's firing with the spotlight reflector attached. Okay, so I'm three monolights away from finally achieving my goal of shooting a concert with a pinhole camera? I guess I should budget for buying sunglasses for the band members.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2010 09:39
|
|
|
HPL posted:Okay, so I'm three monolights away from finally achieving my goal of shooting a concert with a pinhole camera? Less than that if you put in pushed Tri-X or Delta 3200 or something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2010 09:46
|
|
|
HPL posted:Okay, so I'm three monolights away from finally achieving my goal of shooting a concert with a pinhole camera? You should have no problem as long as the band is playing on the surface of the sun.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2010 10:21
|
|
|
DRP Solved! posted:Wow, that's quite a difference. I suppose I will just suck it up and pay the lab to scan it for me instead. If you're just shooting 135 or 120 you can find old epsons (a generation or two old) on ebay and craigslist that will have the ability to scan negatives at completely usable resolutions for web or modest printing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2010 10:28
|
|
|
Ok, what the heck is going on here? I keep getting this dark area on the right side of my negatives. At first I thought it might be a problem with me clumsily unloading the film from the back(not keeping it wound tight enough or something), but for this roll I loaded it onto the reel straight from the film back in the dark. There's also a little lightness along the left edge of some of the photos that I am stumped on, should I agitate more or something?  
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2010 12:59
|
|
|
Stregone posted:Ok, what the heck is going on here? I keep getting this dark area on the right side of my negatives. At first I thought it might be a problem with me clumsily unloading the film from the back(not keeping it wound tight enough or something), but for this roll I loaded it onto the reel straight from the film back in the dark. There's also a little lightness along the left edge of some of the photos that I am stumped on, should I agitate more or something? Looks underdeveloped because the reel is physically touching that part of the film thus preventing enough developer from reaching it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2010 17:35
|
|
|
Might be touching the sides/grooves of your (plastic?) reel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2010 18:45
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:oh, and like two or three sheets of 4x5 400nc. That's adorable  (by the way, how did those long exposure shots of the buildings at night turn out?) post the filmiest refrigerators u got
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2010 22:20
|
|
|
So short on money 
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2010 22:31
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:That's adorable shoot dat kodachrome, yo
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2010 23:11
|
|
|
theflyingexecutive posted:shoot dat kodachrome, yo http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/service/Zmanuals/z50_03.pdf Look how simple they
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2010 23:16
|
|
|
I need to get to the lab before I restock my film supply. It's just hard with my work schedule.
8th-snype fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Mar 13, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2010 23:20
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:That's adorable If there's a place where I can anonymously host TIFs of about 200MB in size, I'll be glad to post some of the scans.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2010 23:22
|
|
|
OK so -- C41. Who's developed it at home? Yes I realize that it's temperamental and temperature sensitive, and it might be better just to take it to a lab to do it, but I've got the hankering to just DIY. The whole idea of not having to rely on a lab really appeals to me. I'm not a professional photog, so if the colours do fluctuate because I hosed up the temperature then it's not the end of the world.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2010 02:31
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:OK so -- C41. Who's developed it at home? Yes I realize that it's temperamental and temperature sensitive, and it might be better just to take it to a lab to do it, but I've got the hankering to just DIY. Are we talking about C-41 135, 120 or 4x5? If it's 135, I'd say just take it Costco and let them process it for $2. 120 is usually only like $4. Unless you are doing a lot of it, I just don't see how it is cost effective or time effective.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2010 02:33
|
|
|
killabyte posted:Looks underdeveloped because the reel is physically touching that part of the film thus preventing enough developer from reaching it. I loaded up a strip from that roll into the reel, and it doesn't contact the part of the negative with a picture on it, it only contacts the rebate part. This is annoying the heck out of me. I was hoping to use this camera a whole lot more now that the weather is getting nice
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2010 02:51
|
|
|
killabyte posted:Are we talking about C-41 135, 120 or 4x5? 120. It's not cost or time effective in the least I'm sure -- I just have a hankering to do it myself. Also my local costco won't do 120 rollfilm, and the only other place within reasonable driving distance (i.e., I won't spend more in gas than I will in developing) charges six bucks and change to just develop and cut the roll. Edit: Actually, in my case it might just be cost effective.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2010 02:55
|
|
|
I never did C41, but I used to do my own E6. If you can hold your chemistry at the right temps and use it often enough to use the chemistry before it goes bad, it's not that hard and quicker than B/W. For me, it's not worth it. Walmart will do a C41 develop only for $1.76 and I'm not sure I can do B/W for that much. Definitely not C41!
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2010 03:29
|
|
|
C-41 would be neat to do because then I could film concert shoots in colour with push processing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2010 03:38
|
|
|
I think I'm going to give it a shot. Even if I don't use all the chemistry, it'll still be a neat experiment. Plus there's a LOT of expired C41 to be had in the local stores here, as opposed to B&W.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2010 03:40
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:I think I'm going to give it a shot. Even if I don't use all the chemistry, it'll still be a neat experiment. Plus there's a LOT of expired C41 to be had in the local stores here, as opposed to B&W. I could be thinking of E-6, but doesn't the chemistry for C-41 have a relatively short shelf-life once you open it? At any rate, write up a trip report; I have a ton of 4x5 C-41 in my fridge I'd love to be more profligate with. I did find a lab in Santa Barbara recommended on LFF that does 4x5 C-41/E-6 for $1.50/$1.70 a sheet, but that's still at least a week turnaround, probably more like 2. HPL posted:C-41 would be neat to do because then I could film concert shoots in colour with push processing. Yeah, pro labs usually charge a fair bit extra for pushing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2010 04:01
|
|
|
Yeah, I'll definitely write up a trip report once I decide what chems to buy. I'd like to buy them locally but somehow I don't see that happening.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2010 04:04
|
|
|
killabyte posted:Looks underdeveloped because the reel is physically touching that part of the film thus preventing enough developer from reaching it. Do plastic reels actually touch into the image plane? I've only ever seen reel marks show up along the sprocket holes of 36mm or along the black numbered edges of 120.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2010 04:45
|
|
is go
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 13:13 |
|
|
This is only tangentially related to the C41 processing discussion, but I plan on trying some different techniques for processing C41 in Rodinal this week. Hopefully I find some measure of success because I have about 80 rolls of C41 film that would be too expensive to use/process otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2010 05:38
|
|
