|
Martytoof posted:I don't really want to relocate my scanner to the bathroom to run the shower, so I'm not sure what would help. Perhaps a mobile humidifier running next to the scanner or something? Would that be of any help, or would it just be a bad idea to run one of those near electronics in the first place?
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2010 15:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 00:06 |
|
|
Well, I found an old humidifier from the early 90s in the basement. I cleaned twenty years of hard water scale and stray dog fur out of it and I'm letting it run for a while to see if it can tame the dust near my scanner. Also I noticed that the emulsion on a lot of my older film is scratched to hell and back. I think it's from when I moved it through the godawful film gate that the Epson Perfection 3200 uses. gently caress that gate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2010 18:29
|
|
|
Seconding air blowers. I also keep a bottle of windex handy. I clean just before I scan, it's part of my workflow 
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2010 18:40
|
|
|
Quick question about travelling with film (why can't I search the dorkroom??): Going to go on a two week European trip and of course I want to drag along a ton of film with me. I'll be travelling to London, Amsterdam, and Munich and I was wondering what I can expect in terms of handchecking. I've read that in the US/Canada that they're permitted to handcheck your film if you ask, but it's not necessarily the same in other parts of the world. I've also heard that most times that guys will tell you that everything is safe and just to shove it in the x-ray machine. What would you guys suggest? I guess most of the film I'll have with me will be low ISO, but I loves me some Neopan 1600 and I don't want that to get messed up. I know I should try and put all my 35mm in clear film canister, but what should I do for 120 film? Take it out of the foil wrapper?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2010 17:49
|
|
|
ScreaminKing posted:Quick question about travelling with film (why can't I search the dorkroom??): Keep it in your pockets. Argue. Buy a roll of Delta 3200, even if they are idiots they know the guidelines. Show them the "no xray" warnings on the box. Request a hand inspection.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2010 18:02
|
|
|
ScreaminKing posted:Quick question about travelling with film (why can't I search the dorkroom??): Some general impressions on the airports, less handchecking information. I've been to Schiphol in Amsterdam thrice in the last year and München once. So far München has been the only airport ever where I was asked to take the camera out of my bag, and security checked that it's a real camera by snapping a few shots. Even still, the guy was very polite and helpful. No film with me that time, but definitely the best vibe out of the airport security. Two times at Schiphol they just scanned my bag, no questions asked, and once wanted to see the contents after scanning, even when I'd told them I had camera equipment inside. I also went through Paris's Charles du Gaulle last year, and wanted the security to handcheck my film, but they wouldn't budge, and just claimed that the machine wouldn't be a problem for the film. In the end the roll turned out fine, but only ISO 400. Worst airport ever, and not only because of the security. Best advice I can give you is save enough time for the security check, let security know about your camera gear right away, and hope that there's no rush for a gate, because business travelers can get really furious if they have to wait. Those three places should have people speaking at least decent English (unlike Paris), which always helps.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2010 18:14
|
|
|
ScreaminKing posted:Quick question about travelling with film (why can't I search the dorkroom??): Have you considered just buying film there? You aren't exactly going out in the middle of nowhere, if you are really worried, I'm sure you can find a camera shop in all 3 of those cities to buy some film. The slow stuff will probably be fine. It's really cumulative x-ray exposure that will damage film but it really takes a lot. I went on a trip to New York a couple of years ago and was basically insistent on having my film hand checked everywhere. It took loving forever and pretty much everything has x-ray machines there (ESB, rockefeller, statue of liberty, airports). It was a drat nightmare and I could have just gone to B&H and bought the film and mailed the exposed stuff back to myself and avoided the hassle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2010 18:48
|
|
|
ScreaminKing posted:Quick question about travelling with film (why can't I search the dorkroom??): I had this issue going through india, korea, and all the time recently in the US. Just argue and hold your ground. I lied in India a few times and got around security. gently caress them, it's my film. Korea they were pretty respectful and just looked at it. In the US they just swab it through the mass spec to make sure it doesn't have explosives. One guy insisted he unwrap the film which was ok consider it was a few day trip and I keep my film in a ziplock. I imagine if you're white and in Europe with a US passport, you can get by just fine. DanTheFryingPan posted:So far München has been the only airport ever where I was asked to take the camera out of my bag, and security checked that it's a real camera by snapping a few shots. Even still, the guy was very polite and helpful. No film with me that time, but definitely the best vibe out of the airport security. Yeah, seconding Munich for having a good security staff - didn't have film either though and I wasn't hassled about my camera either. guidoanselmi fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Mar 20, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2010 19:54
|
|
|
ScreaminKing posted:Quick question about travelling with film (why can't I search the dorkroom??): I've traveled with some relatively low speed film (Portra 160VC) and had to go through the x-ray scanner 5 times, long-haul flights between Australia and the UK and domestic flights in Australia, and the film has been fine. I've read that Kodak suggests you only travel with 400 speed film or slower and never put any film in checked luggage as the airports really go to town with the x-rays. I must say that after a very long flight, all you want to do is get to your destination, as I was feeling in Terminal 5 Heathrow. I wasn't about to kick up a stink about having hand luggage checked, with the few hundred people behind me eager to get out of that hell hole. If you're in western europe go check the flickr groups for those areas and you'll find in the discussions lists of places that sell film.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2010 00:04
|
|
|
Thanks for all the help guys. I think I might end up trying to buy some Neopan 1600 while I'm London and then taking it around with me. DanTheFryingPan: I was a little confused about what you wrote. You said you had no problem is Schipol or Munich, but they scanned your bag? Do you mean they just took a quick look inside, or were you just not concerned about the film going through? After doing some reading, I figure I'll have no problem with my slower film being scanned by the hand luggage. I can always buy some Neopan 1600 in London (found a place with great prices already) or Amsterdam (still looking....) Thanks again guys.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2010 00:20
|
|
|
What method does everyone here use to flatten out film? I'm digitizing a bunch of film and I've come to the Minox negatives. These things are 9.5mm across on a fairly thick base, so they curl up like anything and are really hard to flatten out. There's no space along the edge of the negative to tape it down or anything. Plus, on something that small, even a single fringe of Newton's rings can destroy the whole image. I also have a roll of Technical Pan 135 (  ) that I found in our house, obviously property of the previous owner (estate sale), who was a nuclear physicist; looks like a bunch of his travels to England and Japan in the 50s and 60s. It's uncut and was rolled up in a metal can for decades, so it's like trying to uncoil one of those snap bracelets. It's so bad that I can't even get it completely flat in my enlarger. It has all kinds of spots and scratches, but I'd still like to scan it and see what I can get.I'm fairly close to picking up some wet-mounting materials and seeing how that works out, but first I thought I'd ask here. Are there any good ways to uncurl film that's severely arched or bowed?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2010 02:28
|
|
|
orange lime posted:What method does everyone here use to flatten out film? Betterscanning.com anti-Newton ring glass/holders
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2010 03:05
|
|
|
orange lime posted:I'm fairly close to picking up some wet-mounting materials and seeing how that works out, but first I thought I'd ask here. Are there any good ways to uncurl film that's severely arched or bowed? It's probably not practical but if you can come up with some way to hang the negatives in a dust-free space, clipping onto the very ends/edges. Hang them vertically with a clothespin on each corner. The top two keep it up and the bottom two straighten it. Pull warm, filtered air through. Heat + tension causes the film to straighten, leave it in there for 20 mins. When you're done transfer to negative sleeves immediately, then put some weight on top of them. Obviously I'm used to doing this with fresh uncut negatives in a real dryer cabinet and it would be a huge pain to do with cut negatives, but I don't know another way.  Betterscanning makes the best holders, including Anti-Newton-Ring glass inserts. You might be able to modify one of their holders to scan the Minox film or something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2010 03:07
|
|
|
ScreaminKing posted:DanTheFryingPan: I was a little confused about what you wrote. You said you had no problem is Schipol or Munich, but they scanned your bag? Do you mean they just took a quick look inside, or were you just not concerned about the film going through? Security will obviously always scan the carry-on bag, and sometimes will also separately inspect the contents. I wasn't concerned about the film except at CDG. Of course, I haven't developed the latest rolls yet, so we'll see how those turn out after the scanners. No faster than 400 though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2010 09:18
|
|
|
For those of you interested in a cheap light table, try searching Craigslist for old dentist x-ray things. I picked one up for $20 locally, will make going through all my old negs a lot easier.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2010 21:44
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:For those of you interested in a cheap light table, try searching Craigslist for old dentist x-ray things. I picked one up for $20 locally, will make going through all my old negs a lot easier. My light table is an old laptop LCD with the pixel grid taken out, so it's just the CCFL backlight and diffusers. The original inverter burned out, so I power it with a $6 power supply designed for PC case modders. The light quality is great, really smooth and even. As a bonus, I can stick it in my binder of negatives because it's about 1/8" thick. Look for "broken" LCDs. Usually that means that the person cracked the glass of the pixel grid, but the diffusers are all plastic and very unlikely to break.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2010 21:49
|
|
|
Great idea! I have an old monitor that I was going to turn into an LCD projector, so I was getting ready to just toss the diffuser plastic and CFL light array out. I was just lamenting my lack of a light table yesterday. I sanitized my room for dust control and picked up a loupe, only to realize I have no way of using it 
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2010 22:12
|
|
|
I recently picked up a Nikon F3...i've put a few rolls of film through it and got them developed over the weekend. I noticed there is a thin red line through every single photo (in the same position) that has been developed. Does anyone know what that could be an issue with? What could i clean to fix it? Im new to film and have no idea.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2010 00:55
|
|
|
Tez posted:I recently picked up a Nikon F3...i've put a few rolls of film through it and got them developed over the weekend. Is the line on the negative? It's probably just crappy printing. I've had similar issues.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2010 00:57
|
|
|
killabyte posted:Is the line on the negative? It's probably just crappy printing. I've had similar issues. I havent checked the negative but i assume it is faint enough so it'd be hard to see on the negative anyways. I was alittle dissapointed with it. I might take it somewhere else for my next rolls. Any other suggestions to what it could be? Sensor? Mirror? Really strange.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2010 01:06
|
|
|
Tez posted:I havent checked the negative but i assume it is faint enough so it'd be hard to see on the negative anyways. I was alittle dissapointed with it. I'm willing to bet the line is not on the negative. Take the negatives somewhere else and ask to have a few reprinted...if the line is there you might have issues.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2010 01:12
|
|
|
Just shot my first couple of rolls with mine. Took the winder off after the first one: I'm not yet made out of money 
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2010 01:20
|
|
|
Tez posted:I havent checked the negative but i assume it is faint enough so it'd be hard to see on the negative anyways. I was alittle dissapointed with it. I'm sure it's not the sensor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2010 02:01
|
|
|
dunno posted:I'm sure it's not the sensor. I guess i just have to check the negative and get a few snaps developed and see if it reappears. If it doesnt then i should be all good. Heres to hoping. Otherwise no idea what it could be. I just thought it would be something to do with the camera seeing it is the same size and position in every photo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2010 02:07
|
|
|
dunno posted:I'm sure it's not the sensor. I laughed harder at this than I should have.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2010 05:50
|
|
|
Welp it finally happened. http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/32206/polaroid-film-goes-on-saleThe Article posted:Film suitable for Polaroid cameras will on sale at the end of the month following a two year project but two men sad to see Polaroid discontinue it. I know there's been lots of talk about The Impossible Project, and speculation as to when the films would really be out, but it's happened finally.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2010 20:35
|
|
|
Rontalvos posted:Welp it finally happened. http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/32206/polaroid-film-goes-on-sale That is very cool, but I am a bit confused now. Polaroid quits making film, and this new company has the rights to try to make it, which they now have. And now Polaroid is going to make a new film camera to work with it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2010 21:12
|
|
Associate Christ
|
Why are SX-70s so expensive 
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2010 22:21
|
|
|
Pantsmaster Bill posted:Why are SX-70s so expensive Because they're really great little pieces of technology that take great photos, fold up into nothing, and look gorgeous. Or was that rhetorical? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 01:25
|
|
|
I HATE CARS posted:Because they're really great little pieces of technology that take great photos, fold up into nothing, and look gorgeous. There's no way you could be talking about the SX-70, because it's ugly as sin. I believe you're referring to this camera?   Fun fact about the SX-70: the first proof to the engineers of the F-117 (first stealth fighter) that they'd done their job correctly was when the first photos of the prototype all came out blurry. They'd used an SX-70, which has a sonar-based autofocus system, to take the photos, and the F-117's shape was designed to reflect and disrupt any incoming radio waves. Turns out that it also did a great job with high-frequency beams of ultrasound.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 03:40
|
|
|
orange lime posted:Fun fact about the SX-70: the first proof to the engineers of the F-117 (first stealth fighter) that they'd done their job correctly was when the first photos of the prototype all came out blurry. They'd used an SX-70, which has a sonar-based autofocus system, to take the photos, and the F-117's shape was designed to reflect and disrupt any incoming radio waves. Turns out that it also did a great job with high-frequency beams of ultrasound.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 03:59
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:With documentation of the tests in hand they went back to the guys who engineered and constructed the prototype and informed them that for testing to continue, the current mount was insufficient and they would need a stealth pole. And so the Lockheed engineers built one, which disappeared entirely on radar even at maximum power, prompting the Northrop people (their competitors in the project) to say "If they can do that with a goddamn POLE, what the hell can they do to a PLANE?" Do you also have the Ben Rich book?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 04:03
|
|
|
orange lime posted:And so the Lockheed engineers built one, which disappeared entirely on radar even at maximum power, prompting the Northrop people (their competitors in the project) to say "If they can do that with a goddamn POLE, what the hell can they do to a PLANE?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 04:15
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:No, I heard that story on SA and didn't know exactly where it came from. Is this the book you're talking about? Yep. It's really good and I highly recommend reading it if you have any interest at all in aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 04:44
|
|
|
orange lime posted:And so the Lockheed engineers built one, which disappeared entirely on radar even at maximum power, prompting the Northrop people (their competitors in the project) to say "If they can do that with a goddamn POLE, what the hell can they do to a PLANE?" ...But obviously making a stealth pole is a million times easier than making a stealth aircraft. If anything it amazes me that they were stupid enough to put their stealth model on a normal pole in the first place, so much as it makes me wonder how accurate that story is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 23:11
|
|
|
ScreaminKing posted:Quick question about travelling with film (why can't I search the dorkroom??): I've traveled with film quite a bit and usually only insist on having poo poo at 800 and above hand checked. I keep it in the box, and they just either put it through the mass spec or glance quickly in the box and send me on my way. Never lost any film to an X-Ray machine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2010 02:25
|
|
|
l33tc4k30fd00m posted:...But obviously making a stealth pole is a million times easier than making a stealth aircraft. If anything it amazes me that they were stupid enough to put their stealth model on a normal pole in the first place, so much as it makes me wonder how accurate that story is. Looks like radiation engineer "leet cake of doom" is going to tell us how to design a stealth airplane. They had no idea how well the stealth developments would actually work. Most of the engineers believed that it was a waste of money, that the stealth wouldn't work and that the plane wouldn't even fly. Being able to reduce the plane's signature from the size of a fighter-bomber to the size of a golf ball (seriously) was so far beyond what anyone expected that I'm sure the design of the pole wasn't even considered.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2010 03:57
|
|
|
orange lime posted:Looks like radiation engineer "leet cake of doom" is going to tell us how to design a stealth airplane. I call it how I see it pal, mounting a stealth model on a generic metal pole is pretty dumb. Or maybe it was the work of a Soviet spy sent in to undermine the project? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2010 10:06
|
|
|
So I decided to try my hand at scanning negatives, problem is I didn't have a slide scanner or anything ... So:  Plus:  Equals:    ... More about the process and the lovely results here - http://superpositionkitty.com/2010/03/diy-film-scanning/
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2010 00:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 00:06 |
|
|
Regarding the film and xrays at airports thing, is there much risk in having unexposed film sent through the mail? I've bought film from Hong Kong a few times before because it's stupidly expensive here in Australia. It's always been lower ISO stuff, but I want more higher ISO stuff, is there much chance of it being xrayed a bunch and damaging it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2010 00:39
|
|
