|
So I've spent the last few days messing around in my neglected university darkrooms. We've got 5 enlargers, loads of chemicals, a stack of tanks, and a ridiculous amount of old photo paper, up to 16x20. It's a lot of fun, and it's been interesting getting the enlargers to work when nobody really knows how to use them. Next up: finding out what else is in the back of the store cupboard.
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2010 02:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 10:54 |
|
|
If it's 400 or lower, it's really just best to hand carry it. If you check in it bags, you'll get it fried by the high-powered poo poo they scan hardcase and metal luggage with. If you mail it, you're at the whim of the carrier- some are ok, but my understanding is that customs and the USPS do multiple scans of various levels of suspicious packages. If it's hot poo poo, get it developed locally- otherwise for me (and I travel about 75% of the year), ISO 3200 is local-only film.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2010 04:05
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted: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. What kind of box do you carry it in? I guess you take all your rolls out of the canister or tin foil? I'm not sweating it too much except for the Neopan. Buying film over there shouldn't be a problem (it might actually be cheaper), but I'm taking a bunch of flight so I don't want things getting attacked by x-rays too many times. I guess it's just more incentive to have things developed over there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2010 07:23
|
|
|
I just got back from 2 weeks in France, Belgium and Italy, and the only airports that would even entertain the option of hand scanning my film were the ones in the US. I tried to argue my case but they were having none of it, so it all got blasted like 3 or 4 times. Can anyone tell me what x-ray damaged film looks like once it's developed so I know what to look for? I shot some Kodachrome which I assume will be fine, but I'm pretty worried now about the Tri-X I was pushing into the 1600+ range...
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2010 15:19
|
|
|
It will be fogged. if xrayed too much. Carrying around 3200 film really does help, I think it's official policy not to xray it...
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2010 15:44
|
|
|
penneydude posted:I just got back from 2 weeks in France, Belgium and Italy, and the only airports that would even entertain the option of hand scanning my film were the ones in the US. I tried to argue my case but they were having none of it, so it all got blasted like 3 or 4 times. What a bunch of fuckers. Never had a problem anywhere in Asia. Maybe make some Ilford Delta 3200 stickers to slap on your 400 and up film in the future?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2010 18:12
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Maybe make some Ilford Delta 3200 stickers to slap on your 400 and up film in the future? I wonder if you can get boxes for dental x-ray film and stick your canisters inside those. I don't think anyone would still insist on x-raying in that case.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2010 19:15
|
|
|
Are there any tiny nice cameras similar to the Olympus XA that dont have a ridiculous price tag on ebay?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2010 00:12
|
|
|
Pantsmaster Bill posted:Are there any tiny nice cameras similar to the Olympus XA that dont have a ridiculous price tag on ebay?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2010 03:38
|
|
|
Anyone have any recommendations for a good but not incredibly expensive paper trimmer? Atleast something I can whip up test strips with easily.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2010 04:16
|
|
|
I'm trying to load my TLR for the first time, and let me just say I'll never complain about loading 35mm film in anything again. I feel like it's slipping a bit as I wind it up to the arrows, is it acceptable to sticky tape the end of the cardboard strip to the take-up reel?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2010 10:23
|
|
|
So I've been messing around in the darkroom more, and ended up playing with the old De Vere enlarger. I think it's a 504, but an old model, with cream/beige coloured metal (and it appears to be B&W only...not sure how I can tell though?) I know that the different focussing lenses will let you get a bigger/smaller picture etc, but what do the gigantic ones below the light do? They appear to change the size of the ring of light, but not by much. Massive lenses though. What size should we be able to blow up a 35mm negative? I printed a couple of 16x20s which didn't end up massively sharp, but I couldn't tell whether it was the negative, the way we'd set up the enlarger, or if we'd kinda hit the maximum for 35mm. Nobody really knows how to use this thing so I'm just playing and making mistakes as I go along.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2010 19:55
|
|
|
FasterThanLight posted:The Konica C35 is very similar to the XA in size, features and specs. Completed listings search shows several that have sold for under $20 on ebay, which seems reasonable to me. I believe some Minolta Hi-Matic models are the same camera. Hmm, looks nice but nowhere near as pocketable as the XA, I'll carry on looking.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2010 20:00
|
|
|
Pantsmaster Bill posted:So I've been messing around in the darkroom more, and ended up playing with the old De Vere enlarger. I think it's a 504, but an old model, with cream/beige coloured metal (and it appears to be B&W only...not sure how I can tell though?) The giant lens directly below the bulb is probably the condenser. Basically it makes the light coming from the bulb parallel so that you get uniform illumination. The actual projection lens is the one that makes all the difference in the size of the print. As for your sharpness: well, you can get a grain focuser, which is basically a special loupe that you put on the table and use to look at the grain. That lets you see when the image is critically sharp. You also want to stop down when you're printing -- don't leave the lens wide open, because lenses work the same way no matter which direction the light is coming from. You should take a look at your negative with a loupe to see how sharp it is in reality. And finally, 16x20 is a ~14x linear magnification -- you may just be reaching the limit of what your film and the taking lens could resolve.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2010 20:34
|
|
|
trueblue posted:I feel like it's slipping a bit as I wind it up to the arrows, is it acceptable to sticky tape the end of the cardboard strip to the take-up reel? It should be fine. Try keeping a finger on the paper on the take-up reel as you wind the film. Once you get one or two wraps of paper around it that should be enough to hold it in place. The key is to keep a little bit of tension on it so the tab on the end can hook in to the take-up reel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2010 21:18
|
|
|
orange lime posted:The giant lens directly below the bulb is probably the condenser. Basically it makes the light coming from the bulb parallel so that you get uniform illumination. The actual projection lens is the one that makes all the difference in the size of the print. Yeah we were normally stopped down cause of this, but for this particular giant print we needed to use f2.8 and a 30 second exposure, and the timer only went up to 30 seconds, so we couldn't really do much else. We were using the grain focusser, it's really difficult to check it on the outer parts of the image though. What would changing the condenser lenses do? We have a variety of 100mm, 180mm and 120mm ones, and a diagram on the enlarger with different configurations which result in different focal lengths. They didn't seem to make a massive difference in the light, but I guess it could have affected sharpness. I have a feeling that the softness was kind of a combination of wide open enlarger lens, wide open taking lens (Olympus OM-10 and a 50mm f1.8) and having such a big enlargement. I'll try again in a week or so, we have about 10 boxes of 16x20 paper, although some of it is fibre based, which I"m not sure what to do with. Anything special? This week has been really fun, I've spent 40-50 hours in the darkrooms. What does daylight look like? Why does my head hurt so much? How did I live off barely any food or drink in a 38C room?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2010 21:42
|
|
|
Pantsmaster Bill posted:Yeah we were normally stopped down cause of this, but for this particular giant print we needed to use f2.8 and a 30 second exposure, and the timer only went up to 30 seconds, so we couldn't really do much else. We were using the grain focusser, it's really difficult to check it on the outer parts of the image though. Well almost any lens is best stopped down roughly two stops. A wide open taking lens results in shallow depth of field. Frankly you might have just missed focus, sometimes it's hard to notice something like that without enlargement. I have a ton of negs that look great at 4x6 but show focus defects when enlarged. Camera shake might be a factor as well, was the shot hand held in lower light?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2010 21:52
|
|
|
With digitaltruth's Massive Dev Chart, say a certain type of film is made in both 35mm and 120 formats, is it ok to use the 120 dev time and apply it to 35mm? I figure that the same concentration of developer will be hitting the same unit area of film surface, but is there some difference in emulsion etc that will cause problems?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2010 00:09
|
|
|
trueblue posted:With digitaltruth's Massive Dev Chart, say a certain type of film is made in both 35mm and 120 formats, is it ok to use the 120 dev time and apply it to 35mm? I figure that the same concentration of developer will be hitting the same unit area of film surface, but is there some difference in emulsion etc that will cause problems? I've always used the same development times. The agitation should theoretically be different, but I'm not advanced enough with traditional processing to control grain or acutance that way. I've never had any problems using the same times for 120, 135 and Minox. [e] it is possible that a film manufacturer would use a different technique to produce different sizes of what are supposed to be the same film, and in that case the development times might be slightly different. Honestly, though, black and white negatives are so tolerant of variations and there's so much you can do in the darkroom with even a poorly developed negative that I wouldn't worry much about it. If all else fails, shoot a test roll and develop accordingly. orange lime fucked around with this message at 00:22 on Mar 27, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2010 00:17
|
|
|
Film is so forgiving that being a smidgen off in development isn't going to kill you. Never had a problem with different times for different formats since it's usually maybe 30 seconds difference at most.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2010 00:32
|
|
|
Anyone have tips on scanning prints? A couple years ago I went through my old negs and gave the ones I didn't already have digitized to a regular lab to scan. Naturally, the piece of poo poo Thai lab "lost" them. I still have 4x6's of most of it, any settings/types of scanners I should be looking for? I've got an Epson V500 at home, and work has an Epson 10000XL, which is a lot more expensive (I guess from the size) but has a lower res, 2400dpi vs my V500's 4000.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2010 02:56
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Anyone have tips on scanning prints? A couple years ago I went through my old negs and gave the ones I didn't already have digitized to a regular lab to scan. Naturally, the piece of poo poo Thai lab "lost" them. I still have 4x6's of most of it, any settings/types of scanners I should be looking for? I've got an Epson V500 at home, and work has an Epson 10000XL, which is a lot more expensive (I guess from the size) but has a lower res, 2400dpi vs my V500's 4000. Well, it depends a lot on the quality of the print. If you're scanning something like an 8x10 contact print from technical pan film (  ) then you'll need extreme resolution. If it's 4x6s from ASA 100-400 film, you'll be fine with 2400dpi. Scanning opaque media you don't really need to worry about the dynamic range, so just put the stuff in and go for it. Dust first.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2010 03:36
|
|
|
Oh poo poo, fuji is full of dickheads and is no longer going to produce 160 color print film in 120 and 4x5. oh maybe in 35mm too they may actually not be a bunch of dicks, but they haven't announced anything about an updated version. so they probably are a dick factory. it's the end of the world!!!
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2010 06:33
|
|
|
notlodar posted:Oh poo poo, fuji is full of dickheads and is no longer going to produce 160 color print film in 120 and 4x5. oh maybe in 35mm too http://www.apug.org/forums/forum172/73536-interesting-news-about-fujicolor-pro-35.html#post968059 Good thing I dropped by Freestyle and grabbed some 160S and a 5-pack of 800Z, but it won't be enough... It's hard to believe that the rolls of 160S and 800Z I have may be some of the last. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2010 08:05
|
|
|
just some loving icing on a horrible day (this whole film thing) at least i can point my rage at something 
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2010 08:38
|
|
|
notlodar posted:just some loving icing on a horrible day (this whole film thing) Meanwhile, Kodak's Ektar 100 in 4x5 and 8x10 is hitting the shelves 
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2010 12:55
|
|
|
When I was in the Austin, TX airport earlier this week they had a sign up saying that film under ISO 800 would not be affected by the scanning, but that you could request for any film to be checked individually without putting it through the scanner. I don't know if that's airport-specific, but you could probably contact the airport and see what their policy is.notlodar posted:Oh poo poo, fuji is full of dickheads and is no longer going to produce 160 color print film in 120 and 4x5. oh maybe in 35mm too Maybe if we all go out and buy more of that stuff they wouldn't have to stop making it. It's not like they're turning against their customers simply to piss us off. I'm sure that they'd continue producing and selling 160 color film if they could still make money off it. Not that I'm saying it's the photographers' fault; just saying you can't fault a company for not wanting to lose money. dik-dik fucked around with this message at 16:02 on Mar 27, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2010 15:58
|
|
|
I just got a Pentax K1000 and a 50mm f/1.4 and had a few questions on B&W film development supplies. Is this Paterson Universal Film Developing Tank with 1 Reel the developing tank in the OP? Does the Paterson Single Reel Film Developing Tank with 1 Reel use less developer than the universal tank? Is there any reason to get this one over the universal tank (both are same price)? What sizes of graduated cylinders would be useful? Freestyle photo sells in 50mL, 100mL, 300mL, 650mL, and 1L sizes. The chemicals I plan on buying are the same as in the OP (Kodak HC110, Kodak Kodafix, Heico Perma Wash). Thanks. Neuromancer 2.0 fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Mar 27, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2010 21:58
|
|
|
crono930 posted:I just got a Pentax K1000 and a 50mm f/1.4 and had a few questions on B&W film development supplies. I'd get the tank that can hold two reels. It saves a ton of time when you have more than one roll to develop, plus you can use it for medium format. I bought a whole set of graduates, but I only use the 1L and 250ml ones. I use a syringe I got from my pharmacist to measure out the hc-110.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2010 22:24
|
|
|
crono930 posted:The chemicals I plan on buying are the same as in the OP (Kodak HC110, Kodak Kodafix, Heico Perma Wash).
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2010 13:10
|
|
|
An add-on to my travel questions: Usually I shoot a lot with Neopan 1600 since I'm never out and about during daylight hours. However, I'll be out, about and at one with nature on this trip....and I was looking for film recommendations. I'll have my TLR and a couple of 35mm cameras with me, so I guess the sky is the limit. The last few posts in the medium format thread have been hyping up the beauty of Velvia and I just happen to have a few rolls Velvia 200 around. I wouldn't mind grabbing some 100ASA or 50ASA. Right now in my fridge I have the following stuff: 35mm: Fuji Velvia 200, Fuji Neopan 400, Fuji Neopan 1600 120: Kodak Ektar 100, Kodak T-max 100, Kodak T-Max 400 I have a bunch of the Neopan, but only a 2-3 rolls of the other stuff. I'd love to get some stuff down on slide film, but I'm not too familiar with my options outside of Velvia. I guess I'd like some classic color negative film too, but at that point I become even more lost.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2010 21:26
|
|
|
insofar as bw, i'm a strong proponent of PanF for landscapes. I think provia is very good for landscapes and is better than velvia in that it's great for shooting people too with great contrast and a bit better range. also, provia 400x is fast and still really finely grained.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2010 21:55
|
|
|
ScreaminKing posted:An add-on to my travel questions: Remember to expose for the highlights for slide film, rather than the shadows like you would with B&W.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2010 22:05
|
|
|
sensy v2.0 posted:Buy Kodak PhotoFlo (unless that's the same thing as the Perma Wash thing). One bottle will basically last you a lifetime and it really helps to get the negatives free from drying spots. I am getting streaking really bad again. Previously I'd sometimes get spots at the top and bottom of my hanging negative strip, but they were always limited to the leaders. Now I get a a huge strip of mineral fallout going down the shiny side of my negative. I'm using Photo Flo, I'm minimizing agitation, I'm squeegeeing it with my finger, after which it goes straight in a dryer cabinet set on 7/10 heat. I'm wondering if the water used to make this batch (lab chemicals) was harder or something? It rubs off with a finger, which is what I've been told to do, but I don't want to scratch my film base up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2010 22:58
|
|
|
You could try rewashing it in distilled water? Just get a big tupperware container and float the film it it with some photo-flo then dry again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2010 23:01
|
|
|
Any of you guys have an Argus L3 or other older selenium meter? The needle on mine still moves but won't go very to the left and just kind of hovers around the first 3 notches. I was thinking about replacing the selenium cell if possible, this one was my grandfather's and it's in perfect condition I'm pretty bummed it doesn't just work 
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2010 00:24
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Any of you guys have an Argus L3 or other older selenium meter? The needle on mine still moves but won't go very to the left and just kind of hovers around the first 3 notches. This place http://www.megatron.co.uk/homepage.html sells replacement selenium cells. I looked into it when my weston master 3 died but decided that it wasn't worth the hassle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2010 06:48
|
|
|
I saw that but that would be expensive, plus going all the way to the UK. A friend referred me to this place in LA: Quality Light Metric 323-467-2265 Going to send it in for a quote and see what they say.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2010 18:26
|
|
|
What spanner wrench should I buy from Micro-tools for lens disassembly? Any other useful tools I should get when I have the chance?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2010 19:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 10:54 |
|
|
I wouldn't get a spanner wrench if you can help it, they stand a good chance of scratching stuff. I'd go with a rubber 'lens tool' to remove the nameplate. I got a 55mm one on ebay to fix something on one of my lenses, and it worked great. Just remember to get the corrct size, it doesn't work with other filter sizes. see: http://cgi.ebay.com/55mm-55-Lens-Re...=item53dc98f09c
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2010 19:48
|
|