|
Reichstag posted: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. If you're careful, it shouldn't be a big risk. The only time I scratched one was because I got a lovely spanner with interchangeable tips that won't always tighten down properly. Going to ask for a set of the fixed-tip ones for my birthday this year. I don't know what you call it, but I use one of those rubber pads with the bumps on it (increases the friction) you get at the grocery store for opening stuck jar lids to get the nameplate rings off of lenses. Just use the edge of it, press it down against the nameplate with your thumb, and give it a good twist. You'll need a spanner for taking off retaining rings and such once you get inside though.
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2010 20:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 01:02 |
|
|
I was looking for an actual spanner wrench. I bought an Ikonta with a fogged stuck rear element. I got lucky and the fog was on the outside and it cleaned off fine. I'm sure I will need a spanner wrench in the future for other things though, this isn't the first job I've run into where it would have been useful. I'm still not sure which one to buy, other than not one with removable blades? Has anyone used anything like the imported or the economy? I know the rubber things you're talking about, I think they're just a "jar opener grip" or whatever. Similarly I've discovered that I can't grab my (cheap Hobbico) jeweler's screwdrivers without something to help, I either can't get enough grip on the driver to turn it or it strips. A t-shirt works well most of the time. And if you're anything like me, work in a paper/paint tray. 
Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 16:39 on Mar 30, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2010 16:34
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:And if you're anything like me, work in a paper/paint tray. Eh, you should do this always anyway. It also helps to have a film container with a snap-on lid to put the screws in. Just wait until you start taking out the grub screw that hold things like focus scales in place -- they are literally the size of a big grain of sand. I have to turn them with the tip of an x-acto knife. I have no idea how they even make them. Also, if you're taking apart a manual lens with an aperture ring, when you get to that point do it in a ziploc bag. The aperture stops are often made "clicky" with a series of notches and a spring-loaded steel ball, and when you take the ring off the ball gets launched across the room where you'll never find it again. orange lime fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Mar 30, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2010 19:15
|
|
|
I've been into photography for years...I use a dSLR when I've got a paid gig or something where I need a lot of photos quickly, but I still love film way more. I've always shot on my trust Canon AE-1 Program. This year I decided to sign up for a class at the community college near me because they are known to have a pretty high tech photo lab for students taking black and white photography. Anyways, I am pretty drat impressed with how much work it takes to get a print off a roll of film. I've had no problem developing so far, but my real question has to do with prints. My professor is pretty cool, and when she showed us how to make prints on the enlarger (we have about 20 enlargers, it's pretty amazing)...the results were pretty good. But they weren't anything like what I've seen on here. To me, the other students' results still look like "home made print" photography. Her advice to the students was to open the enlarger to f/8, use a #2 contrast filter, and expose it based on doing a few test strips first. The majority of the class is exposing prints anywhere from 5-12 seconds. This is how I did my first project. I understand that she probably gave us these basic guidelines to make enlarging less complicated. However, the current project (which is due Wednesday) is abstraction, and I wanted to try to make some of those really intense rich black and white photos I see from pros, and often in this thread. After a few trials, I found I got best results when I stopped down the enlarger to at least f/11 or f/16. Then, I tried out several Ilford contrast filters, and I started getting really great results using higher ones, like #4 and #5. Then, I exposed all my prints for a long time, some of them up to 25 seconds. I was extremely pleased with the results, and I've achieved the rich, contrasty look that I was seeking. My question is...is this a standard method for professionals? How often do pros expose their prints for a "long" period of time, like upwards of 20 seconds with high contrast filters? I don't know much about enlarging at this point, so I'm not sure if I'm doing something "technically wrong" or if there's an easier/quicker way to achieve the effect I'm going for. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2010 23:12
|
|
|
Nedsmaster posted:I wanted to try to make some of those really intense rich black and white photos I see from pros, and often in this thread. After a few trials, I found I got best results when I stopped down the enlarger to at least f/11 or f/16. Then, I tried out several Ilford contrast filters, and I started getting really great results using higher ones, like #4 and #5. Then, I exposed all my prints for a long time, some of them up to 25 seconds. Most of the super pros would dodge and burn the print according to the individual negative. In order to get more time to do this manipulation, yes, most professionals would use longer exposures and smaller apertures. The actual point you stop the lens down to shouldn't significantly affect contrast (certainly not going from f/8 to f/16). I would bet that the real reason that you're getting nice rich contrasty prints is just because you're using higher-contrast filters. And no, there is nothing "technically wrong" in a darkroom as long as you're getting the results you want. It's not like someone is going to say "ugh, I really liked this print, but now that I know you used f/16 instead of f/11 I hate it".
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2010 23:37
|
|
|
orange lime posted:Most of the super pros would dodge and burn the print according to the individual negative. In order to get more time to do this manipulation, yes, most professionals would use longer exposures and smaller apertures. The actual point you stop the lens down to shouldn't significantly affect contrast (certainly not going from f/8 to f/16). I would bet that the real reason that you're getting nice rich contrasty prints is just because you're using higher-contrast filters. Haha, okay, thanks. So I guess whatever works works. I know about dodging and burning, I do that on individual prints where it's needed, but I got my answer about the contrast filters. Do you suppose I could get even more contrast somehow? Do they make even higher filters? We only have Ilford Multigrade filters, which go from 00 to 5. I would like to try pushing some film (I hear Tri-X is a good candidate) for even greater contrast. Does the speed you push film to (say, if I pushed 400 to 1600 or something) have an affect on exposure time in the darkroom on an enlarger?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2010 00:07
|
|
|
Nedsmaster posted:Haha, okay, thanks. So I guess whatever works works. I know about dodging and burning, I do that on individual prints where it's needed, but I got my answer about the contrast filters. If you develop right the negatives should have the same density, therefore they should enlarge for the same amount of time. You will have increases in contrast, I generally print with a 2 or a 3 normally and a 0-2 depending on the negative with Tri-X pushed to 1600 in Rodinal. I just finished developing my first two rolls of C-41 in Rodinal. I went 1:100 semi-stand for 1 hour. The negatives look a little thin, and the base fog sucks. I did get them to print for the contact sheet though. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2010 01:50
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:If you develop right the negatives should have the same density, therefore they should enlarge for the same amount of time. You will have increases in contrast, I generally print with a 2 or a 3 normally and a 0-2 depending on the negative with Tri-X pushed to 1600 in Rodinal. Alright, thanks for the advice. I'll give that a try. I suppose the developer won't make much of a difference, I've never used Rodinal though. Our lab has Kodak D-76 or Arista 76 power, 1:1 dilution.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2010 03:10
|
|
|
Nedsmaster posted:Alright, thanks for the advice. I'll give that a try. I suppose the developer won't make much of a difference, I've never used Rodinal though. Our lab has Kodak D-76 or Arista 76 power, 1:1 dilution. I think the developer (and your agitation) does make a difference. D-76 is supposed to be contrastier, the more dilute stuff like HC-110, Rodinal, and the like are supposed to produced slightly finer grain. More and stronger agitation is also supposed to increase contrast. I could be off on this because I haven't started printing in the darkroom yet, but I think you generally want to aim for a pretty normal looking negative and do contrast enhancement when printing. You can always add filters/change paper/adjust exposure to make something more contrasty, but once that shadow detail is gone in a negative you can't get it back.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2010 03:21
|
|
|
I just picked up some D-76 for the first time, what's the best way to use it? Stock, 1+1 or 1+3? I was leaning towards 1+1 as a one shot, that seems to be fairly economical.Paul MaudDib posted:If you develop right the negatives should have the same density, therefore they should enlarge for the same amount of time. You will have increases in contrast, I generally print with a 2 or a 3 normally and a 0-2 depending on the negative with Tri-X pushed to 1600 in Rodinal. Is that 30 seconds of initial agitation, then another 30 seconds of agitation at the 30 minute mark? I've been wanting to try some different techniques with my C41 in Rodinal process, mostly I would like to control the grain a bit more and 1+100 should give me finer grain than 1+50 right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2010 06:49
|
|
|
Film tech sheets have nifty charts with contrast indexes. Kodak's: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/databanks/filmDatabankBW.jhtml Film's speed is pretty fixed, and when you "push it" you are actually just increasing contrast* Basically, push film for higher contrast**. *speed enhancing developers like microphen may actually add speed to film, like half a stop, i have no idea, this poo poo is old wives tale poo poo man **blacker blacks
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2010 07:26
|
|
|
trueblue posted:I just picked up some D-76 for the first time, what's the best way to use it? Stock, 1+1 or 1+3? I was leaning towards 1+1 as a one shot, that seems to be fairly economical. I've always used it 1+1 and never felt the need to try something else. Stock just seems wasteful when 1+1 gives effectively the same results in a little longer time, and at the rate I go through concentrate, 1+3 would probably expire before I used it all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2010 07:26
|
|
|
trueblue posted:I just picked up some D-76 for the first time, what's the best way to use it? Stock, 1+1 or 1+3? I was leaning towards 1+1 as a one shot, that seems to be fairly economical. I've always used D-76 as stock and reused it multiple times, have been on an HC-110 kick lately though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2010 15:18
|
|
|
Just got a Kiev 4AM with a Helios-103 lens. Not a bad piece of machinery. Seems nicer to operate than my Zorki 6. Everything works smoother. Unfortunately someone scratched their initials on the top of the camera, but in a strange stroke of luck, despite the fact that the camera came from Russia, the initials are the same as mine so it could be worse. The camera is slightly larger than the Zorki 6 in all dimensions. The shutter sound is nice and subdued at normal operating speeds but quite noisy at slower speeds below 1/25. The sound is especially horrifying at 1/2, which is the lowest speed aside from bulb. It's a zipping kind of sound sort of like when a clockwork toy finally runs out of steam and whirrs to a standstill. Oddly, the slower the shutter speed you select, the more you have to turn the film winding knob which also cocks the shutter. You would think it would be the other way around, but whatever. Focusing is smooth, although it's a fairly long throw from lock to lock compared to most other cameras. Combined with the wide rangefinder base, I guess this should make for quite accurate focusing. Focusing is done with a finger wheel on top or by rotating the lens. Fortunately for my fingers, the focusing wheel rotates easily and smoothly. I'm going to have to get used to not covering up the rangefinder window though. Using my middle finger to focus while keeping my index finger on the shutter button seems to help. Interestingly, the focusing helicoid is built into the camera mount rather than the lens, so the lens itself is fairly simple with the aperture being the only moving part. That would explain why Kiev/Contax lenses seem to be cheaper than Leica thread mount lenses. I've read that late production Kievs weren't that hot, but mine is a 1982 production model so we'll see about that. Can't wait to run a roll of film through it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2010 00:09
|
|
|
HPL posted:Just got a Kiev 4AM with a Helios-103 lens. Not a bad piece of machinery. Seems nicer to operate than my Zorki 6. Everything works smoother. Unfortunately someone scratched their initials on the top of the camera, but in a strange stroke of luck, despite the fact that the camera came from Russia, the initials are the same as mine so it could be worse. I have a '77 Kiev 4A. Nice camera. Mine has the Jupiter-8. I sent mine off to be CLA'd and also recovered it from cameraleather.com. Works like a champ now. I should go shoot with that thing more.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2010 01:21
|
|
|
HPL posted:Oddly, the slower the shutter speed you select, the more you have to turn the film winding knob which also cocks the shutter. You would think it would be the other way around, but whatever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2010 10:33
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:You need to wind the timing mechanism further for the longer shutter times, I guess. Actually I was mistaken, it's the same amount of winding for all speeds, exactly one rotation of the dial. It's just that for some odd reason it takes more effort for the slower speeds, which is contrary to what I usually encounter with mechanical cameras. I ran a roll through it last night and man, this thing has the most sensitive rangefinder I've ever seen in a camera. Even the smallest changes in distance result in large changes in the rangefinder, which I guess is good in that you know for darn sure if something is in focus or not. The downside is that if you're focusing on a vertical line slightly diagonal from a closer distance, it shows up as an "X" in the rangefinder when the images converge because of the huge distance between the rangefinder windows.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2010 15:59
|
|
|
Welp, I've read this whole thread and now I can finally post. I've been a casual digital SLR shooter for years but as I've gotten more serious about photography I've decided to get in to film. I have a very old school aesthetic and most of my favorite photos are from before 1980. I bought a Nikon N8008 after borrowing my buddies F5 for a while. He offered to sell me the F5 and while I really liked it I found that it was way too loving heavy. When I had both that and my D90 in my camera bag with my lenses it felt like my shoulder was going to fall off. The N8008 travels a lot easier and is much lighter. Anyway here's a few of my first shots with the N8008 using Fujifilm 200 that I just picked up at the grocery. Shot with the N8008 and my 35-70 f/2.8     I've got a couple of rows of TMax400 to develop in the next couple of days. Some of my best friends are photographers (pros or working their way there) who have darkrooms so I have access to enlargers and the whole nine yards. I've also got a FED-2 Rangefinder on its way. It is supposedly in full working order but I'll believe that when I see it. Some of my favorite photographers shot with Leica rangefinders and I love the look of them so even if it does not work (and I can't fix it myself) I'll put it on my bookshelf next to my books by and about Magnum photographers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2010 17:01
|
|
|
Got a very newbie question. How long is too long for expired film? Just bought a roll, then noticed it expired 2004-06. So I took it back and all the sales guys told me it was fine. Offered to give me 25% off, However, these are the same fucks that pretty much wouldn't let me with without buying a filter to go with my new lens. So I pretty much don't trust a word any of them say. Needless to say I got my money back. And at a different store I was given a roll that expired in 2007, and was told that it would be ok to do something fun with, but don't trust it enough to do anything serious with it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2010 19:59
|
|
|
Demon_Corsair posted:Got a very newbie question. Depends on the film and how it's been stored (colder = better), but I shoot expired film on a semi-regular basis. Kind of a dick move not to advertise it as such though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2010 21:44
|
|
|
Demon_Corsair posted:Got a very newbie question. Like Pompous Rhombus said, it depends entirely on the film and how it's been stored. Low-ISO films (50-200) keep better than high-ISO films. Color degrades much more noticeably than black and white. I've shot 2007-expired Portra 400NC before and it came out fine. My current stock of 160-speed color film expired in 2007. Heat makes film degrade faster. If it's sat in the freezer its whole life, it'll be fine. If not, you will probably have some degree of problem. You should be getting noticeable discounts for buying expired film - just out of date should be a 25% hit, the stuff you're buying should be $.50 a roll honestly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2010 22:23
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Like Pompous Rhombus said, it depends entirely on the film and how it's been stored. Low-ISO films (50-200) keep better than high-ISO films. Color degrades much more noticeably than black and white. I've shot 2007-expired Portra 400NC before and it came out fine. My current stock of 160-speed color film expired in 2007. Heat makes film degrade faster. If it's sat in the freezer its whole life, it'll be fine. If not, you will probably have some degree of problem. You should be getting noticeable discounts for buying expired film - just out of date should be a 25% hit, the stuff you're buying should be $.50 a roll honestly. It was 400 and had just been sitting in a fridge. Who knows for how long. They claimed they didn't notice that it expired, so it probably just lived in the fridge. And those guys overcharge on pretty much everything, so I could probably get a non expired roll for cheaper then their "discounted" rate
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2010 22:42
|
|
|
Shot a concert last night using Kodak Ultra 800 and TriX400 that I pushed to 1600. I have not developed the TriX yet but took the Kodak to Walgreens this morning   
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2010 17:18
|
|
|
What are your guys' thoughts on buying expired high ISO film, assuming it's been refrigerated? For example, I'm looking at a five pack of Fuji 800NPZ dated 6/05, but claimed to have been refrigerated. Refrigerated film vs high ISO expired film. At six bucks I might pick it up and shoot one roll just to see and not be out too much, but curious as to your experiences.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2010 18:29
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:What are your guys' thoughts on buying expired high ISO film, assuming it's been refrigerated? For 6 bucks I would buy it. Just know that refrigerated or not High ISO film will get grainy and lose speed due to cosmic radiation. I shot a bunch of porta 800 that was a few years old and it seemed alright a stop over exposed. You might want to sacrifice a roll for the sake of a speed test.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2010 18:56
|
|
|
Cosmic radiation 
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2010 18:58
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:What are your guys' thoughts on buying expired high ISO film, assuming it's been refrigerated?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2010 20:08
|
|
|
This thread is in desperate need of more pictures. Here are some from Tokyo, taken last October on Tri-X 400 (no street photography existed before 1954).     
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2010 21:16
|
|
|
trueblue posted:I just picked up some D-76 for the first time, what's the best way to use it? Stock, 1+1 or 1+3? I was leaning towards 1+1 as a one shot, that seems to be fairly economical. Here it is. Here is a 1:1 crop. I had a lot of scratches and white spots - I don't know if this is from dodgy expired film, clumsy handling, or if it's something I did wrong in processing. Hipsters should be all over this stuff.  I bet that 1:100 will have a (very) little bit less grain, but watch your agitation too. I agitated for the first minute, for 5s per minute for the first 10 minutes, then agitated at 30m. I've been on a lovely camera buying spree lately. I've purchased an Agfa Karat 36 w/ Solinar 50/2.8, an old Rodenstock 6x4.5 folder with Rodenstock Trinar Anastigmat 7.5cm f/4.5, a Zeiss Ikonta 521/16 with Novar Anastigmat 7.5cm f/3.5, a FED 5B with a I-61L/D, and just Friday a Minolta Hi-Matic F. If anyone wants reviews of those, let me know and I can stick them in the Analog Review Thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2010 03:21
|
|
|
Shot another roll of Kodachrome last month, at a potluck with friends. First few frames were underexposed, rest look perfect (emphasis on "look" to be expounded upon after the photos.) Scanned on ye olde crap-o-riffic Canoscan 8800F.     It's a very hard film to scan properly. When viewed in person they look amazing, perfectly exposed, but it's been an exercise in frustration scanning to any usable results. It's either everything in shadows or blown highlights. I'm thinking I might take the best frames and have prints made at the lab, then scan the prints. Thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2010 08:33
|
|
|
With every successive generation of duplication you will be losing quality, and introducing more variation on the original. That, and reflective scanning is generally poorer at picking up detail, and introduces new artifacts thanks to paper qualities.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2010 09:00
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:With every successive generation of duplication you will be losing quality, and introducing more variation on the original. That, and reflective scanning is generally poorer at picking up detail, and introduces new artifacts thanks to paper qualities. Yeah. You should send the really nice ones out to a lab to be scanned if you're not happy with what you're getting at home. Looking at slides on a lighttable is amazing, then you go and scan them and it's all 
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2010 15:08
|
|
|
I need some help.. Today I pulled the release up to pop open the back of my Canon AE-1 camera, and the little twisty knob thing came right off, and the part that has the screw and what not fell back into the film chamber. I can't get the camera open to get at it, and if I could I'm sure I could just rescrew it all back together.. Aside from prying this thing open, is there an easy way to open the door? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2010 23:24
|
|
|
Vivitar 35ES for $15, good condition. I have a 35mm slr, so I doubt I'm going to want a 35mm rangefinder, but I could probably flip it for more than that, right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2010 02:32
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:Vivitar 35ES for $15, good condition. I have a 35mm slr, so I doubt I'm going to want a 35mm rangefinder, but I could probably flip it for more than that, right? Is $15 really so much to you that you need to think about it? If it looks cool, buy it. Play around with it for a bit. If you want to sell it, set a reserve on eBay of $15 and go nuts. [e] first google results suggest that you can sell it for at least $50, maybe up to $100 to the right person.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2010 02:41
|
|
|
orange lime posted:Is $15 really so much to you that you need to think about it? If it looks cool, buy it. Play around with it for a bit. If you want to sell it, set a reserve on eBay of $15 and go nuts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2010 03:09
|
|
|
Do y'all have a recommended scanner for film? I shoot 35 and 120, both colour and B&W, and would like to be able to make decent prints without TOO much post processing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2010 18:51
|
|
|
ShotgunWillie posted:Do y'all have a recommended scanner for film? I shoot 35 and 120, both colour and B&W, and would like to be able to make decent prints without TOO much post processing. Epson V500 is pretty good for that, it's what I've been using.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2010 19:08
|
|
|
here is a half assed attempt at color balancing some ektar now that it's out in 120 and i have forsaken fuji   so close to what i want how are you guys color balancing your digitized ektar?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2010 06:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 01:02 |
|
|
notlodar posted:here is a half assed attempt at color balancing some ektar now that it's out in 120 and i have forsaken fuji  Click here for the full 622x495 image.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2010 07:19
|
|