|
You know whats really annoying? Having a 2 roll tank, but 400, 800 and 1600 tri-x  EDIT: It gets worse, just found an undeveloped roll, but don't know what it was shot at, might just throw it in with the 800. fronkpies fucked around with this message at 18:31 on Apr 17, 2010 |
#
?
Apr 17, 2010 17:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 12:14 |
|
|
fronkpies posted:You know whats really annoying? Having a 2 roll tank, but 400, 800 and 1600 tri-x Get some Diafine! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2010 19:05
|
|
|
fronkpies posted:You know whats really annoying? Having a 2 roll tank, but 400, 800 and 1600 tri-x 
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2010 19:27
|
|
|
In a stroke of good luck, my boss clued me into a Canon Elan with a 28-80m USM lens and about 24 rolls of 400 and 800 C41 film rotting in a box in our storeroom. As the camera is technically state property I can't keep it forever, but he did let me take it and as much of the film as I wanted to go have fun with this weekend. This is the first time I've gotten to try any of my 30D's lenses on a "modern" Canon film camera and good lord is there a difference in just the viewfinder alone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2010 19:32
|
|
|
I just developed (it's fixing right now) my first roll of Rollei Retro 100 (Agfapan APX 100) in Rodinal. When I was pouring out the developer, it was a purple/blue colour. I have never seen this happen before, but it is my first time using this film. Is that normal? Usually the developer is clear.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2010 22:18
|
|
Associate Christ
|
Yes, that's normal. Certain films wash certain colours out. Fomapan made my Diafine blue, some films made it yellow, some green, and tri-x washes out kinda pink-ish in HC-110 for me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2010 22:20
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Yes, that's normal. Certain films wash certain colours out. Fomapan made my Diafine blue, some films made it yellow, some green, and tri-x washes out kinda pink-ish in HC-110 for me. Yup. Fomapan in 120 format comes out Listerine aqua. Its really shocking the first time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2010 22:36
|
|
|
Kaluza-Klein posted:I just developed (it's fixing right now) my first roll of Rollei Retro 100 (Agfapan APX 100) in Rodinal. When I was pouring out the developer, it was a purple/blue colour. I have never seen this happen before, but it is my first time using this film. Is that normal? Usually the developer is clear. It's the anti-halation backing washing off. Some films are different colors.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2010 23:59
|
|
|
It's part of the anti-halation dyes, I understand. Something about the way that different wavelengths of light respond differently to the anti-halation layer, so they have to use dyes to make it perform acceptably. Most Kodak films use that same reddish-purple dye, which stays in the film if you don't wash it well enough (I now have a roll of purple negatives, thanks oh Great Yellow Father) [e]
orange lime fucked around with this message at 00:49 on Apr 18, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2010 00:00
|
|
|
I started fixing longer and actually using fix remover and cut down on my final wash times significantly (final wash time = time till I get rid of most of that purple)
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2010 00:04
|
|
|
notlodar posted:I started fixing longer and actually using fix remover and cut down on my final wash times significantly (final wash time = time till I get rid of most of that purple) You can also do a presoak which should remove a lot of the backing as well
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2010 00:09
|
|
|
killabyte posted:You can also do a presoak which should remove a lot of the backing as well I also got to obsessive about getting the water to flow clear when prewashing, which never happened with tri-x
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2010 00:16
|
|
|
Is $320US (+$25ship) worth it for Yashica-D 6x6? [$345AUS (+$27AUSship)] According to them it works perfectly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2010 05:16
|
|
|
Arinel posted:Is $320US (+$25ship) worth it for Yashica-D 6x6? No, absolutely not. That's horrendously overpriced. $40 to $80 US would be a pretty reasonable "good deal" range for a Yashica D, I think. Maybe $90-130 for Yashicamat 124, slightly higher for a 124G (usually overpriced though). Ignore the Yashica auctions that are significantly higher than $200 because they're ripoffs. $320 is absurd. DO NOT BUY IT. Dr. Cogwerks fucked around with this message at 06:04 on Apr 18, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2010 05:46
|
|
is go
|
Thanks, I find it very difficult to gauge pricing of cameras, especially since the internet is my main (only) source of information. And most people are trying to sell you things.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2010 06:09
|
|
|
Arinel posted:Thanks, I find it very difficult to gauge pricing of cameras, especially since the internet is my main (only) source of information. And most people are trying to sell you things. If you're looking on eBay, click "view completed listings" to see what people have usually paid for that item. Very, very roughly speaking, I'd recommend these ranges to be "good deals" for used medium format stuff, assuming that the camera is in proper condition. Yashica-A: $20-$50 - "worse" lens, still way better than a Holga Yashica-D: $40-$80 Yashicamat 124: $90-$130 - Solid, good purchase as long as it's not much higher than this. It's a bargain camera with a rather nice lens. Yashicamat 124G: $125-175. Regular 124 is a better deal, don't bother hunting for the G unless it's cheap... G is subject to 'collector' pricing which quickly ruins the point of getting a Yashica. Some jerks try to set the auction or shelf price of that thing up to $350-500 because of the oh-so-amazing gold battery contacts and the all-black paint job. The plain 124 is essentially the same camera, same lens, same 120/220 compatibility, and sturdier parts by some estimates, and it doesn't have quite the same collector craze yet. Ricohflex: $35-$70 - could be another acceptably-usable cheapie Ciroflex: $10-$40 (620 format? not sure) Seagull: $50-$100. One of the local stores is trying to sell a Seagull for $299, heh. Minolta Autocord: $150-$200 - seems to be highly regarded, sometimes compared to the Rolleiflex. Prices have been going up a bit lately. Mamiya C220 or C330 (interchangeable TLR): $200-300 with lenses. Solid, professional, fuckin' huge. Rolleiflex: The "collector's" TLR. Expect Leica-like pricing. Don't bother unless you inherit one, you're rich and you want scene cred, or you find a clueless seller at a garage sale. Rolleicord is the cheaper little brother to it, maybe worth looking for, but they're often sold in terrible condition because "omg rollei". Bronica or Mamiya SLR system: $350+ If you want a solid tool to make money with and you're already willing to spend $350 or more, go this route instead of TLRs. Avoid sellers who have the name of the camera in their user name (like the one pretty obvious seller of triply-overpriced Yashicas) because they're probably trying to cash in on the name. You're probably more likely to get a good deal from some random person than from a dealer, but check the user reviews and whether or not they'll accept returns. Avoid "no returns" sellers. e: I'll keep editing this and adding in more/better info for awhile Dr. Cogwerks fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Apr 18, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2010 06:38
|
|
|
Kaluza-Klein posted:I just developed (it's fixing right now) my first roll of Rollei Retro 100 (Agfapan APX 100) in Rodinal. When I was pouring out the developer, it was a purple/blue colour. I have never seen this happen before, but it is my first time using this film. Is that normal? Usually the developer is clear. What time, temperature and dilution did you use? I have a few rolls of retro 100 in the fridge waiting for development.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2010 07:38
|
|
|
Dr. Cogwerks posted:Yashicamat 124: $90-$130 And as I keep saying there is no reason to buy a 124G unless it is cheaper than a 124 or you really like the privilege of paying up to 2x the price for some gold contacts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2010 12:07
|
|
|
I HATE CARS posted:And as I keep saying there is no reason to buy a 124G unless it is cheaper than a 124 or you really like the privilege of paying up to 2x the price for some gold contacts. So the 124G is basically the Monster Cables of TLRs?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2010 15:20
|
|
|
killabyte posted:You can also do a presoak which should remove a lot of the backing as well Yeah, I have always done a presoak, and was told to expect funny colours, but it has never happened. It only turned purple after the developer. Dfhaii posted:What time, temperature and dilution did you use? I have a few rolls of retro 100 in the fridge waiting for development. It really is just APX 100, right? Per the massive dev chart, I did 14 minutes at 24C of 1:100 Rodinal. Then I just scan with auto-exposure on, so that probably ruins it all. I also use the un-sharpen mask. http://www.flickr.com/photos/skibler/archives/date-posted/2010/04/18/
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2010 17:40
|
|
|
Kaluza-Klein posted:It really is just APX 100, right? I believe so, apparently rollei bought a load of the stuff before agfa closed its operation down. I just did mine at 1+50 13mins in rodinal at 20c, looks good so far, but like you say, the dev came out very purple! Dfhaii fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Apr 19, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2010 21:30
|
|
|
First shot ever taken on my F3   Cheapo NIKKOR 50mm f/1/8 AI. evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Apr 21, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2010 22:49
|
|
|
I feel kind of  for not trying this before, but a contact printing frame does a really nice job of smooshing curly negatives flat overnight. Seems better than my old 20lbs of books approach somehow.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2010 17:36
|
|
|
Some of you Dorkroom veterans may recall I ordered an Olympus focusing screen from KEH and got the wrong one in the box. Well, time has passed and I have given the screen a chance and I must say that I have come to like it. It's the 1-10 type screen with no prisms, meant for tilt/shift lenses. I find that when shooting concerts, it's a lot easier to focus without prisms because I can see when the picture snaps into focus a lot better plus I get a better sense of the overall photo whereas with a split prism I focus too much on getting the prism in focus as opposed to creating a decent photo. I have also found that the OM-2SP is a great camera for concerts because the program mode is nice. Unlike program mode on DSLRs, with the OM-2SP you have the option to set the maximum aperture that it'll go to so what I do is set it to f/4 so I'll get the fast shutter speeds of everything below that, but if the lights come up suddenly, it'll move to a tighter aperture for larger DOF for more forgiveness in focusing. It seems to like trying to keep the shutter speed around 1/125ish whenever possible, so that works well for me. The only problem I'm having is when there is backlighting with a dark background because the meter can't figure out backlighting as well as the meter on my Canon 40D, but that's to be expected. Other than that, the Olympus light meter is great.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 04:19
|
|
|
HPL posted:Some of you Dorkroom veterans may recall I ordered an Olympus focusing screen from KEH and got the wrong one in the box. Well, time has passed and I have given the screen a chance and I must say that I have come to like it. It's the 1-10 type screen with no prisms, meant for tilt/shift lenses. I find that when shooting concerts, it's a lot easier to focus without prisms because I can see when the picture snaps into focus a lot better plus I get a better sense of the overall photo whereas with a split prism I focus too much on getting the prism in focus as opposed to creating a decent photo. Funny this should come up. I picked up a FM2n the other day in great condition but it came with the B2 type screen (matte field with matte spot). My initial plan was to just replace it with a K2 (typical split/prism screen) asap, but after playing with it a little while I've realized that it's actually far more comfortable for me to focus without the split getting in the way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 05:28
|
|
|
I found that focusing with both eyes open helps because the eye that's not on the viewfinder gives my brain something to compare the viewfinder image with so I seem to subconsciously focus faster than if I just look through the viewfinder and close the other eye. The more I use a plain screen, the more I find prisms to be an annoying crutch. Of course it helps that the Olympus has a great viewfinder to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 06:23
|
|
|
Is there a better way to store negatives than those binder sheets? Somehow a lot of my negatives seems to have become scratched, and their only travel has been in and out of the negative sleeves. A little worried that I'm scratching them trying to insert them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 07:02
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Is there a better way to store negatives than those binder sheets? Somehow a lot of my negatives seems to have become scratched, and their only travel has been in and out of the negative sleeves. A little worried that I'm scratching them trying to insert them. Wear gloves, and make sure the sheets/negatives are clean (and stored somewhere dust-proof). They shouldn't be getting scratched otherwise. I just got one of those Printfile "Workbox" holders and the stupid thing isn't wide enough for the 6-shot strip pages they make. Back to the drawing board *looks at pile of Printfile holders in shoebox*
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 07:12
|
|
|
I think I'm going to buy a 35mm film camera. I would buy a Nikon since I have compatible lenses already and it's easier. I have done some research and am weighing the FE2. I also like the FA and the FM3A, but I can't afford everything and I like the looks of the FE2 so that's where I have decided I will start (unless one of you can recommend otherwise). My real question, though, comes down to film. I don't know anything about the different films and am wondering if you know of any good resources that show the side-by-side comparisons of each? How does Provia compare to Velvia, Tr-X to Ilford Plus? etc. Also, what's the difference between shooting slides and negatives? Does one render better than the other?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 03:06
|
|
|
I think side by side comparisons are going to be of limited usefulness since film can vary so much depending on processing and exposure. Your best best is probably to just scour Flickr for something that catches your eye with regards to colour and texture and just try to find common themes in what film they're using. I'm still navigating through dense filmspace myself though, so obviously take that with a grain of salt.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 03:10
|
|
|
Flickr tag searches are the best way to rapidly get a feel for different films. As for the difference between Positive and Negative films, the biggest and most readily apparent differences are: Slide film has less dynamic range (closer to current to last generation digital sensors) than negative film. This part is in reference to C-41, rather than B/W negative vs. E-6. Slide film will blow out highlights readily, while negative film can withstand overexposure. Slide film generally deals relatively better with shadows than negative. The other major difference is in grain. Slide film is very, very finely grained, and detailed. Negative film ranges from grain the size of your fist to almost slide film levels of detail. 365 Nog Hogger fucked around with this message at 03:21 on Apr 26, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 03:15
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:My real question, though, comes down to film. I don't know anything about the different films and am wondering if you know of any good resources that show the side-by-side comparisons of each? How does Provia compare to Velvia, Tr-X to Ilford Plus? etc. B&W films are difficult to be quantitative about, since everyone has their own developers and little developing rituals. I think it's best to buy some and experiment until you find something you like. Freestyle's Arista line of film is repackaged from major manufacturers and nicely discounted, it's good to learn on. You can find the corresponding brand name films with some googling. 35mm negative film readily available in a lot of different speeds, and can be processed just about anywhere. It's fairly flexible, and can be pushed/pulled without much hassle or image degredation. Kodak's new Ektar 100 is pretty finely grained and produces nice, almost slide-like colors. Slide film has finer grain and (this is relative) better colors. It's also very picky the way B&W and negative film aren't; it has a limited dynamic range and it's easy to blow the highlights, similar to digital. In the LF nature photography book I was reading recently, the guy said if he could measure greater than 5 stops of latitude between shadows and highlights he wanted to get, he'd more often than not choose not to shoot. Slides you also have to take to a real photo lab or send out, it's not something a CVS or whatever can handle. The processing is also more expensive. I haven't bothered with slide film a lot in the past, although it's something I'd like to experiment with more in the future.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 03:20
|
|
|
It would be awesome if there was a site like pixelpeeper for film cameras.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 03:23
|
|
|
Does anyone have a link to that developing/exposure guide to get a ridiculous amount of dynamic range from black and white film? I lost it before I got a chance to try it out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 03:44
|
|
|
someone in my local CL was selling about 80 rolls of 120 film recently expired for $35 and I missed it. he said he'd offer his 35mm and 4x5 stock when he sorts through those before he puts it up on CL 
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 04:02
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:It would be awesome if there was a site like pixelpeeper for film cameras. If you go through some old photography magazines I'm sure you can find some good articles on that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 04:05
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:If you go through some old photography magazines I'm sure you can find some good articles on that.  I noticed that photo.net is full of film grain peepers, if you search any film + site:photo.net you can usually find some... unusual if not useful information.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 04:16
|
|
|
notlodar posted:I think emulsions have changed too much over the years Yeah, go look at any discussion of tabular grain versus traditional grain.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 04:51
|
|
|
Looks like Velvia and Provia only come as slide film? I am looking at what B&H sells online. What do you use to scan those in, or do you send everything off and they send you a CD with JPEGs or something?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 05:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 12:14 |
|
|
Mannequin posted:Looks like Velvia and Provia only come as slide film? I am looking at what B&H sells online. What do you use to scan those in, or do you send everything off and they send you a CD with JPEGs or something? I use a cheap-o Canoscan 8400F that can scan 35mm and 120 negatives in addition to slide film using Photoshop CS3. You may look into going that route if you want to go on the cheap. I know our local mom and pop camera place will also scan slide film to disc. If you're looking for a more modern SLR you can also look at the N90 and N8008. Both can be found pretty inexpensively and have pretty good light meters, variety of shutter speeds etc. ZoCrowes fucked around with this message at 05:38 on Apr 26, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 05:27
|
|
