|
Kaluza-Klein posted:Sorry, I did not describe the issue very well. With the wider lenses, I have trouble seeing the perimeter of the view finder image. Maybe because I am wearing glasses, and I can't have my eye right against the eye piece? You can reposition your eye with respect to the eyepiece to get a different view of your viewfinder, but that's about the best you can do. This is usually why I wear contacts when I shoot, or take my glasses off if I need to see the framing of a shot vs fine detail, or whenever I generally need to see the entire viewfinder.
|
#
?
May 1, 2010 18:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 08:16 |
|
|
Kaluza-Klein posted:Sorry, I did not describe the issue very well. With the wider lenses, I have trouble seeing the perimeter of the view finder image. Maybe because I am wearing glasses, and I can't have my eye right against the eye piece? Exactly what kind of lens is it? Is it an f/2.8 lens or f/3.5 lens? The f/3.5 version of the 28mm lens will have a darker viewfinder image because it doesn't let as much light through. The meter part of the viewfinder should be the same no matter which lens you use, even if you're looking through it with no lens on the camera. Also, are you sure you have the aperture wide open and the depth of field preview button isn't stuck?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2010 19:02
|
|
|
HPL posted:Exactly what kind of lens is it? Is it an f/2.8 lens or f/3.5 lens? The f/3.5 version of the 28mm lens will have a darker viewfinder image because it doesn't let as much light through. The meter part of the viewfinder should be the same no matter which lens you use, even if you're looking through it with no lens on the camera. It's a 3.5. I think the wider image of the 28mm lens is playing with my brain a bit; I get a sense that the meter is some how farther away in the corner. I completely understand why that isn't true. If I use a 1.8/55mm and stop it down to f/4 with the dof preview I still think the meter is much easier to see than in the 28mm wide open. I can't explain why. I have terrible loving vision, I'm happy to blame my eyes. I really like wide lenses though, and I would love to have the 18mm zuiko. I am afraid I would have trouble using the meter.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2010 19:36
|
|
Associate Christ
|
Stregone posted:Ok, do I need to worry about infinity focus with an EOS to m42 adapter? Or anything else to think about? Is AF confirm worth it? How about with an FD to m42 adapter? Stregone posted:Hmm, I did a little research and everything I read said that infinity focus was possible with m42 lenses on an EOS camera, and that some adapters are actualy too thin and will allow you to focus past infinity. Yeah, M42 -> EOS is possible. Not the other way around. Look at the register distance, column three. Do you understand why this is the case? (If not, read, scroll down to "will it fit") Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 20:12 on May 1, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2010 20:03
|
|
|
Kaluza-Klein posted:It's a 3.5. I think the wider image of the 28mm lens is playing with my brain a bit; I get a sense that the meter is some how farther away in the corner. I completely understand why that isn't true. Probably because the 28mm f/3.5 vignettes heavier in the corners and edges so that makes it harder to see the meter. The 55mm f/1.8 is most likely to be far more consistent from edge to edge for brightness. I would recommend trying a 28mm f/2.8 on your camera if a store nearby has one around. Other than that, man, if an Olympus viewfinder isn't good enough for you, I don't know what is. What you can try is a different body. The OM-2SP has an LCD meter display on the left hand side and the OM-4Ti has an LCD display along the bottom of the frame, both of which can be illuminated by a backlight, so maybe that's the ticket for you.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2010 20:37
|
|
|
Well, hopefully I have a fix for my little camera body issue. I went to the camera swap today and bought an F3!  Body with motor winder and 80% viewfinder ran me $170. Hard to argue with that. I also got the Nikkor 50mm f1.4 from a friend of mind and I'm hoping for good things from that one. Next up is to get those f-mount adapters for my Leica glass and I'll be golden.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2010 02:14
|
|
|
F3 buddies! I have the Ai 50mm 1.8 and some af-d glass. The 85 1.8 is a bitch to focus but very nice.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2010 22:44
|
|
|
I've been trying to find a good C-41 chemistry FAQ that compares the different kits, but to no avail. I've got about 200 sheets of C-41 4x5 to shoot, and currently pay $1.70/sheet + shipping with a two week turnaround. My Combi-Plan does 6 sheets at once, but it takes 1.1-1.2L of chemistry. I can deal with waiting until I have six shots to process, but I want to minimize wastage of the chemistry, as far as dumping developer with some life in it, or having it go bad on the shelf/in the fridge. What are my options as far as mixing stuff from concentrate, storing, and exhaustion? I'm planning on moving in 3-4 months, so it doesn't need to last any longer than that. Probably won't finish off all 200 sheets by then either, but would like to make a decent dent in it.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2010 00:13
|
|
|
Lots of good info in this thread on RFF.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2010 02:32
|
|
|
I bought two nikor stainless steel tanks from ebay, a single 35mm tank and a double. They came with three reels. One of the reels has an obvious clip mechanism, but the other two reels are different, and I have no idea how the film is supposed to be clipped. Maybe the mechanism is missing?  Also, does any one know the specific amount of fluid to use in these tanks? I measured the single reel tank to hold about 230mL or so.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2010 19:48
|
|
|
Stregone posted:Hmm, I did a little research and everything I read said that infinity focus was possible with m42 lenses on an EOS camera, and that some adapters are actualy too thin and will allow you to focus past infinity. Past... infinity...?  Does anyone have any resources on semi advanced optics where I can read about stuff like this? I mean I know kind of what happens when I go to infinity focus but I'd really like to get in depth with it. EDIT: Oh, and to stay on topic, I have some M42 lenses (50mm f/1.4 & 105mm f/2.8) that I use with a K mount adapter and they work fantastically. My only gripe is trying to focus @ f/1.4  ! Depth of Field is literally an inch wide.
Moist von Lipwig fucked around with this message at 21:08 on May 3, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2010 21:06
|
|
|
Well the F3 purchase is coming together nicely. I just bought one of the F-Mount-to-Leica-R adapters for $25 on Ebay. With any luck it'll be here and converted over for my shoot on Sunday. I'll follow up with a report and pictures of lens disection.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2010 00:02
|
|
|
Hey, I finally got around to developing a roll of b&w today. Not nearly as difficult as I expected...
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2010 00:11
|
|
|
Kaluza-Klein posted:I bought two nikor stainless steel tanks from ebay, a single 35mm tank and a double. They came with three reels.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2010 01:34
|
|
|
I have discovered that I prefer the darkroom to lightroom. I signed up for a b&w class and if you are thinking about getting into film, it's the way to go. I'm going to be sad when it's done and I don't have access to a darkroom anymore. Are the plastic reels worth buying or should I go straight for the metal reels? What is a good/decent film scanner that can do 35 and 120?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2010 21:05
|
|
|
Demon_Corsair posted:Are the plastic reels worth buying or should I go straight for the metal reels? The only reel you should be looking for is a Hewes in stainless.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2010 21:16
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:The only reel you should be looking for is a Hewes in stainless. Oddly enough, those are the exact reels we have been using. I will have to see if I can track some down. Edit: Turns out I have been using ones that look the same as the Hewes but are of much lesser quality. Demon_Corsair fucked around with this message at 05:55 on May 5, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2010 21:30
|
|
|
Demon_Corsair posted:Oddly enough, those are the exact reels we have been using. I will have to see if I can track some down. Good man. Everything else will make you hate it.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2010 21:42
|
|
|
My first self-developed roll! Surprisingly, a $30 Canon all in one isn't the best thing to scan negatives with.   Can someone point me to a guide on inverting scanned negs? I have a feeling I'm not doing it right. Bouillon Rube fucked around with this message at 02:28 on May 5, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 02:20
|
|
|
Are there any significant differences between the dynamic range different C41 films can capture? I've read that saturated-color e6 transparency films have less dynamic range than more subdued ones, does this apply to saturated c41 films like Ektar? I got my first camera without some sort of fancy metering and I'm nervous about blowing highlights shooting vivid-color films.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 03:37
|
|
|
Hey guys, total film noob here. I recently picked up a Canon AE program off of craigslist with a bunch of lenses for like a hundred bucks. I shot off a roll of kodak gold 200 (I only had time to run to the nearby CVS to get film) and most of the pictures came out ok (I had them processed at Costco). However, a few of the images came out with white streaks running from top to bottom. Here are some of the worst examples:   A few other shots came out like this to a much smaller extent (you have to know its there to see it). Do you guys have any idea what could be causing this? is it the camera? the worst offender (first photo) was one shot in low light, perhaps that helps diagnose the problem?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 04:43
|
|
|
Are your digital copies scans of the negative or scans of the print?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 04:47
|
|
|
^It's probably something that Costco did, I've never seen light leaks in that pattern before.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 04:47
|
|
|
They're scans of the negatives; the streaks are on the negatives as well.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 04:50
|
|
|
That's... unfortunate, wow! Those light leaks look almost like they're sprocket hole spaced, but with a weird interval. So honestly, I have no idea. Another test roll developed at another location would probably be enough to find out. My gut feeling is that Costco did it, but I can't tell you why.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 04:56
|
|
|
I'm guessing your camera has some light leaks, and the streaks line up with the holes on the top and bottom of the negative? Edit: Damnit! ^^^
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 04:57
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:That's... unfortunate, wow! I had to look up what sprocket holes are; but if they're the holes that you use to spool the film when you load it, then you're absolutely right. On the negatives, they line up exactly. EDIT: penneydude posted:I'm guessing your camera has some light leaks, and the streaks line up with the holes on the top and bottom of the negative? Crap, so that means its the camera and not the processing? 
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 04:58
|
|
|
Well, I mean if it's a light leak you can probably fix it by either redoing the light seals with a kit, or if you don't want to bother just get some black electrical tape and seal up your back after you load film. If you don't shoot a lot it probably won't be a HUGE hassle. Or you can just try to find another AE. I'm sure they're not going to break the bank.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 05:07
|
|
|
Fbi2thegrave posted:Crap, so that means its the camera and not the processing? Shoot a cheapie roll and you'll find out.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 05:07
|
|
|
theflyingexecutive posted:Shoot a cheapie roll and you'll find out. Yeah, just make sure that all you change is the location you process it at.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 05:08
|
|
|
Those look like surge marks from aggressive agitation during processing.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 08:18
|
|
|
Is there any way to reverse scanned negatives in lightroom?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 16:23
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Those look like surge marks from aggressive agitation during processing. Yeah, that's what I was going to say. Over agitating causes the areas around the sprocket holes to develop more densly, resulting in the final image looking like it has bright spots.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 16:36
|
|
|
Demon_Corsair posted:I have discovered that I prefer the darkroom to lightroom. I signed up for a b&w class and if you are thinking about getting into film, it's the way to go. I'm going to be sad when it's done and I don't have access to a darkroom anymore. I've got plastic reels and they're fine. I don't have a proper darkroom (windowless bathroom + towel under the door, tiny counterspace) and I drop them every now and then, it's nice not to worry about them getting bent up. I've got some old stainless reels in a box but I've never used them.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 16:42
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:Is there any way to reverse scanned negatives in lightroom? Not that I know of, but your scanner software should be able to do it if it has a transparency mode. It sounds like your scanner may not though - does it have a glass section that lights up on the top cover? Its very difficult to get decent scans of negatives if your scanner doesn't have this. edit: vv oh never mind
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 16:53
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:Is there any way to reverse scanned negatives in lightroom? Open a raw with adobe camera raw Reverse the curves in ACR (pull the shadows to the top and the highlights to the bottom) Click 'done' Open lightroom Right click the image and select "read metadata from file" under metadata In the develop module, create a new preset based on your image, uncheck all except point curve Apply the preset to anything you want to reverse... In lightroom 3: just reverse the curves
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 16:54
|
|
|
Moist von Lipwig posted:Past... infinity...? When your lens is focusing closer than infinity, light from the object diverges as it moves toward the lens, as shown in this diagram I got from Wikipedia, and is focused back to a point. Your lens has more glass elements, but you get the idea.  When focused to infinity, light entering the lens is parallel or close to parallel, and this is focused to a point. Focusing past infinity is essentially attempting to focus light that is converging as it approaches the lens. Since no object (that I know of, I'm sure someone will jump in with a crazy example) reflects light in such a way, focusing past infinity will simply blur everything because the focal point of light approaching the lens in parallel rays will be focused at a point behind the sensor plane. Some lenses, like the big 500mm mirror lenses, are calibrated to allow focusing past infinity because temperature fluctuations may cause elements to expand and contract at differing rates, but that's the only reason you would ever need to focus past infinity.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 18:32
|
|
|
Wohoo, a package arrived in the mail today: Shh, only the Tri-X is for me. Luckily, my university's photography club has a darkroom that I can use, along with the chemicals needed for making prints. However, I need to buy my own chemicals for developing the film. I'm a beginner with regards to this and would like someone's opinion who knows what they're doing. What do you recommend for developing Tri-X 400? I'm thinking of going with XTOL for the developer and Fix-AG as a fixer. And what about paper? My current choice is Ilford Multigrade IV Deluxe RC, most probably glossy.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 20:48
|
|
|
Tziko posted:Wohoo, a package arrived in the mail today: HC-110 or diafine. Do it.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 21:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 08:16 |
|
|
notlodar posted:Before lightroom 3: You rule I never thought of doing it that way
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 21:16
|
|
