|
fronkpies posted:400 Tri x in the summer One of the Arista films is Acros 100, and you can pick up a roll of 135-36 for like $1.79. Get the right tool for the job.
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 22:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:37 |
|
|
Or pull your TX to 200. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 22:32
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:One of the Arista films is Acros 100, and you can pick up a roll of 135-36 for like $1.79. Get the right tool for the job. Reichstag posted:Or pull your TX to 200. You pair of philistines. 400 TX 4 LIFE!
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 22:43
|
|
|
But really, don't shoot TX400 in daylight. There are so many good film stocks you can shoot at 100.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 22:58
|
|
|
But if you don't have a changeable back and don't finish your roll during the day ---  Just means you're not shooting enough, probably
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 23:02
|
|
|
This is where ND filters save the day. I mainly use them so I don't have to stop down so much and to get good dof in the sunlight, but they are also great for when you are caught with some faster film than you need.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 23:16
|
|
|
I found a load of old Kodachrome slides today. They make everything look awesome, even boring family shots. I need some in my life
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 00:21
|
|
|
Or you could move to Vancouver where it has been so gloomy that it's still fine to shoot 400 film in the daytime.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 00:42
|
|
|
HPL posted:Or you could move to San Francisco where it has been so gloomy that it's still fine to shoot 400 film in the daytime.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 00:47
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Think about an F3. The only thing I don't like about mine is the lovely backlight on the meter indicator. 1/4000 was a big draw. I have found 1/8,000 to be too slow in some situations, so the faster the better. The F3 looks pretty nice, I like the idea of shooting with a waist level finder. The thing is, $200-$300 for a camera body isn't terrible. If I like shooting film, I'm sure I will buy more bodies. Edit: What has me most concerned right now is center-weighted vs. matrix metering, the latter of which I am used to. Not liking some of the differences there. Mannequin fucked around with this message at 03:29 on Jun 29, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 02:33
|
|
|
What filters are most useful for b&w photography? I mostly do street and studio photography if that helps. I'm going to pick up a yellow 8 but I was wondering if I should pick up anymore at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 06:09
|
|
|
The FE2 has a pretty sweet flash sync speed for a film SLR (1/250). Don't worry about metering. Center-weighted will take you a long way. I think Nikon users get a little too wrapped up in the whole matrix metering thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 06:39
|
|
|
tonelok posted:Question #1 I've got a few dozen where they are heavily stained for whatever reason. Is PEC-12 worth trying? http://www.photosol.com/pec12.htm I really don't have a way of determining what stained them - if it was just humidity/water damage or chemicals. Buy PEC, even if it doesn't work here, you will use it later Dads fucked around with this message at 07:02 on Jun 29, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 07:00
|
|
|
have it your weigh posted:What filters are most useful for b&w photography? I mostly do street and studio photography if that helps. A red can be used to darken the sky. So can a circular polarizer if you're pointed perpendicular to the sun's rays. A red and a circular polarizer on top of each other will seriously blacken the sky like nothing you've seen. Pretty awesome stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 07:19
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:Edit: What has me most concerned right now is center-weighted vs. matrix metering, the latter of which I am used to. Not liking some of the differences there. That 1/250 sync speed is actually a very good argument.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 09:00
|
|
|
have it your weigh posted:What filters are most useful for b&w photography? I mostly do street and studio photography if that helps. The yellow #8 is a good one for general use. As stated, red is fun to use as well. Just remember that you are losing stops of light, in case you are using a camera that doesn't meter ttl. This site can give you an idea of what they do. http://www.tiffen.com/black_&_white.htm
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 10:24
|
|
|
orange lime posted:Oh, and one other thing. I have some Minox film (9.5mm wide, about the width of one of those fat rubber bands) that I need to flatten out. It's on a fairly thick base and the narrowness of the film itself makes the curling worse. I am intending to re-wash it to get it all limp, but then -- how do you recommend I dry it so it goes nice and mirror-flat like the negatives I get back from the lab? Also, I'm so tempted to buy this and roll it into 35mm and Minox cartridges. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...2#ht_3945wt_911
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 18:01
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:How does the chip clip + binder clip hanging method from the first page work? I have a roll of Minox I'm ready to develop so I'm interested, too. I haven't tried that method, but I don't have high hopes for it -- the negatives are curled across the width of the strip, not lengthwise like they were coiled up in the canister. I think I'm going to take a strip that is mostly junk photos and try soaking it, squeegeeing it off, placing it between two sheets of glass and pressing until dry. Does anyone think that would damage the emulsion? Also, Tech Pan  ! If you do buy it and roll it, I'll buy some off of you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 19:51
|
|
|
orange lime posted:I haven't tried that method, but I don't have high hopes for it -- the negatives are curled across the width of the strip, not lengthwise like they were coiled up in the canister. I think I'm going to take a strip that is mostly junk photos and try soaking it, squeegeeing it off, placing it between two sheets of glass and pressing until dry. Does anyone think that would damage the emulsion? I'm willing to bet that putting wet negs on glass will fuse the emulsion to it when it dries. I'm having a curling issue too. Currently I stick my cut negs under a pile of books for a few days to flatten them for scanning. This is a pain in the rear end. On next day off I'm going to the hardware store for some wood and clamps to rig up a simple press.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 00:19
|
|
|
orange lime posted:Also, Tech Pan So far you've convinced me to get a Minox B (at least I think that was you,) pick up a kickass rangefinder at Goodwill, and get a copy of Skunk Works by Ben Rich, so I don't see why I should stop listening to you now. In the next few weeks I'll be finishing up a big side job that's paying cash, and I'm going to get a few rolls of Kodachrome because I know I'll regret it for the rest of my life if I don't, and the Tech Pan has been on the list of things I really want to try for a while now. I have terrible control when it comes to camera gear purchases, so it's not a matter of if I buy it, it's when. Maybe I'll roll some for myself (the idea of Tech Pan in subminiature really appeals to my sense of neat cold war stuff) and sell some in SA Mart to finance buying more of that guy's stock.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 02:47
|
|
|
I owned a 150ft roll of tech pan. I bought it off eBay for $80 and then sold it a few months later for $150. It was from 1994.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 03:19
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:1/250 sync speed One of the things I'd like to do is set up a studio shot with my strobes and dslr and then swap out the camera and do the shot on film, assuming I can get all the syncing to work. I like the older film portraits of the past, so I'll see if I can do something like that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 03:42
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:One of the things I'd like to do is set up a studio shot with my strobes and dslr and then swap out the camera and do the shot on film, assuming I can get all the syncing to work. I like the older film portraits of the past, so I'll see if I can do something like that. Should be fine. I did that once swapping back and forth between my 40D and my Rolleiflex.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 04:13
|
|
|
I'm really enjoying using an old EOS film camera with the 17-40/F4 L but rolls of velvia 100F is getting kind of expensive. For regular hobbyist 4x6 prints, is there a big difference between fuji superia 200 and velvia 100f? I do know that one is a negative film and the other is colour reversal film. Are there noticeable differences in quality and colour? I would appreciate if someone can share some experiences with the different types of fuji colour film. One thing which confused me was when I took a roll of Velvia 100F to the store and I was asked which developing process I wanted - 'Regular colours' (E6) or 'oversaturated colours similar to lomo'. I picked the regular E6 process but could not find much information online about the other process. Any one have any idea?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 06:29
|
|
|
caberham posted:I'm really enjoying using an old EOS film camera with the 17-40/F4 L but rolls of velvia 100F is getting kind of expensive. For regular hobbyist 4x6 prints, is there a big difference between fuji superia 200 and velvia 100f? I do know that one is a negative film and the other is colour reversal film. Are there noticeable differences in quality and colour? I would appreciate if someone can share some experiences with the different types of fuji colour film. Those 2 films are nothing alike. If you want a cheaper film with nice saturation, try Ektar 100.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 06:45
|
|
|
i was just about to write what killabyte wrote.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 07:47
|
|
|
caberham posted:One thing which confused me was when I took a roll of Velvia 100F to the store and I was asked which developing process I wanted - 'Regular colours' (E6) or 'oversaturated colours similar to lomo'. I picked the regular E6 process but could not find much information online about the other process. Any one have any idea? Their 'lomo process' is cross-processing the film in c-41 chemicals, these are some examples of what velvia 100f can look like cross-processed. When I tried it I got low-contrast and extreme teal cast when inverted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 07:59
|
|
|
Is film required to release the shutter on old 35mm cameras, anyone know? I'm not able to test this out. The batteries are new. I can't see anything in the book, but I'm still looking. edit: d'oh! I figured it out. vvv yeah, no, I was just doing something stupid. Mannequin fucked around with this message at 00:06 on Jul 1, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2010 00:00
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:Is film required to release the shutter on old 35mm cameras, anyone know? I'm not able to test this out. The batteries are new. I can't see anything in the book, but I'm still looking. I can dry-fire my Pentax ME all day; The answer is probably entirely dependant on the camera you're looking at. Are you working with an F3? edit: Haha glad to see you figured it out. some kinda jackal fucked around with this message at 00:05 on Jul 1, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2010 00:03
|
|
|
Yeah my F3 will happily dry-fire all day, but you can't test shutter speeds without film since it'll just sit at 1/80 until the counter's on 1. Edit: Whoever wrote the film loading instructions for my F3 needs to be taken behind the barn and shot. So much easier to first insert the leader then pull the canister to the left side and push it into its slot. Less wasted film too, since you don't have to lift it off the film plane to insert the leader while the canister's already in position. You're also much less likely to touch your shutter by loading leader-first. evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 06:55 on Jul 2, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2010 14:51
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Their 'lomo process' is cross-processing the film in c-41 chemicals, these are some examples of what velvia 100f can look like cross-processed. When I tried it I got low-contrast and extreme teal cast when inverted. It's odd that it gets so crazy like that. Cross-processed Ektachrome and Elitechrome both looked pretty normal when I tried 'em, just somewhat more contrasty than usual.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2010 05:56
|
|
is go
|
Dr. Cogwerks posted:It's odd that it gets so crazy like that. Cross-processed Ektachrome and Elitechrome both looked pretty normal when I tried 'em, just somewhat more contrasty than usual. Elitechrome 400 is probably my favorite film to xpro.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2010 06:29
|
|
|
  Ohhhh boy am I bad at this whole film developing thing Oh well, live and learn.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2010 04:08
|
|
|
FINGERPRINTS!
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2010 06:18
|
|
|
Another Toronto shooter? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2010 18:46
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Another Toronto shooter? What tipped you off? The Queen East sign or the moss park variety? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2010 04:14
|
|
|
Sherbourne, actually. I had no idea where it was until I scanned that sign, and then it dawned on me that it looked familiar 
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2010 05:55
|
|
|
I really had no idea how much it was going to cost to digitize slide film. I probably should have researched that before shooting two rolls. Do you think something like this (Epson V600 - $200) would do okay? I'm kind of on a budget, and I really only need photos at web resolution. If I ever wanted prints or better quality I would send it out professionally. The other catch is that I really don't know how much film shooting I will ultimately do so I don't want to spend hundreds of dollars.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2010 23:46
|
|
|
I think it's hard to find a scanner that has a dedicated film backlight that won't give you acceptable web resolution scans. I bought my Epson Perfection 3200 off a goon who bought it off some guy on craigslist for like $50 and it scans MF realy really well. I probably wouldn't use it to scan film for museum archival purposes, but for fifty bucks -- As for slide -- I can't say I shot any, but is the principle the same as actual 35mm slides? Because if so I've been digitizing my family's old collection of 35mm slides and that's been going really well. No complaints. some kinda jackal fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Jul 8, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2010 23:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:37 |
|
|
Martytoof posted:As for slide -- I can't say I shot any, but is the principle the same as actual 35mm slides? Because if so I've been digitizing my family's old collection of 35mm slides and that's been going really well. No complaints. The roll I shot is Ektachrome E100VS (35mm) that they will be mounting into slide holders, so I'm assuming it's the same type of thing?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2010 00:02
|
|