|
MIRV Griffin posted:I just checked the manual and tried that out, works nicely... thanks for the tip! I want to get into astrophotography when I have more time and money, though from what I've seen it looks like DSLR's are better suited. Nice! I've got a similar lens (55mm f/1.2) in Olympus mount, which I use on my DSLR with an adapter (unfortunately the old Canon FD lenses can't be adapted to a DSLR without taking them apart and doing some metalworking). On the other hand, mirror-less digital cameras like the Sony NEX and micro-4/3 cameras can take them with adapters. Might want to keep that one under your hat, in case your dad wants his sweet lenses back  This guy writes more than you could ever want to know about rangefinders (and some other classic cameras). I bought a Bessa R3a after reading through everything, seems to offer a sweet spot between features and cost. I've owned the two "best" Russian Leica-clone bodies (a FED-2 and a Zorki 4) and while they're both kinda, they're really not great cameras from a usability/ergonomics standpoint. Leicas are too expensive, and the nicer Canon LTM bodies are generally approaching the cost of a more modern Bessa. I had a Canon 7 for a while and it was in some ways superior to the Bessa (better finder/framelines, awesome built quality, slightly quieter shutter), but the meter sucked and I'm lazy, so I sold it and kept the R3a. All the cheapest/bargain lenses are the old Leica thread/screw mount, so if you go the interchangeable-lens route, don't feel the need to get an M-mount camera off the bat if it's out of your price range. The M bodies will have more features, and you can use the screw mount lenses with cheap $12 adapters from eBay (but screw mount cameras can't take M-mount lenses), but I still wouldn't shy away from something like a regular Bessa R or Canon 7/7s as an entry into the Leica system. There are also a number of fixed-lens rangefinders, most of which can be had for $100 or less. Don't get a Yashica; they're big/heavy as gently caress. Pompous Rhombus fucked around with this message at 16:03 on Jul 19, 2010 |
#
?
Jul 19, 2010 15:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 09:57 |
|
|
Checking that site out now, thanks! In the mean time though, I'm wondering about film. If I'm just learning and shooting random stuff, would it be more economical to shoot slides? I've never worked with slides before, but it seems better than paying for lots of prints of lovely pictures... I;ve had friends mention buying cheap black and white film for practise, but I read somewhere that it's more expensive to process? Any advice on how to proceed getting started?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2010 17:06
|
|
|
MIRV Griffin posted:Checking that site out now, thanks! Assuming you're in Canada, I think HPL mentioned a place for cheap film either in this thread or the large/medium format one. In the US we have Freestyle, which rebrands B&W films from other manufacturers onto its own cheaper Arista label. It's apparently generally not worth ordering in Canada unless you're buying in bulk, because you guys get reamed on import duties/shipping. B&W is more expensive if you take it to a lab, but is the cheapest if you're developing at home. There are a couple of write-ups in this thread (not to mention on the internet), the short of it is you'll need somewhere dark to get the film on to the reels (either a changing bag or a room you can dark out completely), a developing tank, a timer, preferably a thermometer, and chemicals (developer, fixer, and a wetting agent for washing the film afterwards). Really precise temperature control isn't as important with B&W as it is for color film, so the process is pretty straightforward and beginner-friendly. Aside from loading the film from the cannisters onto the reels, you can do the rest of the process in daylight. Chemicals aren't that bad, developer you generally use once, but it's mixed from concentrate and a bottle of HC-110 lasts forever, ditto wetting agent. Fixer you can re-use for a while, and can be replenished.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2010 17:44
|
|
|
MIRV Griffin posted:Checking that site out now, thanks! B+W can be cheap as gently caress if you know where to buy. Freestyle Photo is the best store running right now: their Arista Premium 100/400 is Plus-X and Tri-X respectively, and their Legacy Pro 100/400 is Neopan Acros and Neopan 400 respectively. They carry any chemicals you'll want (HC-110, Rodinal, Diafine) and they often have cheaper equipment under their Arista label (for example, changing bags). You do have to have a darkroom or a changing bag, or load your film onto reels in the dead of night under your bed covers, or in a windowless bathroom. Do not dump fixer down the drain. All your chemicals should be saved, exceptions are wash water and one-shot developers (low-dilution HC-110 and Rodinal). Overall the development process goes developer, stop, fixer, hypo clear, wash, photo-flo (optional), dry. Slides are harder to shoot than negative (B+W or color). Also slides are the most expensive way to go. I think a roll of 135-36 E-6 development is like $6 or $7 from Walmart vs like $5 for C-41 and prints, and the film is more expensive to start. You can actually develop C-41 120 (rollfilm) pretty cheaply ($1.44 with prints) at Walmart if you don't mind a 3-week wait between drop-off and pick-up., Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 22:13 on Jul 19, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2010 22:07
|
|
|
Thanks for the info, guys. I don't think I'll be doing any developing myself yet, but definitely want to learn eventually. I found a great mom n pop camera store in town with a full lab on site, so I'll just bite the bullet and pay whatever for developing now. Once I know better what I'm doing I can look for the best deals online. I also plan to annoy my pro photographer friends.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2010 04:15
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:Thanks. I expect to get one more car show out of it, plus some portraits of friends and family that they'll be free to keep on the condition that they give them back rather than get rid of them if it comes to that. Sounds like a good combo. And I'm sure your friends and family will value the portraits enough to not offer them back.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2010 11:47
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:Take it some place with a wide range of deep colors! My whole life is a wide range of deep colours. There's a model I've been working with over the last few months who's great. She has wonderful colouring. If I can get a hold of her and the MUA I like then I might shoot the Kodachrome outdoors, by the coast. 'Model, with greasy fingers via a fish supper'. e: Just thought, maybe I could've donated it to a sort of 'one camera, one lens, one roll of film, one shot each and then pass it on to the next person' sort of thing for The Dorkroom. Then anyone who hasn't shot Kodachrome could have at least tried it. But it's too late for that now, I think. Nic Cage dick cage fucked around with this message at 12:11 on Jul 20, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2010 11:51
|
|
|
oncearoundaltair posted:My whole life is a wide range of deep colours. I'm pretty excited to be getting back two rolls of Kodachrome early next week. Little bit nerve wracking sending them to Switzerland but it's all gone to plan so far. Hopefully some good shots of Scotland and Ireland to come soon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2010 18:21
|
|
|
The more I read this thread the more I mourn the earlier loss of 120 kodachrome. x1000
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2010 18:33
|
|
|
Spedman posted:I'm pretty excited to be getting back two rolls of Kodachrome early next week. Little bit nerve wracking sending them to Switzerland but it's all gone to plan so far. Hopefully some good shots of Scotland and Ireland to come soon. just out of interest, where in switzerland did you send them?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2010 20:44
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:The more I read this thread the more I mourn the earlier loss of 120 kodachrome. Saw some on eBay a few months ago (went for about $5/roll), but Dwayne's machines apparently can't process it anymore anyways. I'm personally more busted up about the sheet film, but that's been out of production for like 50 years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2010 22:21
|
|
|
unixbeard posted:just out of interest, where in switzerland did you send them? This is the GB Kodachrome site from Kodak, the address is in there. From what I've read around the place, even if you send it to Dwyane's direct, they send it back to you via Switzerland. Crossing my fingers they weren't x-rayed to death.  http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=6879&pq-locale=en_GB
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2010 22:51
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Saw some on eBay a few months ago (went for about $5/roll), but Dwayne's machines apparently can't process it anymore anyways. I'm personally more busted up about the sheet film, but that's been out of production for like 50 years. Goddamn, those are gorgeous. High-quality color images from unexpected time periods are jarring as hell.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 01:55
|
|
is go
|
Dr. Cogwerks posted:Goddamn, those are gorgeous. High-quality color images from unexpected time periods are jarring as hell. I know, I've been going through some of the ones on the LoC site this evening. Just about all of them are available as high-res TIFF's too (the 4x5 obviously higher res than the 35mm), I'd like to print some posters for personal use. Pretty sure most of it is public domain because the photogs were working for the government, but I'll need to double check on that.  (Guy on the far right): It's-a-me, Maaario!  Look at this Normal Rockwell poo poo! (And the borders in Africa/the Middle East/Asia.)  Pop ya collar bro, we're goin' to war!  Doin' some science  This guy's just an all-around badass.  "Let me tell you kids about how grandpa lost his right arm in the war..."  Guy in the middle has literally never seen anything that required more concentration in his life.  "What the hell gave you that idea, soldier? I'm just a man's man, that's all." Here's a link to the color FSA/WW2 stuff, go hog wild!
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 03:01
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:
  Donnie Wahlberg should pretty much skip the New Kids on the Block reunions and just focus on an acting career centered around World War II. I poke through Shorpy a lot looking at high resolution scans of old photos. Here's most of their Kodachromes from the 1940s (these are all from LoC, etc., but most are picked out because of something interesting in them) http://www.shorpy.com/4x5-large-format-kodachromes
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 05:08
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:This might actually be the best photo I've ever seen in my life. I mean I'm sure it's not, but this is the first photo that made me sit up and go "holy gently caress" for no reason at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 07:35
|
|
|
Spedman posted:This is the GB Kodachrome site from Kodak, the address is in there. From what I've read around the place, even if you send it to Dwyane's direct, they send it back to you via Switzerland. Crossing my fingers they weren't x-rayed to death. Ah sweet. I live in switzerland right now so looking for places to get film done. there is a fuji lab here too i think. The swiss are pretty on the ball with this sort of stuff (having a process for any eventuality) so im sure it would be ok.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 08:44
|
|
|
Did my first ever develop today, on the first film out of my first manual SLR, turned out not too horrible! Delta 400 in ID-11 with 1:1 dilution  Click here for the full 1024x617 image.  Click here for the full 629x1024 image.  Click here for the full 1024x619 image. I think I like this film stuff! I'm wondering whether I should store all the stop (Ilfostop odourless) and fixer (Ilford Rapid Fixer) in the diluted form - bit less hassle but will they degrade? Zegnar fucked around with this message at 20:10 on Jul 21, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 18:50
|
|
|
I mix my rapidfixer in a 1 litre bottle and use that for however many rolls (I think i have 30 odd out of it now, probably time to mix up some more but oh well), but keep the rest in concentration form, and my hc110 I only mix up when i use it and then only how much I need. Not sure about stop bath, I use water. Looks like your in London? Where did you get your chemicals?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 22:14
|
|
|
What the loving poo poo. I started respooling, and it is NOT working out. I even sacrificed a roll to do it in the light and it still makes no sense. So I unspooled the whole roll of 120, and it's now in the position it would be in if it were exposed. I put the tapered end through the slot on the 620 spool and start rolling, the backing paper with the number side out. So I keep rolling, and suddenly the backing paper turns into the back of the film. The purplish side of the film, what I assume is the bit that gets exposed, is rolled facing the number-side of the backing paper. What the gently caress? I roll this all the way to the end with the back of the film out instead of the backing paper, and then the back of the film is taped to the inside of the backing paper inside out. I'm using ISO 100 Tmax 120 film. Even if I rolled it the other way, against the curl, it would the be back of the film that were running in front of the lens when I loaded it. I don't get why the exposure-side of the film is rolled facing the number-side of my backing paper. Any ideas? e. Video of my less than graceful spooling. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OebIO4riUPM Tshirt Ninja fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Jul 22, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 23:02
|
|
|
I developed my first roll thanks to this thread, and I'm pretty happy that nothing went horribly wrong, but there's not much contrast. Is this an exposure problem, or do I need to develop for longer? Agitate more? It's Ilford HP5 400 developed for 5 minutes in HC-110 dilution B.  Edit: Forgot to mention, these were photographed on a lightbox with a point and shoot. VVV: Yeah, the first one is just brightness/contrast adjusted in photoshop, which really brings out the grain, unfortunately. Pyruvate fucked around with this message at 00:04 on Jul 22, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 23:34
|
|
|
Could also be your scanner settings. I assume the first one is post processed? More agitation would give you more contrast but to be completely honest unless you're going to print this in a darkroom you're probably better off with less contrast so you can play with it in digital post processing. The only reason I say scanner settings is because VueScan goes to poo poo if you select anything but the photo itself. If you select too much dark area (bordering the photo) it will try to normalize the levels across your entire selection, so all of a sudden it's got a lot more black in the scene to contend with. Or at least that's my experience. I'm not sure how other scanner software handles this so I'm just throwing that out there. some kinda jackal fucked around with this message at 23:48 on Jul 21, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 23:45
|
|
|
Pyruvate posted:I developed my first roll thanks to this thread, and I'm pretty happy that nothing went horribly wrong, but there's not much contrast. Is this an exposure problem, or do I need to develop for longer? Agitate more? It's Ilford HP5 400 developed for 5 minutes in HC-110 dilution B.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2010 00:33
|
|
|
Also if you're worried about grain, consider switching to Delta 400 over HP5.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2010 00:36
|
|
|
Reading some older photography books, they recommend a final wash for 30 minutes or more on the film after pouring out the fixer, where the first page in this thread describes a much shorter process. Is the final wash that crucial or have the processes improved? VVV Ah, thank you! Sushi in Yiddish fucked around with this message at 04:56 on Jul 22, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2010 02:38
|
|
|
Sushi in Yiddish posted:Reading some older photography books, they recommend a final wash for 30 minutes or more on the film after pouring out the fixer, where the first page in this thread describes a much shorter process. Is the final wash that crucial or have the processes improved? You can use hypo-clearing agent, or manually wash it. I've followed Ilford's process which is doing thirty inversions, pouring it out, refilling, 20 inversions, pouring it out, refilling, then 10 inversions, before I fill it up again with a smidge of Photo-Flo, spinning/dunking the reels in that, then finally taking them off to hang up. I'd gotten lazier about doing all the inversions in recent months, but McMadCow laid the smackdown on us a few pages back about it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2010 02:43
|
|
|
Tshirt Ninja posted:What the loving poo poo. I've had this happen before, and if I remember properly it's to do with the film over-curling before you can sandwich it between the backing paper being rolled onto the new spool. As you peel away the backing paper from the old spool, the film needs a bit of a kick in the pants to go in the same direction (It's not attached to the paper at this end). If not, it continues curling around the old spool until it looks like it belongs on top of the paper:  Click here for the full 437x648 image. Unfortunately this means handling the actual film as you try and wrangle it onto the new spool
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2010 04:26
|
|
|
Dust you are the bane of my life.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2010 10:27
|
|
|
fronkpies posted:I mix my rapidfixer in a 1 litre bottle and use that for however many rolls (I think i have 30 odd out of it now, probably time to mix up some more but oh well), but keep the rest in concentration form, and my hc110 I only mix up when i use it and then only how much I need. Thanks that sounds workable about the chemicals. I ordered my chemicals on eBay but I now realise I got a bit ripped off! Will probably head down to Silverprint for the next lot, unless you know somewhere good?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2010 11:41
|
|
|
Zegnar posted:Thanks that sounds workable about the chemicals. I was just going to warn against calumet unless you can pick them up yourself, they tried to charge me £27 for delivery claiming they had to be delivered by a special health and safety courier, they don't. You might want to checkout firstcall photographic, especially for film, last time I checked they had tri x (but they had rolled it onto reels themselves) for something like £1.99.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2010 12:07
|
|
|
fronkpies posted:Dust you are the bane of my life. Words can't describe the fury I experience when I go to the trouble to dust the entire house before developing, run the shower in the bathroom before hanging up the prints, put gloves on, dust the scanner and glass plate and STILL get a scan that looks like it was unearthed from an open shoebox in grampa's attic. Nice clean up though. Lightroom has measurably decreased the intensity of said fury too, what with how the tools make it so easy to negate dust.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2010 17:43
|
|
|
fronkpies posted:Dust you are the bane of my life. The bulk of that looks like water spots, not dust.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2010 18:31
|
|
|
SandBox posted:I've had this happen before, and if I remember properly it's to do with the film over-curling before you can sandwich it between the backing paper being rolled onto the new spool. As you peel away the backing paper from the old spool, the film needs a bit of a kick in the pants to go in the same direction (It's not attached to the paper at this end). If not, it continues curling around the old spool until it looks like it belongs on top of the paper: Thank you so much, that was the issue. I thought my film was unusable for some reason, good to know it's just going to be even more of a bitch to do this in the dark. Will handling just the edges be okay? How bad is touching the surface of the film and what does it do? I have a slightly-handled roll that I kept trying to spool with this problem in the dark. Tshirt Ninja fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Jul 22, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2010 20:24
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Words can't describe the fury I experience when I go to the trouble to dust the entire house before developing, run the shower in the bathroom before hanging up the prints, put gloves on, dust the scanner and glass plate and STILL get a scan that looks like it was unearthed from an open shoebox in grampa's attic. I get this too  I do the whole thing with steaming the shower but there's still dust. I don't know what else I can do. How do professional darkrooms do it? Don't they have special cabinets to hang the film in? Is it possible to make one?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2010 21:00
|
|
|
Tshirt Ninja posted:Thank you so much, that was the issue. I thought my film was unusable for some reason, good to know it's just going to be even more of a bitch to do this in the dark. Will handling just the edges be okay? How bad is touching the surface of the film and what does it do? I have a slightly-handled roll that I kept trying to spool with this problem in the dark. I honestly have no idea what it would do to the film chemically, but I would think that too might oil might stop proper development or come out visibly on the negatives. You could minimise this by washing your hands immediately before (get rid of as much oil as possible), or wear cotton gloves or something. I'm really not sure if that would be overkill though, you might find that there's no noticeable difference Something else you might encounter when rolling: You might get a bulge in the film where it's taped to the paper. Just carefully unstick the paper from the tape and then tape back flat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2010 08:34
|
|
|
Can't you use latex gloves, or am I showing how much I don't know about film loading?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2010 08:56
|
|
|
pwn posted:Can't you use latex gloves, or am I showing how much I don't know about film loading? Yes but only if they are totally powder free, unlike most that are around.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2010 12:14
|
|
|
I usually just give my hands a quick wash before I start taking it onto the spool, doesn't help that after washing my hands I then have to climb into a loft to do that, one day I will own a changing bag. Don't know what I did wrong the other day, but as soon as I popped the cap of the canister and took the spool out the whole roll of film popped off and flew everywhere, like it was spring loaded.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2010 12:34
|
|
|
Do you guys with dust problems have fans in your bathrooms?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2010 15:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 09:57 |
|
|
notlodar posted:Do you guys with dust problems have fans in your bathrooms? Do we HAVE fans, or do we USE fans? I have an exhaust fan but I never turn it on because it sounds like a chainsaw.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2010 23:45
|
|