|
JizJizJiz posted:I don't want to cause trouble - but I figured I should cross post this here Keep any lenses wider than 28mm, with the advent of Micro Four thirds systems these can fetch some amazing prices on ebay. (Seriously if you have a FD or OM mount 24mm lens I'd love to buy it) You might think about buying a table at the OC used camera show (it's once a month and close by to Anaheim) or the one in pasadena. Really cheapo slr cameras might be a great donation to a local school or photo clubs.
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2010 02:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 03:19 |
|
|
I got this camera at the local Goodwill for $3. Everything seems to be in working order, it even had good batteries in it. It has a 50mm F/1.9 lens, and there's not too much dust showing up through the view finder.  This would be my first film SLR, I normally shoot DSLR Nikons. I never really considered doing much with film, but having gotten this little camera and cleaning it up and finding out that everything seems to be functioning on it, I'm kind of excited to experiment a bit. I've started reading through this thread a bit, but it's quite long and there's a lot to get through. I don't think I want to jump straight into developing my own film yet, but I do like the idea of shooting some B/W. Based on some of the stuff I've read, I think I'll probably start with Kodak Tri-X 400. I'd love to here some recommendations of any decent online photolabs that would develop my negatives and digital scans for a reasonable price.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2010 05:21
|
|
|
echobucket posted:I got this camera at the local Goodwill for $3. Everything seems to be in working order, it even had good batteries in it. It has a 50mm F/1.9 lens, and there's not too much dust showing up through the view finder. If you don't want to develop your own film but want to shoot B&W, you should consider starting with XP2 Super 400, which is a B&W film that can be developed by any walgreens. Developing B&W film is pretty easy and can be done very inexpensively...the cost of sending out a few rolls of film will pay for the equipment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2010 05:40
|
|
|
Yeah, I'd say you should definitely find a C41 B&W film if you just want to experiment. Your local shop will be able to process it, though you won't get the variety of film types that you will with in dedicated B&W films.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2010 08:15
|
|
|
Thanks for the suggestions. I have an Epson 2480 Photo scanner that includes a negative scanner. Should I try to scan the negatives I get back from walgreens myself, or let them do it and burn a CD?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2010 18:19
|
|
|
What do you get back from Walgreens anyway? As long as it's not JPEG and is of reasonably high resolution then you might be ok just letting them handle it. It all depends on what your time is worth I guess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2010 18:45
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:What do you get back from Walgreens anyway? As long as it's not JPEG and is of reasonably high resolution then you might be ok just letting them handle it. Walgreens FAQ posted:What is the resolution of the pictures on a Custom Photo CD? Ack. Echo: 1612 x 1024 = 1.6 megapixels. Cell phone cameras are better than that, those are some pretty lovely scans. They might be okay for internet use (OK for facebook, maybe flickr, definitely not portfolio work). JPEGs really aren't ideal for print, especially if you follow their suggestion and stretch 'em out to 150dpi for 8x10s... ew. Their "high-quality" claim does not mean "photo-quality." Your own scanner will probably do a much better job than that - but to save time, you could use their CD to figure out which negatives are worth a better scan, then redo those ones yourself or send those negatives to a pro shop if you need really big scans for large prints. If you're getting 4x6 prints anyways, skip the photo CD. Dr. Cogwerks fucked around with this message at 02:36 on Aug 8, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2010 00:24
|
|
is go
|
Pff. Yeah, pass. Scan them at home.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2010 01:35
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Pff. Yeah, pass. Scan them at home. What would be a good, sub 200 dollar scanner?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2010 05:14
|
|
|
Sushi in Yiddish posted:What would be a good, sub 200 dollar scanner? For new ones, probably the Canoscan 8800F or the Epson v600. Newegg's usually got that one for just about $200. I've been trying to make up my mind between the two. If you're only doing 35mm negatives and nothing else, the ~$200 Plustek film scanner might work too. If/when you can afford it, one of the glass holders from Better Scanning would be a great addition for either of the flatbed scanners.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2010 05:45
|
|
|
Sushi in Yiddish posted:What would be a good, sub 200 dollar scanner?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2010 08:23
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Yeah, I'd say you should definitely find a C41 B&W film if you just want to experiment. Your local shop will be able to process it, though you won't get the variety of film types that you will with in dedicated B&W films.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 01:26
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:I've heard that the quality of C41 black and whites is terrible compared to normal B&W film, but I have no experience with them. Its not terrible, just different. More 'digital' like is what people usually say.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 01:51
|
|
|
I like using a roll to experiment like Marty said, then if you operate the camera wrong or something it's no big deal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 02:16
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:I've heard that the quality of C41 black and whites is terrible compared to normal B&W film, but I have no experience with them. Terrible is a pretty strong word. I like them personally, they are very versatile, and the Ilford product has no orange mask and can be printed in a darkroom if you so like, and also works with ICE so they scan nice too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 03:15
|
|
|
My cousin opened the back of my camera and my film hit the light. There were probably 8 exposures on it. Can I venture forth or will everything be futile at this point?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 03:23
|
|
|
Only what was out of the canister will be toast, everything still in it will be fine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 03:29
|
|
|
If I pop it out and snip the end, can I use the remainder at another time?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 04:24
|
|
|
Sirkus posted:If I pop it out and snip the end, can I use the remainder at another time? Yep.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 04:43
|
|
|
Hey guys, I'd like to share my final film project from last semester's black and white class. It was supposed to be a "narrative." I developed and printed everything myself, using burning and dodging. Film was Kodak P3200 developed at 1600 in D-76. These are pictures I took of the matte boards on my SLR, so excuse the quality or any bluish tints. The last pic is a bit hard to see from the digital version, but it's a cityscape of the San Fernando Valley at night. By the way, what you're seeing is a window matte, hand cut, two 11x14 matte boards per print. I used a bevel cutter. There are actually two windows in each display - one window for the main picture and one for the text underneath (that took a lot of measuring!). As for the text, in order to keep it all "old school", I printed out the text first on transparency paper from a laser printer. I then used the transparency to expose onto blank photo paper to get the white text with the black background. Anyways, here's my narrative about Los Angeles. These were meant to be displayed left to right in a gallery with the middle shot being the portrait orientation.      Feedback is appreciated! Nedsmaster fucked around with this message at 06:23 on Aug 10, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 05:02
|
|
|
Sirkus posted:If I pop it out and snip the end, can I use the remainder at another time? e: mark the canister, obviously. The problem with snipping is that getting it back on might be a pain if the take up reel is designed to have the thinner part of a film strip (the part that sticks out on unused rolls) inserted into it. The problem with not snipping is that if you don't have a motordrive, getting back to the unexposed frames might take a while. evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 10:41 on Aug 10, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 10:33
|
|
|
East Lake posted:I like using a roll to experiment like Marty said, then if you operate the camera wrong or something it's no big deal. Guilty. On my first roll of film I messed with the rewind and ended up screwing it up by winding the film back into the roll where I can't get to it. Unless there's some magic trick to pulling it back out that roll is toast. (I was messing around because I noticed the frame advance is busted on my $3 camera. I guess I can still shoot until I can't wind the film anymore, or keep track of the frames manually or in my head.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 17:55
|
|
|
Sushi in Yiddish posted:
The Canon T70 is a great camera with a wonderful lens range, and I will stan for that camera forever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 18:00
|
|
|
echobucket posted:Guilty. On my first roll of film I messed with the rewind and ended up screwing it up by winding the film back into the roll where I can't get to it. Unless there's some magic trick to pulling it back out that roll is toast. You can get a film leader retriever which can remove it, or you can try to (in the dark) roll it into another roll. Or, you can just take it and get it processed and get whatever images are there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2010 03:10
|
|
|
Nedsmaster posted:
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2010 05:33
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:The Canon T70 is a great camera with a wonderful lens range, and I will stan for that camera forever. FD mount is definitely a great advantage, but drat if it doesn't resemble:  *not actually a SLR  http://cameras.alfredklomp.com/ar4392fh/
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2010 08:22
|
|
|
NIPPON* *made in china.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2010 08:46
|
|
|
I have a bit of a decision to make here. Obviously, as I showed last page I just picked up a new-to-me R8. It replaced my R4 that finally kicked the bucket after 6 years (plus however much is was used from 1984 until then). I've got 3 lenses for the R system right now (50mm f2, 35-70mm f3.5, 180mm f2.8). So that's my main system. After the R4 died on a shoot I've been really paranoid about making sure I've got a backup camera. To that end I bought a Nikon F3. It's completely loaded, with a motor drive, second release, tension-sensing back, hot shoe coupler, and the motor drive body piece. I've also got an FM body. I only have 2 Nikon lenses, the 50mm f1.4, and a Tamron macro zoom that undoubtedly sucks. I can also adapt my Leica glass to the Nikon body. I'm pretty sure I should just sell off all my Nikon gear to fund a second cheaper Leica body. R4s can be had on KEH as low as $140. I could probably even afford something like an R5 or R7 if I sold all the Nikon gear for enough. I'll be at a show that KEH will be attending this weekend. So, Dorkroomers, is there any good reason why I should hang on to the F3 as a backup camera instead of selling it off and picking up a redundant body in order to stick with using the same single system?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2010 05:08
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:I have a bit of a decision to make here. Obviously, as I showed last page I just picked up a new-to-me R8. It replaced my R4 that finally kicked the bucket after 6 years (plus however much is was used from 1984 until then). I've got 3 lenses for the R system right now (50mm f2, 35-70mm f3.5, 180mm f2.8). So that's my main system. Not as far as I can see.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2010 05:57
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:So, Dorkroomers, is there any good reason why I should hang on to the F3 as a backup camera instead of selling it off and picking up a redundant body in order to stick with using the same single system?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2010 08:41
|
|
|
I ended up going for the Epson V500 scanner. Do people tend to just use the Epson software, or is it worth swapping to something more dedicated? (e.g. Silverfast that i heard mentioned on flickr) I thought maybe i could use CS5 directly with the scanner but it doesn't seem to have the import from Twain thingy even after installing the addons (possibly incorrectly).
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2010 11:51
|
|
|
EvilRic posted:I ended up going for the Epson V500 scanner. The epson software suuucks. You can get demos of both Silverfast and Vuescan. Try them both and see which you like better. I went with Silverfast Ai. Oh and when the film holder pisses you off get a betterscanning holder. I have no more issues with curly film.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2010 12:57
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:The epson software suuucks. You can get demos of both Silverfast and Vuescan. Try them both and see which you like better. I went with Silverfast Ai. Yeah i was getting mixed results from the epson software. I'll give Silverfast a proper try this weekend. I didn't know you could get other holders too, that's interesting. Thanks for the advice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2010 13:34
|
|
|
EvilRic posted:Yeah i was getting mixed results from the epson software. I'll give Silverfast a proper try this weekend. Yeah the betterscanning holder is solid and comes with a big piece of antinewton glass. I only scan 120 though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2010 13:47
|
|
|
My film is mostly flat anyway, but I also had good luck with a piece of regular photo frame glass supported on four corners by dimes. So much more convenient than the stock film holder on my Epson 3200 and it was free. Maybe give something like that a try before you spend the $80-100 on a betterscanning holder. I know my scanner focuses 1mm above the glass, but to be perfectly honest I haven't seen much if any degradation in the quality of my scans. I'm going to try and find a 1mm thick piece of glass to lay on the scanner soon though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2010 18:14
|
|
|
I have some kodacolor II 110 size film that expired in 1979, and was probably kept in a garage in california for its whole life. Is this junk for sure or is it worth trying?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2010 23:36
|
|
|
Rontalvos posted:I have some kodacolor II 110 size film that expired in 1979, and was probably kept in a garage in california for its whole life. I'll tell you right now that anything kept in a California garage besides a car gets ruined from the heat over the course of 30 years. But you can give it a shot if you want.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2010 23:38
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:My film is mostly flat anyway, but I also had good luck with a piece of regular photo frame glass supported on four corners by dimes. So much more convenient than the stock film holder on my Epson 3200 and it was free. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2010 07:50
|
|
|
I also found an old Kodak Pony 135C in my thrifting this weekend. They were only made between 1956-1958 and are pretty fun little point and shoot cameras. This one still had a roll of C-22 Kodacolor film in it which they stopped producing in the 1970's so it has been in someone's attic for a very long time. It's in pretty much EX+ condition and I was able to pick it up for $20. I'm going to try find a roll of Kodachrome to run through before it is too late.   All my film bodies  Took a shot of my FED-2 as well More shots of the cameras at my flickr
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2010 22:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 03:19 |
|
|
ZoCrowes posted:
Beautiful. The fed 2 is one of the prettiest FSUs of that line.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2010 16:28
|
|