|
ZoCrowes posted:
What lens is that on the k1000? it looks huge!
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2010 18:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 18:56 |
|
|
Do any of you know if it's possible to buy any remaining Kodachrome that isn't expired by 10+ years? Even if I just buy one roll... time is running out, I would like to get one done just for the hell of it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2010 20:07
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:Do any of you know if it's possible to buy any remaining Kodachrome that isn't expired by 10+ years? Even if I just buy one roll... time is running out, I would like to get one done just for the hell of it. http://cgi.ebay.com/5-Rolls-KODACHROME-64-Kodak-Select-24-Exp-Outdated-/330459862613?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0 ? edit: Fixed pseudonordic fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Aug 14, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2010 20:57
|
|
|
Your link doesn't work, buddy. Edit: Thanks. I was checking ebay last night, but I was finding everything from 2002 and 1989. Not sure what I was doing wrong?  Is it okay if it's that old? I was hoping for something not yet expired or just freshly expired. If it doesn't make a difference I'll buy it.
Mannequin fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Aug 14, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2010 21:00
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:Your link doesn't work, buddy. Fine <  >Fresher link: http://cgi.ebay.com/Kodachrome-64-35mm-36-exp-Slide-Film-05-2007-/120608207071 5 packs of 2007 expired Kodachrome 64 36 exp http://cgi.ebay.com/5-Rolls-Kodachrome-64-35mm-36-exp-Slide-Film-05-2007-/120608577745 pseudonordic fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Aug 14, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2010 21:03
|
|
|
gently caress.. Time IS running out, isn't it? Maybe it's time to pull out the 35mm equipment again and just do a roll before I regret it for the rest of my life 
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2010 21:28
|
|
|
Sushi in Yiddish posted:Beautiful. The fed 2 is one of the prettiest FSUs of that line. Yeah actually part of the reason I bought it was for how nice it looked. Spedman - It's a Vivitar 75-205 f/3.6. It's a gorgeous lens with push pull zoom and amazing manual focus. I wish there was some way to convert it to F mount.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2010 21:56
|
|
|
If I shoot some tri-x 400 @ 400 and some on the same roll at 1600, how do I develop that? Or would I have to next time just shoot it all at 1600 or all at 400 to ease the development process?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2010 03:36
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:If I shoot some tri-x 400 @ 400 and some on the same roll at 1600, how do I develop that? Or would I have to next time just shoot it all at 1600 or all at 400 to ease the development process? You should shoot it all the same, but you can also snip the roll prior to developing if you're feeling adventurous. If you're GOING to develop two different ISOs on one roll, you should develop for the higher one (1600) which is a two-stop push. Forget about ever getting a decent scan of the 400 ISO shots, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were salvageable in the darkroom, albeit pretty heavily grainy. That would be a perfect example of when split-filter printing is a good technique.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2010 04:11
|
|
|
Or you could develop the whole roll in Diafine and shoot that tri-x anywhere from 200-6400 in good light and to 1600 in dim light.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2010 04:21
|
|
|
I've developed 400 at 1600 mistakenly before and recovered most of the detail. With Delta-400 it wasn't even overly grainy. Reichstag posted:Or you could develop the whole roll in Diafine and shoot that tri-x anywhere from 200-6400 in good light and to 1600 in dim light. Can you expand on this? How does it work?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2010 05:15
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Can you expand on this? How does it work? I found a really good discussion of both the chemistry and the practicalities here. I intend to buy some the next time I put in a Freestyle order, it sounds useful. The other developer I'm really curious about is Pyrocat-HD.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2010 05:22
|
|
|
Well, I went out and shot a roll of tri-x tonight. Kept it at 400, next time I'll experiment with pushing it to 1600. I didn't think I would go through the whole role, it normally takes me weeks to get through 36 exposures, but I had fun. I snuck into an abandoned building in town where they are doing construction and climbed up on the roof (about 4 stories up), and took some pictures of the town below. A cop drove by just as I was up there, I got really nervous for a sec but I guess he didn't see me and kept on driving. Then I got out of there and took some pictures of some store fronts and other things. Here's my partner in crime:  Now I have to figure out how to develop this stuff. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2010 06:34
|
|
|
Just received this last week in the mail, Japanese third cousin to my zorki C. The shutter is disturbingly quiet, and the winding action is considerably smoother. I had the chance to do some shooting in downtown L.A. today and was impressed by the usefulness of the built in magnification switch on the viewfinder window. The main drawback is the weird shutter speed progression (60, 100, 200, 500, 1000) and squinty finder.  2010 08 12 162 by sushisteve, on Flickr  2010 08 12 169 by sushisteve, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2010 09:06
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Can you expand on this? How does it work? Paul Muaddib's article is an excellent write up of how it works. Diafine is an arcane and black magick. But it's really nice to use since it lasts forever and is pretty much time, temperature and ISO agnostic. I developed 4 rolls of film in a single tank that were shot accordingly: ISO 100 shot @ 400 ISO 400 shot @ 400 ISO 400 shot @ 800 ISO 400 shot @ 1600 It took five minutes in Bath A, five minutes in Bath B and 5 minutes in my fixer. Ta-da!
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2010 13:29
|
|
|
pseudonordic posted:Paul Muaddib's article is an excellent write up of how it works. I have some Diafine but haven't mixed it up yet. poo poo sounds like black magic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2010 18:56
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:I have some Diafine but haven't mixed it up yet. poo poo sounds like black magic. I believe Diafine is what one of the local labs uses to do all their B&W developing. I don't know if it's Diafine specifically, but it's one of the "universal" B&W developers that allows a dozen different emulsions to be thrown in the same batch. Personally I don't like the results it produces. The mids are too flat, and the grain gets way swelled. The result is a neg that absolutely REFUSES to scan, and still doesn't look so great as a print. I avoid the stuff, but obviously other people are getting acceptable results here so YMMV.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2010 19:07
|
|
|
I can't find the stuff anywhere locally, but if I do I'd definitely try it. I can likely make it look like most anything I want in post anyway, so the main draw is that I can theoretically shoot all those speeds.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2010 19:12
|
|
|
Is there an ideal developer for scan-friendly negs?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2010 19:12
|
|
is go
|
^^^No idea, but I don't worry about it too much these days since B&W is meant to be printed, not scanned.  But if I were to take a guess, Tri-X in Dilution B HC-110 would have some pretty fine grain for scanning. Martytoof posted:I can't find the stuff anywhere locally, but if I do I'd definitely try it. I can likely make it look like most anything I want in post anyway, so the main draw is that I can theoretically shoot all those speeds. The point is that for me they scanned SO POORLY that it wasnt salvageable. They didn't even look so great as a print.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2010 19:20
|
|
|
Was going through my bookmarklets and came across this article on negative preservation: http://cool.conservation-us.org/byauth/messier/negrmcc.html The short of it is; you can expect your negatives to last about 50 years if you store them at room temperature. In that case, it's better to keep them ventilated (they exude gases that accelerate the decomposition process). On the other hand, a freezer is supposed to last a lot longer, more like 1000 years, in which case you're better off storing them in ziploc bags.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2010 01:09
|
|
|
Apparently Rollei has a couple of new film scanners out. They look like the same old single-strip film scanners that have been around for ages. Seeing as Rollei doesn't really make anything themselves anymore, I'm assuming these are just rebranded scanners? http://www.photographyblog.com/news/rollei_df-s_190_se/ http://www.photographyblog.com/news/rollei_df-s_120_se/
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2010 22:41
|
|
|
HPL posted:Apparently Rollei has a couple of new film scanners out. They look like the same old single-strip film scanners that have been around for ages. Seeing as Rollei doesn't really make anything themselves anymore, I'm assuming these are just rebranded scanners? Wow, those are both pretty fast if the blurb is to be believed. Not a bad price either. It sure would be nice to get a neg scanner with support for post-XP OS's...
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2010 00:58
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:Wow, those are both pretty fast if the blurb is to be believed. Not a bad price either. It sure would be nice to get a neg scanner with support for post-XP OS's... I'm assuming it's just a small camera sensor with a lens fixed at f/8 or something like that. I wonder what kind of dynamic range it will have? And I hope it doesn't spit out only JPGs. Also, am I a bad man for wanting a Lomo Spinner 360? I like panoramas and it would be cool to be able to make quick and dirty ones. HPL fucked around with this message at 02:02 on Aug 19, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2010 01:09
|
|
|
Dr. Cogwerks posted:Is there an ideal developer for scan-friendly negs? What does this mean exactly? You can't scan b&w negatives?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2010 04:19
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:What does this mean exactly? You can't scan b&w negatives? Nah. There was some talk (McMadCow) about Diafine making unscannable negatives, so if there's a bad developer for scanning, I was wondering if there was an ideal developer at the other side. I've only used D76 and Rodinal so far, both seemed to work pretty well for it. Dr. Cogwerks fucked around with this message at 05:40 on Aug 19, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2010 04:28
|
|
|
Oh okay. I haven't developed any film since my jr. high photography class, so I'm a little rusty on the terms and techniques.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2010 04:41
|
|
|
Dr. Cogwerks posted:Nah. There was some talk about Diafine making unscannable negatives, so if there's a bad developer for scanning, I was wondering if there was an ideal developer at the other side. I've only used D76 and Rodinal so far, both seemed to work pretty well for it. Out of curiosity, what would make a negative "unscannable" in one developer versus another? It's still the same salt deposited in similar densities, or else it would just be a bad negative. I can understand some minor variations in things like actuance, but something major that yields a printable yet unscannable negative seems improbable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2010 05:27
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Out of curiosity, what would make a negative "unscannable" in one developer versus another? It's still the same salt deposited in similar densities, or else it would just be a bad negative. I can understand some minor variations in things like actuance, but something major that yields a printable yet unscannable negative seems improbable. It's basically that the grain is so swollen and the tones are so different from where the scanner expects to see them that it doesn't know how to interpret it and it returns a muddy mess. The mids dominate everywhere there should be more contrast, and true black is almost nowhere to be found. It isn't that it's a bad negative necessarily (although it still isn't very good to print in a darkroom), but that it doesn't scan in a way that is representative of how it would look as a print. This is why I disagreed when someone said they'd fix it in Photoshop. The levels are so wrong it just never looks good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2010 05:41
|
|
|
Yeah, Diafine sure gives me unscannable negs without proper contrast.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2010 06:20
|
|
|
Yeah pretty sure I mentioned several times that it hasn't worked out for me but nowhere made a claim that it was a universal rule.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2010 07:18
|
|
|
Diafine is really funny. If you shoot it in flat lighting things get muddy fast. I tend to shoot at box speed or lower in low contrast situations.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2010 07:38
|
|
|
What would dorkroom recommend for flat lighting then? Film / developer combination Living in England there are a lot of cloudy days
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2010 13:01
|
|
|
Zegnar posted:What would dorkroom recommend for flat lighting then? Film / developer combination I always recommend HC-110
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2010 13:32
|
|
|
Zegnar posted:What would dorkroom recommend for flat lighting then? Film / developer combination Rodinal's always worked pretty well for me but stand development takes too loving long. Tri-x/Arista Premium 400 is extremely versatile.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2010 14:36
|
|
|
Zegnar posted:What would dorkroom recommend for flat lighting then? Film / developer combination I'm in San Fran where I shoot under fog/clouds 300 days a year. I shoot Tri-X and Plus-X, both pulled slightly and developed in XTOL. Keep in mind, I prefer overcast skies to hard light. A slightly flat negative is easy to work with in the darkroom.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2010 16:37
|
|
|
Thanks, was gonna try this rebadged Tri-X soon anyway so just gives me another reason to hit the buy button
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2010 19:33
|
|
|
Does anyone do acros & hc-110? I swear the times listed on digitaltruth are off as all of my shots look like they've been pushed an extra stop. unless it's super temperature sensitive between 68-72 F?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2010 19:58
|
|
|
guidoanselmi posted:Does anyone do acros & hc-110? I swear the times listed on digitaltruth are off as all of my shots look like they've been pushed an extra stop. unless it's super temperature sensitive between 68-72 F? I've never used that combination, but when the table calls for a certain temperature, I use that temp and not 1 more or less. If you're letting your temps wander between batches that could account for it. Also, the fact of the matter is, you need to test your film. Any place you see a developing table, it's a good place to START. Every camera/lens combo is going to be different and you need to tweak it for your gear to get the best results.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2010 20:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 18:56 |
|
|
Watch your agitation too. Too much or too vigorous agitation will blow out stuff too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2010 22:39
|
|