|
Moist von Lipwig posted:Also, 4x5 roll film? Can you still get that? I propose a new subforum in-joke I wish you could still buy film packs, though. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 15:58 on Oct 18, 2010 |
#
?
Oct 18, 2010 14:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 15:47 |
|
|
Moist von Lipwig posted:EDIT: I also wanted to ask if you can get colour infrared film anymore. Anyone know? None that I'm aware of. Old stock of Kodak EIR shows up occasionally but it'll usually cost your firstborn. (Not that it didn't originally originally cost an arm and a leg.) Looking at the tech pub for EIR, you could probably generate your own false color infrared images with a roll of infrared B&W film, a roll of color film, and a little channel swapping in Photoshop. It won't be the same false color as EIR (it had both infrared sensitivity like nothing today and crazy curves on its two color layers), and it's definitely less convenient, but it should fit the requirements of "color" and "infrared."
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2010 16:53
|
|
|
What's the abosolute cheapest scanner capable of scanning b&w 120 negatives? I'd like to shoot more film but I really don't have the time/money/space to get into a full darkroom setup, and I don't want to have to drive all the way to my LCS to get usable prints out of my negatives.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2010 00:11
|
|
|
So I bought my Canon A2e and my Crop mount Tamron 17-50, Sigma 30mm f1.4 and Tokina 11-16 2.8 feel REALLY grindy trying to put them on, so I stop and don't try to force it. Am I flat out stupid for even thinking it's going to work? It's EF mount, so I totally don't have a zoom for this thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2010 07:23
|
|
|
dunkman posted:So I bought my Canon A2e and my Crop mount Tamron 17-50, Sigma 30mm f1.4 and Tokina 11-16 2.8 feel REALLY grindy trying to put them on, so I stop and don't try to force it. I have all three of those lenses and they all work fine on my A2E.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2010 08:54
|
|
|
HPL posted:I have all three of those lenses and they all work fine on my A2E. Yeah, I oh so gently tried pushing the Sigma 30mm on there carefully and realized it fit fine. I guess mine is just a bit old so it's grindy, but they all actually fit and work now. How bad is the vignetting?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2010 15:18
|
|
|
I've just advised my friend to buy a Praktica Super TL3 with a 50/1.8 Pentacon lens, for £20 - what are the general feelings on this as a starter camera? http://www.praktica-collector.de/199_Praktica_super_TL3.htm Also does anyone know how hardy the light seals are? I shoot Olympus but I couldn't recommend she buy an OM10 on eBay, given that the light seals will definitely be gone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2010 15:22
|
|
|
Aren't light seals kits like 10 bucks (and pretty easy to apply)? I replaced the seals on my F3 in less than half an hour.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2010 15:55
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Aren't light seals kits like 10 bucks (and pretty easy to apply)? Yeah but she won't know how so I'll have to do it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2010 16:44
|
|
|
Moist von Lipwig posted:EDIT: I also wanted to ask if you can get colour infrared film anymore. Anyone know? there was a guy in germany who was shipping rolls at $25 & shipping last year. se:http://www.tarquinius.de/ and his portfolio: http://www.bennici.net/fotografie/ he done sold out 
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2010 18:10
|
|
|
I posted a while back that I had found a Promaster Film SLR with a 50mm f/1.9 on it at the Goodwill for $3. Well, it's taken me this long to shoot through a 24 roll of BW400CN. I finally got it back and scanned it using my Epson 2480. Here's a sampling. I did throw these in lightroom and bump up the contrast, Most of them were pretty dull, I'm not sure if that's the film or the scanning.   I've noticed the bokeh is really odd, it has an almost swirling appearance to it. Anyway, not bad for a $3 camera. (and my first time dealing with film) BTW, I scanned these at 4800 dpi on my Epson, What DPI do you guys usually scan at? 4800 dpi makes some pretty huge tiffs. I used the Export as DNG option in Lightroom to turn them into DNGs and that saved me a bit of space. What format do you guys keep your scans in? echobucket fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Oct 19, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2010 20:39
|
|
|
echobucket posted:I posted a while back that I had found a Promaster Film SLR with a 50mm f/1.9 on it at the Goodwill for $3. Well, it's taken me this long to shoot through a 24 roll of BW400CN. I finally got it back and scanned it using my Epson 2480. Here's a sampling. I did throw these in lightroom and bump up the contrast, Most of them were pretty dull, I'm not sure if that's the film or the scanning. Yeah, it looks like a diet-Petzval or something. 4800dpi is overkill, and is exceeding the resolution of the scanner's optics. Usually around 1200-1800 is considered optimum, from a filesize/detail standpoint.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2010 20:51
|
|
|
dunkman posted:How bad is the vignetting? It varies. Generally crop zoom lenses will have no vignetting at the long end and end up with a whole circle at the short end. Zegnar posted:Yeah but she won't know how so I'll have to do it. Try running a roll of film through first. Many cameras can run fine with poor seals or without seals.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2010 20:55
|
|
|
Wow film is expensive. I bought 4x24 rolls of Fuji 400 for $10, and it costs like $9 to develop 24 frames. I immediately regret this decision.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2010 21:42
|
|
|
dunkman posted:Wow film is expensive. I bought 4x24 rolls of Fuji 400 for $10, and it costs like $9 to develop 24 frames. I immediately regret this decision. $9? That's ridiculous. It shouldn't cost more than $4-5 for develop-only if it's plain old film. The place where you get maximum benefit with film is shooting medium or large format.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2010 21:45
|
|
|
So....... is film the greatest thing ever? Why didn't anyone try this before? Film is the way of the future. 
milquetoast child fucked around with this message at 01:04 on Oct 20, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2010 00:48
|
|
|
dunkman posted:So....... is film the greatest thing ever? Why didn't anyone try this before? Film is the way of the future.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2010 02:30
|
|
|
FasterThanLight posted:I don't understand, are you trying to say film sucks because you overpaid for processing and got crappy minilab scans? No! I think they're awesome. I'm just being facetious, I really like the way they came out, it's really unlike digital. I just took them to Walgreens. It's my first roll of film, and on top of that I'm a new photographer anyways. I'm not down on film at all! I'm looking in to getting some good B&W film and going from there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2010 03:00
|
|
|
Gotcha, the "regret this decision" thing confused me. Minilab scans are frustrating to me, they have (what I assume to be) really awesome equipment, but you end up with low resolution JPGs with bad auto white balance. Go get an Epson V500 or similar, you'll find it will pay for itself quick!
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2010 03:04
|
|
|
dunkman posted:No! I think they're awesome. I'm just being facetious, I really like the way they came out, it's really unlike digital. I just took them to Walgreens. It's my first roll of film, and on top of that I'm a new photographer anyways. CVS here only charges $2.60 after tax (or thereabouts) to develop a roll of C-41. I wound up getting my own scanner (Epson V500, go for around $125ish secondhand) when I started B&W, because theirs couldn't handle real black and white film, just the fake C-41 stuff. Getting a lab to develop black and white film is even more expensive than C-41, since it's so easy pretty much everybody does it themselves. C-41 really isn't that bad to do on your own either, but 1-hour drugstore places are so cheap it hardly seems worth it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2010 03:06
|
|
|
FasterThanLight posted:Gotcha, the "regret this decision" thing confused me. Minilab scans are frustrating to me, they have (what I assume to be) really awesome equipment, but you end up with low resolution JPGs with bad auto white balance. Go get an Epson V500 or similar, you'll find it will pay for itself quick! I was wondering about my particular scanner.. it's an Epson 2480 Photo, and has a 35mm negative and slide film scanner built in. Are the newer scanners a lot better than this? I mean, how would it compare with the V500?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2010 05:43
|
|
|
echobucket posted:I was wondering about my particular scanner.. it's an Epson 2480 Photo, and has a 35mm negative and slide film scanner built in. Are the newer scanners a lot better than this? I mean, how would it compare with the V500? The V500 is faster (has an LED light source, no warm-up time) and probably has better dynamic range, as well as a better max res.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2010 14:07
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:The V500 is faster (has an LED light source, no warm-up time) and probably has better dynamic range, as well as a better max res. And scans 120 film too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2010 14:37
|
|
|
echobucket posted:I posted a while back that I had found a Promaster Film SLR with a 50mm f/1.9 on it at the Goodwill for $3. Well, it's taken me this long to shoot through a 24 roll of BW400CN. I finally got it back and scanned it using my Epson 2480. Here's a sampling. I did throw these in lightroom and bump up the contrast, Most of them were pretty dull, I'm not sure if that's the film or the scanning. I'm surprised that your pictures came out that well, I really really hated color-process (-CN) black and white film when I tried it - got horrible muddy contrast and noise comparable to something like P3200. Dr. Cogwerks fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Oct 20, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2010 21:33
|
|
is go
|
Dr. Cogwerks posted:noise comparable to something like P3200. Real B&W film is way better. Waas your film long expired or something? Because generally C-41 B/W should give you a much cleaner image than a comprable speed B/W film.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2010 21:37
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Waas your film long expired or something? Because generally C-41 B/W should give you a much cleaner image than a comprable speed B/W film. Most likely, but I've never noticed that much awfulness in my other expired films. Hrm. I dunno.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2010 21:45
|
|
|
I have a question about film ISO vs digital ISO. I shoot digitally at the lowest natural ISO so that I can get the best image quality I can. I've been doing something similar to this with film in that I shoot at 100 ISO so that I get the least grain and therefore better looking pictures. However, when researching how people shoot medium format in low light I found that in one of the threads on photo.net someone said that finer grain, low ISO film is slightly less sharp or softer than higher ISO. I haven't been able to find anything else about that and I was wondering if that is true. Also does it really help that much to shoot 100 ISO film if film is more like a prime lens while a digital sensor is a zoom, or should I not be afraid of high ISO?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2010 21:47
|
|
|
Low ISO on film is different from low ISO on digital in that when people talk about low ISO film, they're usually talking about 25-50 whereas on digital it's usually 80-200. ISO is still ISO, it's a matter of relative range of what people are used to. Classically, 100 is "medium speed" film and 400 is "high speed", but that comes from the good old days back when people still wore top hats and monocles.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2010 22:45
|
|
|
Crossposting from the Snapshot a Day thread Kodak Ektachrome E100G, Shibukawa Bellybutton Festival  Kodak Ektar 100, Kusatsu Onsen  Kodak Portra 160NC, Palcall Ski Resort, Tsumagoi, Gunma  Fuji Provia 400X, Otaru, Hokkaido  Kodak Portra 160NC, friend of mine  I have to say, my scans have turned out better ever since I changed my routine with VueScan.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2010 22:52
|
|
|
echobucket posted:I've noticed the bokeh is really odd, it has an almost swirling appearance to it. @ Voodoo, really like that Ektachrome sky shot. I've mostly shot with Velvia but I find myself moving toward Kodak's slides lately.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2010 00:22
|
|
|
East Lake posted:This happens on my Nikon S2 at wide apertures, or maybe the widest, I'm not sure. It's almost like the the bokeh has wide-angle distortion while the in focus portion doesn't. How do you like your S2? I have kind-of wanted one for a while.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2010 00:25
|
|
|
I'm not experienced with old rangefinders but I love it. Feels really well built, no batteries, 1:1 viewfinder. The images from 50/1.4 I have are pretty soft looking at at 1.4 and maybe a few other wide apertures (haven't experimented with it much) but it doesn't bother me, I try to stay away from heavy bokeh when possible anyway. I got the 50 as a bargain lens at KEH and it looks almost perfect.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2010 00:54
|
|
|
East Lake posted:@ Voodoo, really like that Ektachrome sky shot. I've mostly shot with Velvia but I find myself moving toward Kodak's slides lately. Thanks, I appreciate it. I was lucky to catch it because it disappeared a minute after I took it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2010 02:15
|
|
|
Fiannaiocht posted:I have a question about film ISO vs digital ISO. I shoot digitally at the lowest natural ISO so that I can get the best image quality I can. I've been doing something similar to this with film in that I shoot at 100 ISO so that I get the least grain and therefore better looking pictures. However, when researching how people shoot medium format in low light I found that in one of the threads on photo.net someone said that finer grain, low ISO film is slightly less sharp or softer than higher ISO. I haven't been able to find anything else about that and I was wondering if that is true. Also does it really help that much to shoot 100 ISO film if film is more like a prime lens while a digital sensor is a zoom, or should I not be afraid of high ISO? Grainier film (or digital) appears sharper because the grain hides fine detail. Sometimes if I has a photo that is just a little blurry I will add some grain in post.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2010 02:32
|
|
|
I'm considering buying a V500 and a betterscanning 120 holder. Are there any other scanners at around the same price point that I should be considering? I'd love to be able to scan 5x4 too but I can't stretch to a V700.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2010 22:14
|
|
|
I have come to the conclusion that the Fed-2 is the best Russian rangefinder ever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2010 01:24
|
|
|
HPL posted:I have come to the conclusion that the Fed-2 is the best Russian rangefinder ever. I absolutely love mine. The Industar-26 lens that came with mine is absolutely amazing. I just wish the drat thing had a light meter. One of the reasons I would like to get a NEX camera is so that I can adapt the Industar-26 for use with digital. Definitely a lot of fun and it lessens my desire for a Leica.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2010 01:32
|
|
|
ZoCrowes posted:I absolutely love mine. The Industar-26 lens that came with mine is absolutely amazing. I just wish the drat thing had a light meter. Oh god, if the Fed-2 had aperture priority metering which didn't involve the camera getting stupid looking like the Kiev 4A, it would be absolute sex.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2010 01:43
|
|
|
Ric posted:I'm considering buying a V500 and a betterscanning 120 holder. Are there any other scanners at around the same price point that I should be considering? I'd love to be able to scan 5x4 too but I can't stretch to a V700. You could try and find one of the older ones (The 4990 is the most recent, pre V-series IIRC) that do LF if that's a priority for you, but you'll take a hit in overall image quality for the 35mm and 120 you scan versus the newer ones. The older ones aren't garbage by any means, but they aren't as modern. HPL posted:I have come to the conclusion that the Fed-2 is the best Russian rangefinder ever. Special Olympics, etc  ZoCrowes posted:I absolutely love mine. The Industar-26 lens that came with mine is absolutely amazing. I just wish the drat thing had a light meter. Not Av, but you could toss a Voigtlander VC2 in the hotshoe and be good to go. They're rather expensive for what they are, but look pretty convenient. OTOH, you can get a sweet spotmeter for less, and just jam it in your back pocket (how I carry my Pentax V when I'm shooting LF) when not in use. The V was less than a hundred dollars on eBay, and I love that drat thing. Glad to have another member in the gently caress Leica Rangefinder Mafia 
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2010 03:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 15:47 |
|
|
I'm done with clones. I found my rangefinder nirvana.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2010 03:16
|
|
