|
RustedChrome posted:I'm done with clones. I found my rangefinder nirvana.  jealous
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2010 03:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 11:57 |
|
|
It may not have a rangefinder, but I chanced upon a little viewfinder camera the other day.  pic there, sorry
Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 04:14 on Oct 22, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2010 03:58
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:It may not have a rangefinder, but I chanced upon a little viewfinder camera the other day. Those are so cool. If I ever see one selling at a decent price I know I won't resist even though I don't need any more film cameras.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2010 05:10
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:It may not have a rangefinder, but I chanced upon a little viewfinder camera the other day. There was a guy selling one on APUG for $100 because the slow speeds were off and it had some other minor problem; I was so close to buying it but realistically I know I don't *need* it. They're amazingly small little guys.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2010 05:25
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:There was a guy selling one on APUG for $100 because the slow speeds were off and it had some other minor problem; I was so close to buying it but realistically I know I don't *need* it. They're amazingly small little guys.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2010 07:04
|
|
|
HPL posted:I have come to the conclusion that the Fed-2 is the best Russian rangefinder ever. vv All good points. The grip took a LONG time to get used to, but now actually I kinda like it. Being able to hold the camera and focus with one hand is a nice feature to have with a two year old clinging to you. And I've wondered many times how difficult it would be to mod the winder knob into something a little easier. FasterThanLight fucked around with this message at 16:26 on Oct 22, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2010 16:10
|
|
|
FasterThanLight posted:I'm partial to the Kiev (not-a-tumah edition) myself. The rangefinder base is so long, I can still get decent focus wide open without glasses/contacts. The ergonomics of the Kiev are horrible though. I agree that it is a very smooth-operating camera and all, but I don't like having to use the "claw of death" grip and I don't like the way the focus helicoid locks at infinity. The film winding knob is also annoying in that it's too flat and flush to the camera body.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2010 16:14
|
|
|
I had a Zorki 4 for a while but I never really cared for it all that much. Plus the confusing operation and lousy build quality made me want to avoid taking it out on serious shoots. I eventually gave it away and got something else. The difference between that and a real quality rangefinder is pretty staggering.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2010 18:02
|
|
|
The Fed-2 is good because it's sort of like the best of the Zorki/Fed series combined with the best of the Kiev series. I don't know why everything seemed to regress after that. Personally, I prefer to use 70s/80s SLRs for film work, but rangefinders are fun for a change of pace.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2010 19:27
|
|
|
I WANT TO BUY A RANGEFINDER
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2010 00:51
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:I WANT TO BUY A RANGEFINDER I don't know about you guys, but I probably had the hardest laugh on the day. Completely loving dead-on. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2010 03:41
|
|
|
Bleah, I need to buy a proper film scanner. My cheap photo scanner basically gives me just monochrome images from negatives. Should I be buying one of the $200 models, or would the $95 Epson be fine? http://www.bestbuy.ca/en-CA/category/scanners/21199.aspx?path=6162d08959e779d7a2759da18df02e27en01
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2010 03:58
|
|
|
Honestly, even the $200 scanners for film aren't that great. I have an Epson V500 and I don't like it much compared to the V700 scanners at the university labs.
Rednik fucked around with this message at 04:20 on Oct 23, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2010 04:11
|
|
|
Ah good to know. Film processing to CD at the local drug store is so drat cheap here, but it's a shame they'll only produce NTSC-quality scans. The professional developers charge 20x as much for higher resolution scans. I figured I could just go with the cheap processing and scan myself. I don't want boxes of prints to throw out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2010 04:14
|
|
|
Rednik posted:Honestly, even the $200 scanners for film aren't that great. I have an Epson V500 and I don't like it much compared to the V700 scanners at the university labs. What software are they using on the V700? I use Epson Scan at home on my V500 and it's fine, but the V750's at work use Silverfast. I get that Silverfast is a more powerful program, but it seems way more of a pain in the rear end. Just trying to get it to auto-detect the image frames is a nightmare; the program seems to just draw a random quantity of them wherever it feels like, with no regards to the actual image frames. Epson Scan can be fooled by really dark negs, but Silverfast seems to have this problem with everything. I usually wind up inserting an empty 35mm slide scanning tray, then re-sizing those boxes to fit my images, since there doesn't seem to be a "create image frames" option. Then you have to individually select each frame and change the resolution/etc. Maybe I'm being thick, but I see no obvious way to automate that stuff 
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2010 14:14
|
|
|
I made the trip out to Chicago this week, and goddamn was it fun to see Central Camera. Right underneath a clanking elevated rail station in the heart of the town, full of old cameras. The prices were high, as expected but it was good to see an old fashioned camera store still kicking around. Can't wait to send the kodachromes in to Dwayne's.Pompous Rhombus posted:I WANT TO BUY A RANGEFINDER Anyone who quotes advice from Ken Rockwell is CLEARLY an expert Sushi in Yiddish fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Oct 23, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2010 18:27
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:What software are they using on the V700? I use Epson Scan at home on my V500 and it's fine, but the V750's at work use Silverfast. I get that Silverfast is a more powerful program, but it seems way more of a pain in the rear end. Just trying to get it to auto-detect the image frames is a nightmare; the program seems to just draw a random quantity of them wherever it feels like, with no regards to the actual image frames. Epson Scan can be fooled by really dark negs, but Silverfast seems to have this problem with everything. I usually wind up inserting an empty 35mm slide scanning tray, then re-sizing those boxes to fit my images, since there doesn't seem to be a "create image frames" option. Then you have to individually select each frame and change the resolution/etc. Maybe I'm being thick, but I see no obvious way to automate that stuff They use Epson scan, I believe. I've had no issues with it and haven't felt the need to even bother with Silverfast.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2010 18:31
|
|
|
So... how about Canon? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2010 18:39
|
|
|
Hey guys, I'm a bit of a printing newbie and I was wondering if anyone could give me any advice. I've shot a college project on 6x7, essentially the look I was going for really should have been shot on large format. I finished my final print, was happy with it, then looked at my plans and the photographers I was trying to emulate and realised I was out of my mind and it was poo poo. I'd produced a crisp clean portrait when I wanted a lo-fi feel. I tried blurring in camera using long exposures but it didn't really have the right look, so I chose a sharper negative to print. I was wondering A) how you would go about selectively blurring in an analogue darkroom and B) what I might do during the printing process to make my final print more closely resemble the works of (rather an odd mix) Paolo Roversi, Julia Margaret Cameron and Joel Peter Witkin. I've been printing on to pearl 10x12 here is a scan of the neg I am using  Click here for the full 945x1102 image. any advice would really be appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2010 18:44
|
|
|
What made you associate lo-fi and large format?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2010 18:57
|
|
|
m4mbo posted:I was wondering A) how you would go about selectively blurring in an analogue darkroom Get a sheet of acetate, plexiglass, or whatever, apply Vasoline to the upper side, and place it over the paper when you're printing on the enlarger. You can also experiment with putting the paper at an angle (versus perfectly flat/perpendicular to the lens), and get some blurring effects from the uneven focal plane.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2010 18:59
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Get a sheet of acetate, plexiglass, or whatever, apply Vasoline to the upper side, and place it over the paper when you're printing on the enlarger. You can also experiment with putting the paper at an angle (versus perfectly flat/perpendicular to the lens), and get some blurring effects from the uneven focal plane. Ooh, that sounds exciting. I'll def get some acetate, I was thinking of using that to fake a scratched negative too by applying some tipex or something... Thanks  evil_bunnY Maybe lo-fi isn't the word I'm looking for, what I mean is those pictures that have very very shallow DOF, and the blurriness often seen in Roversi's work. Am I completely off track here? Edit: How can I make the edges of the acetate not show up? I want a non blurred bit on the face and before when I've been printing contacts, the contact glass edge leaves a line... Double edit: I've just realized how dense that question above is, never mind. m4mbo fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Oct 23, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2010 19:15
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Get a sheet of acetate, plexiglass, or whatever, apply Vasoline to the upper side, and place it over the paper when you're printing on the enlarger. If you hold it high off the paper, this can also be used to make diffusion burns when using the split filter printing technique. Use it for part (or all) of your #5 filter exposure and your blacks will "glow". VoodooXT posted:I don't know about you guys, but I probably had the hardest laugh on the day. Completely loving dead-on. The part about the M5 being unforgivable was 100% true. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2010 20:15
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:If you hold it high off the paper, this can also be used to make diffusion burns when using the split filter printing technique. Use it for part (or all) of your #5 filter exposure and your blacks will "glow". I'll remember that for more advanced darkroom classes! Is split filter the same as split grade printing?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2010 23:07
|
|
|
Well I finally did it, my first test roll of 120 is hanging up in my bathroom drying. Thanks again to the OP for the great guide on the front page.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2010 23:38
|
|
|
m4mbo posted:I'll remember that for more advanced darkroom classes! Is split filter the same as split grade printing? Probably. Split filter is the technique of combining 2 different filter grades for your overall exposure. A High number filter is used to control your blacks, and a low # to control your whites. The finished product doesn't necessarily look any different than a single grade of filter, but the dyniamic range is more closely controlled. I did a bigass writeup about it in the print megathread. EDIT: Writeup here: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3194159&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=2#post367635098 McMadCow fucked around with this message at 04:48 on Oct 24, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2010 04:38
|
|
|
Argh. Photo-co's web site doesn't seem to be up anymore. I hope it's a matter of paying the web hosting bill and not that they're out of business.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2010 04:46
|
|
|
I picked up my first 35mm SLR the other day- a Pentax Spotmatic for $10 at a thrift store. Just got my first roll developed:   But several of my shots had some serious issues: .jpg) .jpg) Anyone have an idea of what's going on here? Does this look like an problem with the shutter? Or the film advance?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2010 18:52
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:I picked up my first 35mm SLR the other day- a Pentax Spotmatic for $10 at a thrift store. Just got my first roll developed: First one looks like maybe the shutter hanging up (doesn't have the same look as a leader). Second one appears to be a light leak.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2010 19:02
|
|
|
Can anyone think of a problem of mixing developer concentrate in glycol instead of water for longer storage life? I read about this on some Pyrocat sites, and it seems like it would also work with other developers. HC-110 syrup is also glycol-based for stability.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2010 23:51
|
|
|
Ok, so my dumb rear end miss loaded my RZ67 on a camping trip and the film was put in with the emulsion facing the wrong way. It was 220 so theres not paper that got in the way. What should I expect from developing? (it was color btw) Also I feel pretty loving stupid right now, that film + developing isnt cheap.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2010 02:49
|
|
|
Sadi posted:Ok, so my dumb rear end miss loaded my RZ67 on a camping trip and the film was put in with the emulsion facing the wrong way. It was 220 so theres not paper that got in the way. What should I expect from developing? (it was color btw) Also I feel pretty loving stupid right now, that film + developing isnt cheap.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2010 03:41
|
|
|
I.G. posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redscale. It will probably be underexposed though. quote:The technique is considered by some to be part of the lo-fi photography movement, along with use of toy cameras, pinhole cameras, instant cameras, and sprocket hole photography.  Toy pinhole cameras shooting backwards film that's then cross processed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2010 04:33
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:
Still less offensive than 90% of all HDR images.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2010 06:02
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Still less offensive than 90% of all HDR images. You know, this is 100% true. I get frustrated with some of my photo-buddies for buying $100 Holga kits but it's still less annoying than 100 eV HDR's.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2010 18:57
|
|
|
Moist von Lipwig posted:You know, this is 100% true. I get frustrated with some of my photo-buddies for buying $100 Holga kits but it's still less annoying than 100 eV HDR's. At least their looking at having fun with photography rather wasting their lives on their computers merging 100 shots to make a turd. On that note I'm this -><- far away from getting one of those 360 degree spinner cameras, they do look like fun.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2010 21:12
|
|
|
Spedman posted:On that note I'm this -><- far away from getting one of those 360 degree spinner cameras, they do look like fun. I hear ya. Majorly tempted on this front too. I want to get a Horizon 202 as well because they look like fun. I've beat back the impulse to buy one because of the Kiev 60 on the way and together with the Arsat 30mm should provide nearly 180 degrees on 6x6 when defished which is more than a Horizon 202 anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2010 21:22
|
|
|
HPL posted:I hear ya. Majorly tempted on this front too. I want to get a Horizon 202 as well because they look like fun. I've beat back the impulse to buy one because of the Kiev 60 on the way and together with the Arsat 30mm should provide nearly 180 degrees on 6x6 when defished which is more than a Horizon 202 anyway. I think some of the beauty of using the 30mm on 6x6 is potentially being able to crop either the top&bottom or sides in the darkroom and presto! Easy panorama on film.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2010 22:13
|
|
|
I'm looking for some good, cheap, colour film. I love shooting slide but I really have only shot 2 or 3 rolls of colour negative film before. I just dropped off some Portra 160VC so we'll see how that turned out. Any other special colour films out there I should try?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2010 00:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 11:57 |
|
|
Moist von Lipwig posted:I'm looking for some good, cheap, colour film. I love shooting slide but I really have only shot 2 or 3 rolls of colour negative film before. Ektar 100
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2010 00:31
|
|