|
Moist von Lipwig posted: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? Any particular look you're going for?
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2010 00:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 12:17 |
|
|
HPL posted:Any particular look you're going for? I think I'm going to look for something at 200-400 iso because it's getting dimmer here and handholding my camera at 1/15 is kind of risky. Pompous Rhombus posted:Ektar 100 I was actually just doing some research on Ektar 100 now and it seems like sweet stuff, giving it a try for my next outing  In other news... Kodak Claims Resurgence in Film Sales Wired.com & Kodak posted:Thought film was dead? Far from it. In an interview with the British Journal of Photography, Kodak’s US marketing manager of pro film Scott DiSabato said that sales of color film are steady, and that black and white is “doing extremely well.” He sees it as a mini-revolution, adding that “it almost feels that there is a very real resurgence for film.” First of all, I really, really hope this isn't just posturing by Kodak for shareholders. I have no idea how you'd find numbers for film sales but I could honestly see a resurgence in film being possible. Secondly, the new Portra formulation being scanner friendly is an interesting turn of events. They hadn't before stated why they were eliminating the NC/VC distinction but I guess this is it. I kind of want to get up on my high horse and scream about the purity of the darkroom and not pandering to the digital era but to be honest I scan all my film because it's so much easier. Moist von Lipwig fucked around with this message at 00:50 on Oct 26, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2010 00:48
|
|
|
Seconding Ektar 100, it's a nice film. I'm glad they're seeing a resurgence since they'll need it... http://techfused.com/kodak-set-to-pay-21-4-million-in-racial-discrimination-lawsuit quote:Kodak, the large film company based out of Rochester, New York, just had a racial discrimination suit settled for the princely sum of $21.4 million.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2010 00:53
|
|
|
Portra was already scanner friendly.  Hell, by Kodak's own statements it scans and prints like the existing Portra 3 stock. (Saturation differences notwithstanding.) Putting the pieces together, it sounds like the "OMG scanning" is just taking the finer grain and running with it. I don't blame Kodak for marketing the hell out of that angle and Wired.com writing like Wired.com, though. At any rate, I'm waiting for my local stores to get some in. Split the difference in saturation and sharpness while keeping NC's contrast and shrinking the grain? Sign me up! I'll probably stockpile some NC, but I always wanted something in between NC's nice but understated colors and VC's terrible colors.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2010 02:24
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Ektar 100
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2010 07:45
|
|
|
Does Vuescan's Multi-Exposure feature make a scanners DMax irrelevant? Basically I'm trying to decide between the V600 and 700. The only really big variable is when I'm going to be able to shoot 4x5. It's not like it's a maybe, it's a "when I have the money". Ergh, help my film thread! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2010 10:41
|
|
|
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 have relented, should be here tomorrow ready for some shooting of expired Velvia 100f on the weekend. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2010 12:42
|
|
|
Moist von Lipwig posted:Does Vuescan's Multi-Exposure feature make a scanners DMax irrelevant? Probably not, would be my guess. It's a pretty big price difference, isn't it? I make do with the V500 for 35mm, and am lucky enough to have access to a V750 at work. I hate spending any more time in the office than I have to (especially not being paid), but cheapness wins out for me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2010 16:54
|
|
|
Moist von Lipwig posted:Does Vuescan's Multi-Exposure feature make a scanners DMax irrelevant? Unfortunately not. You can get a better overall tonal range than with a single scan, but the (inflated) DMax is a hardware limit. Are you in the US? If you're not already looking at refurbs, keep an eye out for them. They pop up in the Epson online store occasionally. Huge markdown compared to new.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2010 17:32
|
|
|
Moist von Lipwig posted:
I can really see this happening. I prefer the look of film and shoot quite a bit . I even started out with a digital so it's not some kind of nostalgia thing for me. I actually have a bit of a problem even with buying film cameras. I own 7 film cameras (4 SLRs, 2 rangefinders and one vintage point and shoot.) I just can't resist a deal. I just picked up a Nikon N80 and F90x (N90s in the US) from keh.com for pennies. I'll probably do a little write-up on them later today.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2010 18:22
|
|
|
First non-test roll of developed film, using the front page guide:   I took these shots on my Crown Graphic with a medium format back. I need to get a better film scanner, or, find the little bracket that is supposed to hold the negatives if I'm going to develop regularly. I also corrected these a bit in Photoshop, adding in some curves to make it more contrasty. Trying to figure out the best way to do this chemically, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2010 19:59
|
|
|
Moist von Lipwig posted:Does Vuescan's Multi-Exposure feature make a scanners DMax irrelevant? Buying a scanner is like buying a digital camera. You buy the most expensive one you can afford. I own a V600 because I couldn't find the extra money for a V700. It got really nice after I bought abetterscanning.com holder and silverfast but it will never be a V700 or Coolscan 9000. On the subject of cheap good film, I have 40 rolls of Portra 160nc in my freezer that I snagged for about half price on ebay. They are only a year expired and came from a pro so they have been kept cold. There is a bunch of 220 on there for cheap (usually). My rule of thumb is never pay more than around half price for expired film and never older than 3 years expired. I have never found a bad roll.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2010 10:07
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Buying a scanner is like buying a digital camera. You buy the most expensive one you can afford. Oh okay, that's actually a good tip. Everytime I go on ebay looking for film there's a ton of GP3 but I never thought of buying just-expired film. Also I didn't realize the betterscanning holders allowed for different frame sizes, that's so awesome!
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2010 11:33
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Buying a scanner is like buying a digital camera. You buy the most expensive one you can afford. On the plus side, you don't have to worry about it becoming obsolete, since nobody's putting R&D into scanners anymore! Oh, wait... 
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2010 13:13
|
|
|
I picked up a bulk roll of Portra 160NC (expired 2010) for $27, and I've seen similar prices on ebay. That works out to around $1.50/roll, but then you likely have the minilab eat your bulk canisters (if they'll even take them at all). Still not a bad deal though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2010 15:47
|
|
|
Moist von Lipwig posted:Oh okay, that's actually a good tip. Everytime I go on ebay looking for film there's a ton of GP3 but I never thought of buying just-expired film. Also I didn't realize the betterscanning holders allowed for different frame sizes, that's so awesome! I bought some GP3 but haven't developed it yet. Supposedly it's a Plus-X knock off. The rolls smell weird and you have to supply your own tape to seal them off after being shot. I guess that's worth it for really cheap film.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2010 16:08
|
|
|
Sushi in Yiddish posted: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. Central Camera is the absolute best. I get color film developed for $7/roll there. I like to think that my negatives all get handled by pipe-smoking old men wearing cardigans. I've been shooting with my Nikon FM2 for a while now. I swear something about owning an old manual-focus film camera makes me more intimate with the photographic process. The quality of my pictures skyrocketed once I stopped using my Canon S3.         All taken with Ektar 100. Scanned with an Epson v200, adjusted in Photoshop for brightness and contrast only. Well, also adjusted color curves because the v200 is a piece of dogshit and likes to gently caress up the white balance. Ciro-Flex fucked around with this message at 03:44 on Oct 28, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2010 03:37
|
|
|
Sullik posted:Central Camera is the absolute best. I get color film developed for $7/roll there. I like to think that my negatives all get handled by pipe-smoking old men wearing cardigans. I ran a roll of Extar 100 through my 50s era Canon Rangefinder and it created some of my favorite pictures I've taken this year. This film loves to have blurred backgrounds.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2010 06:30
|
|
|
Sullik posted:Well, also adjusted color curves because the Epson software that comes with the v200 is a piece of dogshit and likes to gently caress up the white balance. Fixed that for you. Now go buy Silverfast and be amazed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2010 06:43
|
|
|
For some reason silverfast makes my 35mm negs incredibly grainy even at 160 iso whereas epson scan works just fine (with and without ice) 
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 02:51
|
|
|
Got my very first roll of film developed today!   I am extremely pleased, especially considering that I picked up a used $12 Canon from Keh and got some slightly expired super-cheap film (5 rolls for $10) that I had developed at the drug store for another $10. I can't believe I didn't try this sooner, and I also can't believe I just spent $800 on a T2i a couple months ago. My Cakes are LOL fucked around with this message at 04:12 on Oct 29, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 04:05
|
|
|
Getting your first roll of film back is a huge rush. Really my favorite part about shooting film is that each individual picture is more valuable to me. For one each shot costs money and I can't just blast away shooting bullshit; second there's something really cool about holding the physical manifestation of the picture in your hands.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 04:12
|
|
|
Sullik posted:Getting your first roll of film back is a huge rush. Really my favorite part about shooting film is that each individual picture is more valuable to me. For one each shot costs money and I can't just blast away shooting bullshit; second there's something really cool about holding the physical manifestation of the picture in your hands. Yeah, definitely, it made me so super-aware of every shot I was taking. Sure, some of them still came back looking like poo poo, but I was really thinking about how I was taking the photo at the time so I am really learning from where I've gone wrong. Getting the prints back in hand was really awesome, and I sort of wish the digital copies did a few of them more justice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 04:14
|
|
|
Sullik posted:Getting your first roll of film back is a huge rush. Really my favorite part about shooting film is that each individual picture is more valuable to me. For one each shot costs money and I can't just blast away shooting bullshit; second there's something really cool about holding the physical manifestation of the picture in your hands.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 04:59
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:That's why I tell people to shoot 4x5. When each shutter click is costing you $5, you become anal about getting everything exact really really fast. I really want to start shooing 4x5 or, dare I say, 8x10, but I need to stop skipping frames and getting double exposures on my rb67 first 
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 10:16
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:That's why I tell people to shoot 4x5. When each shutter click is costing you $5, you become anal about getting everything exact really really fast. Pssh, you're getting ripped off man. Color C-41 costs me like $3/sheet tops, and for B&W Arista it works out to less than a dollar a shot after chemicals  I get what you mean though. For me it's about quantity; fully-loaded I've got a capacity of 24 sheets (not counting Polaroids) so that has to last me all day. Five minutes is *very* quick for setting up and taking a shot with my monorail, sometimes I'll spend 10-15 and just decide not to take the picture. Moist von Lipwig posted:I really want to start shooing 4x5 or, dare I say, 8x10, but I need to stop skipping frames and getting double exposures on my rb67 first I think 4x5 is easier if anything; it's a more tactile experience than shooting medium format. I'm surprised at how few frames I've messed up because of user error so far, my strategy has been to take it slow and think about what I'm doing each time, until it becomes more automatic. I still leave a darkslide in every now and then, but I at least catch it after I take the shot and (hopefully) get another chance to take it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 12:34
|
|
|
I think using non-interlocking cameras is pretty much a matter of doing it til you've built the muscle memory. When I first got my F3 (after 20 years without a manual advance camera) I missed quite a few shots from it not being cocked. I can't imagine what it's like when your shot-to-shot time is like a minute minimum, and involves 13 different steps. evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 12:51 on Oct 29, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 12:49
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:I think using non-interlocking cameras is pretty much a matter of doing it til you've built the muscle memory. I feel a bit odd when I go back to a DSLR and automatically try and wind the film on with my thumb and find nothing. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 14:35
|
|
|
Spedman posted:I feel a bit odd when I go back to a DSLR and automatically try and wind the film on with my thumb and find nothing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 14:56
|
|
|
After jumping on a couple of screamin' deals, I now have all the viewfinder-coupled lenses for the Contax G.  That's the 28/f2.8, 35/f2, 45/f2 and 90/f2.8. All for about what an M body would cost before glass. You ladies enjoy your Russian Rangefinders. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 20:14
|
|
|
We'll use our Russian rangefinders to beat people up for money so we can buy Leicas.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 23:05
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Pssh, you're getting ripped off man. Color C-41 costs me like $3/sheet tops, and for B&W Arista it works out to less than a dollar a shot after chemicals I've yet to ruin a slide of 4x5, but I have had those mad panic events after realizing I forgot to label which slides I had shot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 23:50
|
|
|
HPL posted:We'll use our Russian rangefinders to beat people up for money so we can buy Leicas. They are very much like blunt instruments.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2010 05:32
|
|
|
This guy should have a machine-off with nonentity's light saber's. http://www.collection-appareils.fr/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=8822&st=0&sk=t&sd=a http://www.collection-appareils.fr/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=9185&st=0&sk=t&sd=a Guy built his own SLR and working on a RF.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2010 13:39
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:After jumping on a couple of screamin' deals, I now have all the viewfinder-coupled lenses for the Contax G. Who cares about things like build quality when mine just looks so much cooler.  In all seriousness they had one at Central Camera that I had to think hard about. As per usual with CC they wanted an arm and a leg for it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2010 14:09
|
|
|
I had a play with my new Spinner 360 (lomo I know  ), had some expired velvia kicking around and took a few shots around town, it is plenty fun. 360 ruins #1 by mr_student, on Flickr  360 ruins #2 by mr_student, on Flickr Please excuse the rubbish haircut/expression.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2010 18:51
|
|
|
Light leaks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2010 19:54
|
|
|
Rednik posted:Light leaks. There not light leaks, its how the spinner gets up to speed on the first little bit, over exposure, and than again at the end of the spin. Its a little odd between frames, where its white rather than black.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2010 20:03
|
|
|
Oh god, there's an auction up for 150 rolls of AP400-24 for $250. I'm so tempted but at the same time so not wanting to drop that much dough all at once.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2010 03:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 12:17 |
|
|
Spedman posted:Its a little odd between frames, where its white rather than black. It sounds like there is no shutter. I reckon that would also be the cause of the light leaks. Try covering the lenses between shots, unless of course you like the effect. Edit: I should have asked this before. I just picked ground glass screen for my Super 23 and there was 5 part extension tube set included. The thing is, I don't know how to get the expose correctly when using them. Is there a rule for f-stop compensation that I can fall back on? I have the urge to take macro shots of yellow daisies that I must sate as soon as possible. MediumWellDone fucked around with this message at 06:12 on Nov 1, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2010 03:40
|
|
