|
Rontalvos posted:Somebody convince me to not buy a Canonet QL-17 G-III in EX condition for $180 on KEH. You can usually find it for $100 less than that on Ebay.
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2011 19:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 04:01 |
|
|
McMadCow posted:You can usually find it for $100 less than that on Ebay. That's even more tempting now. I've noticed a hole in my life that is compact 35mm rangefinder shaped. Any other models I should be looking at? I really want metering and compactness, but I'm open to other brands.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2011 00:02
|
|
|
Konica Auto S2s are awesome, the lens is a knockoff of a Leica 50/2 something. The Olympus XA is pretty cool too and there's nothing comparable that's even close to that small.
Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 00:17 on Jan 21, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2011 00:10
|
|
|
The XA is king poo poo for manual-focus rangefinders because it's tiny, relatively easy to find at reasonable prices and it takes modern batteries. There are lots of other options for cameras if you want auto-focus. The Canonet is actually kind of huge and I wouldn't recommend it if you're looking for something compact.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2011 00:54
|
|
|
Rontalvos posted:That's even more tempting now. I've noticed a hole in my life that is compact 35mm rangefinder shaped. Any other models I should be looking at? I really want metering and compactness, but I'm open to other brands. This should convince you: for $180 on Ebay, you can probably pick up a beautiful black Canonet instead of the normal chrome version.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2011 01:07
|
|
|
What about an Olympus RC? Those look to be the smallest metal-bodied 70's-looking rangefinder out there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2011 01:24
|
|
|
Rontalvos posted:What about an Olympus RC? Those look to be the smallest metal-bodied 70's-looking rangefinder out there. Larger than an XA and uses an outdated battery. Also harder to find. However it does have the advantage of a shutter-priority mode.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2011 02:32
|
|
|
One vote for the Oly XA. Love mine to death. If it ever breaks I will buy a new one immediately.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2011 04:42
|
|
|
 New Arrivals 110120 by Execudork, on Flickr New arrivals from ebay, from opposite sides of the world, both showed up today. The 70-210 zoom appears to be in absolutely perfect condition, I'm thinking I'll go on a photo-walk on Saturday and give this thing a test-drive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2011 05:13
|
|
|
My Minolta X-300 died during my trip to New York  I guess it served it's time since my father bought it a couple of years before I was born.Ended up buying a Nikon FM10 which seems so fragile compared to the Minolta.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2011 16:50
|
|
|
Cannister posted:One vote for the Oly XA. Love mine to death. If it ever breaks I will buy a new one immediately. Heh, be prepared to do that. I've gone through two of them (may have just had bad luck or something, dunno).
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2011 00:21
|
|
|
Hey, you know how cameras have covers for both the batteries and he motor drive on the bottom? I used to think the motor drive thing was a superfluous annoyance but it sure came in handy tonight. I'm at a show, go to change the batteries and the battery door goes rolling off into oblivion. Fortunately I was able to switch over the motor drive door to the battery compartment and kept on going.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2011 06:35
|
|
|
I developed my first two rolls of film today. (The result was not too bad even.) But I have a question about waste I hope someone can answer. One was a Kodak Plus-X, the other a T-Max 100. Neither the water used stop bath nor that used for wash took colour from the Plus-X, but the T-Max gave both the stop and wash water a reddish colour. I have about 6 litres of reddish waste water now. How hazardous is this? (In other words, how many fish will die if I flush it down the drain.) The T-Max also seems to have a reddish acetate base, is that normal? nielsm fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Jan 22, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2011 15:12
|
|
|
nielsm posted:I developed my first two rolls of film today. (The result was not too bad even.) Don't worry about that reddish base and wash water, it's probably just the anti-halation layer of the film washing out. Some films do that, some don't. Some of the T-MAX and related films can even pour out a deep purple that looks like grape juice, it's pretty jarring the first time that happens. For me, it happened the first time I tried developing with Rodinal - I thought I'd dissolved my film. As for toxicity, that anti-halation dye shouldn't really matter. Developer and the post-develop rinse water always gets dumped down the drain at the college's darkroom here, there's no difference between specific films there. They got checked out by the EPA a few years ago, dumping that developer was fine but they got hammered with other fines because idiots were dumping fixer and leaving unmarked jars of chemistry around... painters were doing that a lot too, ended up cost the art school like $350,000 in fines. Developer down the drain is okay. Fixer down the drain is bad news bears. Dr. Cogwerks fucked around with this message at 18:10 on Jan 22, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2011 17:58
|
|
is go
|
Thanks, so I won't need to visit the recycling station twice a week  Dr. Cogwerks posted:Developer down the drain is okay. Fixer down the drain is bad news bears. Odd, the Tetenal developer has an environment warning but the fixer doesn't. I'll just turn the used solutions of both in for recycling.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2011 18:19
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Thanks, so I won't need to visit the recycling station twice a week Tetenal? I don't think I've ever seen that one. If it does have an environmental warning, probably better to follow it. Most folks here were using D-76, Rodinal, T-MAX, and occasionally Microdol or Acufine. e: Speaking of developer, this sounds like it'd be fun to try sometime: Instant Coffee + Vitamin C + washing soda (sodium carbonate) to create homemade Caffenol developer. Surprisingly decent results, too:  Expired Ilford HP5 (rebranded version), pushed to 1600 ISO and developed with coffee and Vitamin C pills by this guy: http://www.flickr.com/photos/24469035@N02/ Related: http://caffenol.blogspot.com/ http://www.flickr.com/groups/33051635@N00/ (Caffenol group) Dr. Cogwerks fucked around with this message at 19:36 on Jan 22, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2011 19:21
|
|
|
I just did a stand development of some Rollei Retro 100 for 60min in 1+100 in rodinal. I pulled the film out and half was developed nicely, while the other half was WAY over developed. There seemed to be a really strong interface in the concentration of developer in the solution, I can't understand for the life of me why, any ideas?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2011 21:27
|
|
|
Today I bought my first batch of chemicals for home developing and two rolls of HP5+ - 1 of 35mm and one of 120. I've started running the 35mm through my SLR and am fighting the urge to waste the roll on garbage shots just to develop the roll, but seeing as I need to wait to buy a scanner over the next week it makes no sense to rush. I really really wish I didn't JUST start a roll of Portra in my Bronica. Anyway I'll post here with the results when I get everything done in a few days.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2011 23:42
|
|
|
just get over it, shooting BW is like cheap as digital anyway 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2011 02:57
|
|
|
guidoanselmi posted:just get over it, shooting BW is like cheap as digital anyway Yeah but dealing 1000 negatives is alot more difficult than 1000 digital files :p
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2011 03:02
|
|
|
Stregone posted:Yeah but dealing 1000 negatives is alot more difficult than 1000 digital files :p It's pretty easy to lose 1000 digital files
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2011 04:16
|
|
|
So, anybody want me to look for anything? http://anchorage.craigslist.org/pho/2175259278.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2011 07:40
|
|
|
Gnomad posted:So, anybody want me to look for anything? I sent you an email.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2011 08:05
|
|
|
Gnomad posted:So, anybody want me to look for anything? Anything Speed Graphic, anything Zeiss Ikon..
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2011 17:02
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:You can usually find it for $100 less than that on Ebay. Here's one for $75. The guy selling it really knows his stuff, so no worries about terrible ebay descriptions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2011 18:34
|
|
|
Gnomad posted:So, anybody want me to look for anything? Also, please take some pictures while you're there. Poking through the gear of a professor of photography would be amazing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2011 22:13
|
|
|
Hello film thread. My Mom gave me a box of negatives she would like digitized. I made a really quick attempt at a large negative. I pointed one of my lights up, put a white plastic cutting board, a white sheet of paper, and put the negative between two glass panes. Here's how it turned out:  2011-20 by Tom Rintjema, on Flickr Now I don't have a macro lens, and a lot of the negatives are 35mm. What's my best bet, 100mm macro lens? Any tips on how to do this?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 02:28
|
|
|
TomR posted:Now I don't have a macro lens, and a lot of the negatives are 35mm. What's my best bet, 100mm macro lens? Any tips on how to do this? Uh...scan them?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 02:32
|
|
|
I don't have a scanner either. And you aren't helping me justify buying a new lens. Is there a scanner that can deal with a lot of different sizes of negative? They are all over the place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 02:38
|
|
|
TomR posted:Hello film thread. It depends on how many you have to do that are 35mm, and what the final use of them is (just sharing on the internet, or wanting to do big enlargements or keep the digital files as archival-type scans). If you have a bunch of 35mm and don't demand absolute resolution, I made a 5D+macro lens based slide digitizing apparatus that works well and is much faster than a scanner. If you've got a lot of different sizes to contend with I'd recommend just buying a scanner and working through the lot slowly; if you buy used you can likely sell the scanner for what you paid for it when you're done. edit: an Epson V500 or V600 can handle up to medium format, if there's anything bigger than that you'll need something like the V700/V750, which can scan up to 8x10" transparent materials.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 02:42
|
|
|
First, determine what sizes you have, and the proportion of them in each format, then you can figure out what scanner will work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 02:43
|
|
|
I just tried my first batch of negs with selenium toning. Supposedly it will deliver a modest increase in contrast and sharpness. I did it before the fix (I only have hardening fixer), and supposedly Saint Ansel says to do it after a non-hardening fix instead.  My negatives are iridescent, this may bode poorly for scanning them... e: The Tri-X I pushed in Rodinal did very badly, the film base is strongly brown and there's clouding from the selenium (likely caused by warm toner). The Acros I did in Microdol looks great. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 17:37 on Jan 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 03:32
|
|
|
This is working well for the larger negatives. I'm just using my 35 F2. I made a preset for lightroom that flips the curve and adjusts for black and white. Problem is half the sliders do the opposite of what they normally do like that. Works on colour negatives too, but most of them are pretty beat up.  2011-21 by Tom Rintjema, on Flickr  2011-22 by Tom Rintjema, on Flickr  2011-23 by Tom Rintjema, on Flickr  2011-24 by Tom Rintjema, on Flickr  2011-25 by Tom Rintjema, on Flickr  2011-26 by Tom Rintjema, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 03:38
|
|
|
Ahhh I just finished developing my first roll and it's SO loving COOL!!! I went into my closet, got the film on the reel with no problem, dumped in some chemicals and swished them around for a while, pulled that poo poo out and BAM. Pictures on the film. How friggin cool. They're drying now and I'm probably going to stay up until I can scan one or two of them. I'm a proud poppa.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 04:48
|
|
|
Ok so I scanned a few of my photos from the reel of 35mm Ilford HP5+. I have some questions. Here's the straight negative scan:  and here it is, simply inverting (ctrl+i in photoshop):  Now, should the image be that cloudy? Do you guys usually have to make contrast corrections when you scan your film? Did I not leave the fixer in long enough? When I put my test clip in a glass and timed the fixer it turned translucent in like 58 seconds (I think I made the fixer too strong), so when I poured in into the container it was in there for about 2:45 just to be sure... But all I was looking for in the test was when I stopped seeing changes, it never turned 100% translucent or anything. Here it is with some levels adjustments - I don't know how much of the black spotting/dust is from the scanner and how much is actually on the film:  and here it is cleaned up and [probably over-]sharpened:  The scan lines are from the lovely scanner I'm using. I plan on buying an Epson v600 within a week or two. Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions? Cannister fucked around with this message at 14:27 on Jan 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 14:17
|
|
|
I find that I always have to make some contrast corrections when I scan negatives. Though I also use a lovely scanner... so I could be in the same boat as you. However, you can generally tell if you didn't fix your film enough because the negatives will look milky or cloudy to your eye instead of clear. You can throw them in the fix again for up to 10 minutes if you have the milkiness.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 14:40
|
|
|
Alright, couple of more questions: 1) I bought a small (maybe 8 fl oz) container of Gamma+ developer. When I mixed it I only made enough for one development. Should I just mix the whole thing and store it in a big container? 2) Can I re-use developer? If I mix up a big batch as in the above question, would I dump the developer back in the big batch at the end? If so how would I know when it was going bad? 3) Is storing developer/fixer in a container that has a lot of extra air in it a bad idea? I have relatively small amounts of chemicals from last night in big oil containers (they were new last night, don't worry - no oil in my chemicals heh). 4) Can I dump developer down the drain if I can't re-use it? 5) When I use water instead of stop bath, is it ok if it's tap water? That's what I used last night. Also: does the temperature of any stages of rinse (after developer, after fixer) matter? I think after my developer last night I put cold tap water in to rinse it off. Is that bad practice? I'm using a photo-flo like droplet thingy in my final rinse, and things seemed to dry just fine with no residue. Thanks for de-newbing me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 17:30
|
|
|
Cannister posted:Alright, couple of more questions: 1: Depends. What does it say is the shelf life of the working/stock solutions? Mixed developer oxidizes and goes bad. How long it takes is a matter of that particular formulation. 2: You can, but don't. 3: See answer #1. I've never heard of fixer going bad in air, but it might. I store my fixer in a gallon jug filled up to the top (you re-use fixer) so it's never been a question. I replace my fixer when it exhausts from use, not from air. I seem to go through my stock solution of X-TOL developer that I've never had it go bad from being in a bottle with air. Depends how much you use it, though. 4: Yes. 5: Yeah, it's fine to use tap water as a stop. You probably should use distilled water, but I never have. The temps of the other chemicals don't seem to be very important, either. I just make sure they're in the same ballpark as room temp but don't fret too much beyond that. Make sure your developer is dead-on accurate, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 18:05
|
|
|
I had some issues with rust in my tap water getting on my negatives. I started using some rust-removing water softener salt, and the problem went away, but that's a potential issue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 18:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 04:01 |
|
|
McMadCow and FasterThanLight posted:Knowledge Thanks. This is all making a lot more sense. Also: After reading the first 22 pages of this thread straight through AFTER going through a lot of these processes first hand a lot of questions started getting answered pretty fast. I'm 100% postive the grey looking negative scan above is entirely due to using a plain flatbed scanner with no back-light - so it scans through and catches some white on the white board that presses the negative down, but doesn't work how a negative was intended. Goddammit I need to wait until my paycheck gets here to buy a back-lit scanner. Goddammit, I looked at B&H's photo scanner selection. I know this question has probably come up more times than many of you care to answer it, but if any of you were looking at A) an Epson 4490 for $120, B) an Epson v500 for $154, or C) a v600 for $190 what would you go with? (I have no plans on venturing into large format) Cannister fucked around with this message at 19:13 on Jan 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 19:05
|
|