|
BTZS stands for "beyond the zone system". http://www.btzs.org/
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2011 23:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 17:29 |
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:I know the feeling. I started with a K1000SE for a photo class, snagged a great deal on a Pentax 67, and it's been downhill since then. I'm powerless to resist good deals. I can't remember exactly which one right now, but it's one of the later models. It's pretty cool, but I don't know if i'd like it enough to ever get one for myself... But his dad is also a film camera nut, so his dad actually just gives him cameras. His dad gave him a hasselblad set up too, along with this ikonta. I'm thinking about forcing them to adopt me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2011 23:35
|
|
Recently I've started collecting stuff for a large format kit, but I still need a developing tank. Which Super Ikonta model and how do you like it? I like my Ikonta B (with Novar), but guess-focusing adds another place for me to screw up and I haven't seen a Super for a price I couldn't refuse yet.
|
Anyone have recommendations on a film scanner? I recently shot through a roll of Tmax through my Voigtländer Vitomatic I. I have access to this all-in-one scanner: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16828112128&Tpk=SAMSUNG%20CLX%20Series%20CLX-3175FW%20MFC%20%2f%20All-In-One%20Up but I know its not going to give me the best quality scans. I'm not looking to spend too much on a scanner, maybe around $1-200. Thanks! ASSTASTIC fucked around with this message at 00:09 on Feb 3, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 00:05
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:I was actually looking at the Mod Photographic reels. You get 6 sheets at a time in a 3-reel Paterson tank, but the reels alone are about $90 after shipping. On the other hand, they seem to be pretty reliable, unlike a Combi. I need a bigger tank anyway since right now I'm doing one roll of 120 at a time in my 2-reel tank, but they're hard to find used. Oh poo poo, have not heard of those Mod reels before. I was thinking about porking out $200+ or whatever ridiculous amount the JOBO costs because I'm too lazy for the Combi, but that's a lot more reasonable (plus, would have use for a 3-reel tank to do extra 120/35mm). Got a feeling that little black garbage bin is not long for my darkroom 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 00:05
|
|
|
ASSTASTIC posted:Anyone have recommendations on a film scanner? I recently shot through a roll of Tmax through my Voigtländer Vitomatic I. Lucky you, there is a scanner thread. The scanner you've got isn't going to give you anything worth seeing; there's no backlight. You need either a dedicated negative scanner or a flatbed with a backlight and a film holder. For $200 you're not going to get much; probably a flatbed and probably not a very good one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 00:11
|
|
|
King Hotpants posted:Lucky you, there is a scanner thread. Epson V500s are decent for 35mm and 120 and cost $125ish. You get infrared cleaning for C-41 and it makes acceptable scans for most uses. Pompous Rhombus posted:Oh poo poo, have not heard of those Mod reels before. I was thinking about porking out $200+ or whatever ridiculous amount the JOBO costs because I'm too lazy for the Combi, but that's a lot more reasonable (plus, would have use for a 3-reel tank to do extra 120/35mm). The one thing is you can't use it like a Jobo tank, if you roll it the film will come out of the slots. It's designed for gentle traditional inversion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 00:23
|
|
|
King Hotpants posted:Lucky you, there is a scanner thread. Haha. I just came back in this thread to edit my post and show that I found that thread. Awesome. Thanks for the advice though. quote:Epson V500s are decent for 35mm and 120 and cost $125ish. You get infrared cleaning for C-41 and it makes acceptable scans for most uses. Awesome! I'll check that one out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 00:31
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:The one thing is you can't use it like a Jobo tank, if you roll it the film will come out of the slots. It's designed for gentle traditional inversion. Yeah that's fine, what I'm looking for actually. I'd order it right now but just learned I've got an out of state job interview to afford in two weeks 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 01:30
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:I mostly shoot landscapes but I do some people shots too. I'm thinking the best general-purpose color film for pictures outside would be Ektar 100? Also thinking Portra 400NC might fit my needs for higher-speed film. Is color balance something I need to worry about if I'm shooting indoors? I might be the only person who doesn't care for ektar too much - I would say shoot slide for landscapes. It's rare that I'll like a landscape I've shot in negative.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 01:52
|
|
|
King Hotpants posted:You need either a dedicated negative scanner or a flatbed with a backlight and a film holder.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 03:01
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Speaking of dedicated negative scanners, is something like this for $50 or so a total waste of time and money? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 03:28
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Speaking of dedicated negative scanners, is something like this for $50 or so a total waste of time and money? At $125-150 the repeatedly-recommended V500 is pretty attractive, but if all I'm going to scan is piles and piles of 35mm negatives, would a little dedicated scanner provide decent pictures? buying a scanner-shaped pile of molded poo poo would be a better use of your money than that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 03:57
|
|
|
guidoanselmi posted:I might be the only person who doesn't care for ektar too much - I would say shoot slide for landscapes. It's rare that I'll like a landscape I've shot in negative. Arriving next week at the same time as the camera - one roll each of: Velvia 100, Ektachrome E100G, Ektar 100, Portra 160NC, Portra 400NC, and good ol' Tri-X.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 04:28
|
|
|
I've got some nice slide film, but the weather has been so god damned dreary it would be a waste of colour film. Now Tri-X on the other hand...
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 04:31
|
|
|
Thanks for the replies - I'll be saving for a good scanner. Start of roll by Execudork, on Flickr Another dumb question: My last several rolls of 35mm have come back with pictures like this in the first position. This is caused by not rolling enough of the start of the roll around the take-up spool before closing the back and advancing to Frame 1, right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 04:35
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Another dumb question: My last several rolls of 35mm have come back with pictures like this in the first position. This is caused by not rolling enough of the start of the roll around the take-up spool before closing the back and advancing to Frame 1, right? Shoot one more blank frame before starting to shoot for real.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 04:39
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Thanks for the replies - I'll be saving for a good scanner.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 04:58
|
|
|
Anyone else feel this way besides me? I've recently started gravitating towards shooting more film. I feel like its so easy to get into photography with all entry level DSLRs being almost dirt cheap now. People seem to have forgotten how hard it is to take GOOD photos it seems. Maybe I'm jaded because I see all these "professional photographers" just shoot really lovely pictures and try to make up for their lack of patience and execution in touching up bad photos in post-processing. I really think Photoshop is a great tool, but I feel that it should be used to make a good photo great where its being used to make bad photos good. I feel with film I take my time more and try to plan out photos before using the film. Don't get me wrong though, I really like digital because it takes less time to process it, and you can shoot a lot longer without having to change film and its cheaper. Maybe I'm just getting old. 
ASSTASTIC fucked around with this message at 05:36 on Feb 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 05:22
|
|
|
I think I know what you're saying, and I feel it a little, too. I like using both my SLRs, the digital and the 35mm, though I find I like them for somewhat different purposes. Having to wait for the film instead of the instant gratification of the back screen makes a big difference in terms of the kinds of shots I want to take with each camera. Plus, you know, the old-school snob appeal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 05:25
|
|
|
I like shooting film for similar reasons, but I feel like that attitude is silly. You can't use photoshop to make a bad photo good (see terrible photographers thread), and you can take terrible photos with film too. I think what you are talking about is the "speed of shooting". A lot of people find they take more time when they shoot film, or 4x5, or whatever, where a large part of the process is setting up and thinking. Lots of thinking. There's no reason why you can't do this with digital. I'm a slow shooter naturally, even with my digital camera, and I rarely take over 200-300 shots for a smaller photoshoot. When film was more prevalent, the same thing happened, people would take rolls and rolls of snapshots, of their dogs, or try to make photos look cooler in the darkroom, solarization, whatever. I think it's all the same and to think that it's a product of digital cameras doesn't really make sense, it's just way easier for people to share them with everyone now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 05:33
|
|
|
Shooting film builds my confidence in my own abilities that I can take a photo and not gently caress it up. Of course this doesn't always work, but when there's no preview and no do-over, you learn to cover your bases, which I feel has improved my shooting with digital. Likewise, it makes me appreciate the capabilities and advantages of digital even more.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 05:46
|
|
|
ASSTASTIC posted:Anyone else feel this way besides me? Ever since I was given my Mamiya 645, I've been shooting almost entirely film. When I got it, I was just starting to realize that my previous philosophy of "shoot 200 pictures and maybe some of them will be good or you can HDR them" wasn't working, and I created two photos that were massively better than what I'd done before by taking a few careful photos. Then I got the camera and became restricted to 15 shots per roll (instead of 1300 per memory card), and I've had a much higher keeper rate. I think it's also the fact that it is a mechanical thing that feels solid and goes clunk in my hand. High-quality lenses with metal housings that actually stop when you focus them on infinity; the quality brought by Velvia; the fact that my DSLR now feels like a cheap plastic piece of poo poo when I hold it; and the appeal of developing your own film (I'm developing my first three rolls of HP5+ tomorrow  ).
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 07:32
|
|
|
I kinda like the delayed response from shooting film, in certain situations. Since there's a much longer delay before I can actually see those images, I feel like my original expectations of the shot fade a bit- instead of immediately seeing them on the screen and being like "yeah, I was just there, whatevs", the images end up feeling more interesting to discover on the roll a week or so later. More happy accidents, I guess. I still find my K1000 to be a much nicer walk-around camera too. I don't really like having my dSLR on my neck just for the hell of it, so I only end up using it for planned things.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 07:59
|
|
is go
|
Plus, with film there's the fact that your image is a physical artifact instead of a bunch of data on a hard drive.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 08:28
|
|
|
There's an FM2 going on ebay with a Nikkor 50mm f/1.4. Good for starter camera to get into film?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 08:51
|
|
|
gently caress my dangling strap. Even if it's a small point and shoot, I am going to keep it around my wrist and not dangle in front of the lens without my knowing. I just realized how dependent I was on a SLR's view finder 
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 09:09
|
|
|
Schofferhofer posted:There's an FM2 going on ebay with a Nikkor 50mm f/1.4.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 09:49
|
|
|
I just found a cool Flickr set shot using Kodak SO-392 Solar Flare Patrol Film which is the coolest name for film I have ever heard. Apparently it was the predecessor of Technical Pan (which was this film with more green sensitivity), and was made for NASA.
atomicthumbs fucked around with this message at 10:10 on Feb 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 10:07
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Speaking of dedicated negative scanners, is something like this for $50 or so a total waste of time and money? At $125-150 the repeatedly-recommended V500 is pretty attractive, but if all I'm going to scan is piles and piles of 35mm negatives, would a little dedicated scanner provide decent pictures? quote:Hola Gente:
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 13:50
|
|
|
ASSTASTIC posted:stuff Well... Yes and no. I mainly shoot film now, I just don't really like digital that much. I think that when you have it easy with automodes and instant review you get too comfortable. Having to make painful decisions has been very useful for my creative development... Besides, when you've suffered enough shooting film and hating yourself for loving up, moving back to digital will seem like a miracle. Because of that I'm kind of jealous of old photographers that used film all their lives and then moved to digital as it slowly improved. Having all that useful experence and being able to apply it to a new way of doing things... Using film has made me at least TRY to take more meaningful photographs and analyse my failures. Hell at least with film even if all my photos are poo poo there are way less of them, gotta be thankful for that at least?  Then again I think I just like making things harder for myself, so that when I gently caress up I can say "oh well film is hard" or something like that. I don't really have a problem with photoshop though, it's pretty good really even though I don't even have a copy. Of course there are plently of morons out there that use it to edit bad photos into even worse ones but. Well some of those morons shoot film too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 14:29
|
|
|
l33tc4k30fd00m posted:Then again I think I just like making things harder for myself, so that when I gently caress up I can say "oh well film is hard" or something like that. Film may not give you the instant feedback of digital (to figure out if you hosed up bad like had your ISO set wrong or somehow happened to have a setting totally wrong), but film is way more forgiving than digital - at least in the sense of exposure latitude. I mean you have to have a general idea of how to meter your photo but film generally lets you get away with being less accurate with your exposure settings.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 16:01
|
|
|
Cannister posted:Film may not give you the instant feedback of digital (to figure out if you hosed up bad like had your ISO set wrong or somehow happened to have a setting totally wrong), but film is way more forgiving than digital - at least in the sense of exposure latitude. I mean you have to have a general idea of how to meter your photo but film generally lets you get away with being less accurate with your exposure settings. Some film yes, not all. In fact I think the opposite. Digital sensors seem to give the saturation and vividness of slow speed slide film, with the ease of exposure of print film(especially the newer sensors*.) In the end it's comparing apples and oranges. Sure both are photography but they both have their separate technical difficulties to overcome, with separate advantages, and yes some difficulties and advantages will overlap. *From what I understand I only got into digital with a 7d.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 16:22
|
|
|
Cannister posted:Film may not give you the instant feedback of digital (to figure out if you hosed up bad like had your ISO set wrong or somehow happened to have a setting totally wrong), but film is way more forgiving than digital - at least in the sense of exposure latitude. I mean you have to have a general idea of how to meter your photo but film generally lets you get away with being less accurate with your exposure settings. I shoot a lot of slide, but that's true in general. You still need to know your media though. Sure you can overexpose the gently caress out of Acros say and it stays pretty stable. But others, even some negative films will sometimes punish you a little bit. The point being that even if it's printable doesn't mean it's not sub-optimal. Also underexposing a lot of films gives you REALLY nasty results. Also I try not to overexpose too much because it doesn't scan as well. Can't wait to pick up some Portra 400 though, that poo poo looks practically bulletproof.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 16:43
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:Ever since I was given my Mamiya 645, I've been shooting almost entirely film. When I got it, I was just starting to realize that my previous philosophy of "shoot 200 pictures and maybe some of them will be good or you can HDR them" wasn't working, and I created two photos that were massively better than what I'd done before by taking a few careful photos. Then I got the camera and became restricted to 15 shots per roll (instead of 1300 per memory card), and I've had a much higher keeper rate. Manual focusing seems to be the key to slow me down. When I shoot my DSLR, I tend to use old manual lenses unless I have a specific need for autofocus. I tend to prefer primes because they give me maximum image quality for cost and a bright viewfinder image. I shoot film in general because I spend my whole damned day on the computer, and it's nice to disconnect a bit. Medium format is a nice balance between slowing me down, high quality capture, and portability. On digital, I take so many that it becomes a chore to sort and process them all. I feel like I only see so many good shots per day, so I take those on medium format and save 35mm for loving around and experimenting. It's also nice that I can get pro-quality gear for a song, I've never paid more than $150 for a Pentax 6x7 lens and I have some of the best lenses in the system. It is really nice to use, this stuff was built to last forever. I also know that if it breaks it can be repaired. I once bought a small Nikon kit at a thrift store, but the body turned out to be broken, the meter board was blown. I looked at repairing it, but it was an FG, one of the first(early 80s) cameras with a flexible printed circuit so unless you had a donor body you're out of luck. The same thing will be a problem with DSLRs, it's one thing to replace a discrete (resistor, etc) but if you blow an IC or an autofocus motor you're going to be toast once they're end-of-life'd. l33tc4k30fd00m posted:But others, even some negative films will sometimes punish you a little bit. The point being that even if it's printable doesn't mean it's not sub-optimal. Example: Ektar 100 is actually a fairly low-latitude film from what I've seen. If you overexpose it the blues turn cyan very fast and the reds turn fire-engine red. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Feb 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 20:16
|
|
|
Sorry to change the subject, but is there anywhere else a guy can go to find an Olympus XA aside from ebay?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 21:33
|
|
|
spf3million posted:Sorry to change the subject, but is there anywhere else a guy can go to find an Olympus XA aside from ebay? KEH if you're patient, thrift stores if you've very patient. If you're dead set against eBay, your best bet is probably to put a WTB ad on rangefinderforum or APUG.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 21:40
|
|
|
I'm more along the lines of impatient. I can't seem to get more than 2 weeks in the US so waiting around for deals on the 'bay are annoying and I don't want to buy it now for twice what it's worth if I don't have to. Just replied to a posting on CL though from last week. Fingers crossed!
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 21:45
|
|
|
spf3million posted:Sorry to change the subject, but is there anywhere else a guy can go to find an Olympus XA aside from ebay? I happened across a near mint looking one the other day on http://www.shopgoodwill.com/ - looks like it's been snagged up already though. Maybe not - take a look through there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 22:00
|
|
|
Can someone link me to the pushed Portra 400 photos? I can't remember in which thread they were posted.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 23:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 17:29 |
|
|
Ric posted:Can someone link me to the pushed Portra 400 photos? I can't remember in which thread they were posted. I think this is what your looking for: http://www.twinlenslife.com/2010/12/its-our-favorite-time-of-light-new.html
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2011 00:19
|
|
