|
Ferris Bueller posted:Does anyone roll their own 35mm cartridges here? I was wondering where the break even is especially if you usually only shoot one or two types of emulsions, and is it more hassel then it's worth? Using Tri-X as an example, it's like five or six bucks a cartridge to buy it around here, or fifty bucks to get a 100-foot roll of it online. 18-21 rolls of film there. Freestyle's rebadged Tri-X bulk rolls are $35. You can save a lot of cash doing that if you like a certain film enough to use twenty rolls of it.
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 18:40
|
|
is go
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 12:26 |
|
|
Ferris Bueller posted:Does anyone roll their own 35mm cartridges here? I was wondering where the break even is especially if you usually only shoot one or two types of emulsions, and is it more hassel then it's worth? You can get 18-20 rolls of 36exp from a 100' can, so you can do the math and see if it's worth it for your particular brand of film. For me, hand-rolling my own Arista Premium 400 isn't really worth it when it's only $2.20/roll for 36exp already. I am thinking about a can or two of that short-dated Legacy Pro 100 (Acros) because I love that film and they don't sell the individual rolls anymore, although I don't shoot a ton of 35mm these days so it'd likely take me forever to get through them (and I'm hoping to move by the end of the year).
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 20:25
|
|
|
^^ whoa I pretty much only bulk load now. It doesn't make quite as much sense for Freestyle Arista Premium since the 36exp rolls are so cheap anyway, but their stuff goes on sale from time to time, and I try to stock up then. Just got two 100' rolls of Legacy Pro for $24 each. FasterThanLight fucked around with this message at 20:33 on Mar 8, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 20:31
|
|
|
Do you guys prefer the metal or plastic reloadable cartridges?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2011 01:24
|
|
|
Preliminary woot: A windowless spare bathroom a darkroom doth make. by ethics_gradient, on Flickr Still have some flocking around the enlarger to do, as well as set up the wet side.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2011 23:43
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Preliminary woot: That's a neat picture! ... Hey, anyone know how to read this light meter that I bought? There's a manual for it that I found online and it explains what the dials represent, but it doesn't explain how to interpret the reading based on those dials. I was able to of course set the ASA and measure the reflected light off a wall in my apartment. Then I rotated the dial, per the instructions, to null it. Here is what you see after I have done that:  At this point I am supposed to "read the desired combination of f/stop and shutter speed on the computer scales." But I can't figure out how. Where is this being indicated? It looks like it's telling me the reading is at approximately 8 EV if you look in the lower portion below ASA speed, and this is helpful to a degree. I can determine what the shutter speed should be based on the aperture, or vice versa, using the chart here. But I should also be able to determine aperture and shutter speed on its own. If I look at the white indicator towards the top of the dial, beneath the red zero, that constantly stays put in between the '2 and the '4. The white indicator at the very bottom next to the 1 also stays put at that 1, whenever you rotate it. So I am confused here. Does this make sense to any of you?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2011 03:31
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:That's a neat picture! Thanks! You're looking at all of them! For example, between f/11 and f/8 and a 1/2s shutter speed should yield a proper exposure at that IS/EV reading, as would ~f/2.4 at 1/30s, etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2011 03:41
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:That's a neat picture! If this is for your Hassy, you can just use the EV value it points to at the bottom there, and the lens will figure out all the shutter speed + aperture combos. ...Then you can figure out exposures for the zone system. 
Rednik fucked around with this message at 04:35 on Mar 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2011 04:33
|
|
|
Yeah, all you need to get rolling are the "Time" and "f/" parts. I assume you hold down a button and twiddle the dial until the needle goes to "0" then take your reading from there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2011 05:19
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:You're looking at all of them! For example, between f/11 and f/8 and a 1/2s shutter speed should yield a proper exposure at that IS/EV reading, as would ~f/2.4 at 1/30s, etc. Ohhhh! This makes total sense now. Awesome, thanks! Rednik posted:If this is for your Hassy, you can just use the EV value it points to at the bottom there, and the lens will figure out all the shutter speed + aperture combos. Yeah, I noticed this because my lens arrived yesterday and I saw the EV markings.  But I was also befuddled with the rest of the meter.HPL posted:Yeah, all you need to get rolling are the "Time" and "f/" parts. I assume you hold down a button and twiddle the dial until the needle goes to "0" then take your reading from there. Bingo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2011 05:41
|
|
|
In other news, here's a public service announcement: MARK WHAT ISO YOU SHOT YOUR FILM AT ON THE CAN/ROLL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE! After a few months, I ended up with a whole bunch of rolls of Delta 400 that I had neglected to mark the speed on. Thinking that I use Delta 400 mostly for concerts, I pushed it to 1600 and luckily my guess was right. It was a tense development cycle though, hoping for the best while agitating.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2011 06:22
|
|
|
HPL posted:In other news, here's a public service announcement: I take it this forum's love affair with Diafine died out? Haven't tried it myself, but I heard that developers like Diafine are great if you forgot what you pushed the film to, as it develops well across several different pushes/pulls.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2011 06:50
|
|
|
Rednik posted:I take it this forum's love affair with Diafine died out? Haven't tried it myself, but I heard that developers like Diafine are great if you forgot what you pushed the film to, as it develops well across several different pushes/pulls. I've always been an HC-110 and XTOL guy. It looks like Kodak and Freestyle finally gave up on trying to hide their poorly-kept secret with AP400. I've been running through some newer AP400 and now it says Kodak 400TX on the sides instead of Arista Premium 400. HPL fucked around with this message at 07:32 on Mar 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2011 07:01
|
|
|
I've only used HC-110. Am I missing out on anything??
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2011 09:42
|
|
|
guidoanselmi posted:I've only used HC-110. Yes, Diafine is awesome on high contrast scenes that need a moderate push. Very tight grain and excellent highlight control. It is a one trick pony though. You can't adjust film speed at all and using it on a flatly lit scene will just give you muddy results. I have a bunch of GP3 that I am shooting up to develop in Diafine. I'm just really lazy these days about breaking out the chemicals and tank.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2011 09:50
|
|
|
HPL posted:In other news, here's a public service announcement: I had this happen with Arista Premium 400. I shot a roll at a party at 800 and left it in my laptop bag. I was developing film last weekend and discovered the ever-popular Mystery Roll. Now, I'd also shot a roll at 400. I guessed 800 and got lucky, and the next day I found the 400 roll, which was also in my laptop bag.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2011 14:12
|
|
|
Rednik posted:I take it this forum's love affair with Diafine died out? Haven't tried it myself, but I heard that developers like Diafine are great if you forgot what you pushed the film to, as it develops well across several different pushes/pulls. I'm a Diafine proponent as I can shoot multiple rolls of varying ISOs with varying push/pull exposures and then put them all in the same 4-roll developing tank and use Diafine to develop it all in one fell swoop!
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2011 16:27
|
|
|
I just acquired a couple of free 100-foot rolls of Kodak Pan Film #2484, still sealed but expired in the mid 1980's. Sounds like it was some sort of military/scientific/police recording film, probably terrible for pictorial photos. Very interested to see how it turns out though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 00:32
|
|
|
Dr. Cogwerks posted:I just acquired a couple of free 100-foot rolls of Kodak Pan Film #2484, still sealed but expired in the mid 1980's. Sounds like it was some sort of military/scientific/police recording film, probably terrible for pictorial photos. Very interested to see how it turns out though. Where do you score these things? Are you just friends with every camera store owner and retired photojournalist around?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 02:54
|
|
|
Dr. Cogwerks posted:I just acquired a couple of free 100-foot rolls of Kodak Pan Film #2484, still sealed but expired in the mid 1980's. Sounds like it was some sort of military/scientific/police recording film, probably terrible for pictorial photos. Very interested to see how it turns out though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 03:36
|
|
|
Try pulling it to get above the fog?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 03:41
|
|
|
A friend of mine is working over in THE STATES atm and I was thinking I might get him to bring me back some film, since it's super expensive here and the postage rate your silly country is just dumb. Sooooooo I want something in 400 range for B&W that I can push a bit higher if need be, fairly cheap and which is pretty easy to find. Want this mate to bring me back around 10 rolls of film, but not sure if he's able to make it to B&H/another superstore thingy. Reccomendations?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 04:15
|
|
|
Schofferhofer posted:A friend of mine is working over in THE STATES atm and I was thinking I might get him to bring me back some film, since it's super expensive here and the postage rate your silly country is just dumb.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 04:19
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #20 posted:Arista Premium 400 is rebranded Kodak Tri-X, I think, and a bit cheaper. Pushes nicely up to at least 1600. Seconded - and yes, AP400 is Tri-X. Tri-X is amazing at pushes, 1600 is definitely possible. Check Rangefinderforum, I'm pretty sure I've seen it come out decently pushed to ISO12800 and beyond 
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 04:28
|
|
|
Schofferhofer posted:A friend of mine is working over in THE STATES atm and I was thinking I might get him to bring me back some film, since it's super expensive here and the postage rate your silly country is just dumb. You might want to have him bring you a can of Arista Premium 400 and/or Legacy Pro 100 from Freestyle, and roll your own. You'll get about 18-20 rolls from a 100' bulk roll, will work out pretty cheap.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 04:47
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Seconded - and yes, AP400 is Tri-X. Tri-X is amazing at pushes, 1600 is definitely possible. Check Rangefinderforum, I'm pretty sure I've seen it come out decently pushed to ISO12800 and beyond Those crazy pushes are normally a mixture of questionable metering and shooting in strong sunlight. When I was shooting TX in Diafine I could expose basically however I wanted in sunlight and get a normal contrast negative. The real challenge for pushing is actual low-light shooting, which is about contrast control and shadow detail. In the case of shooting in actual darkness there is normally very little you can meaningfully do in the extreme upper ISO range, 1600/3200 is definitely doable well (again, provided the light cooperates), but it's (pushing) not magic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 05:37
|
|
|
Picked up 2 rolls each of Provia 100F, Elitechrome 100, and Ektachrome E100VS. I'm excited to shoot my first ever slides.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 06:24
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:You might want to have him bring you a can of Arista Premium 400 and/or Legacy Pro 100 from Freestyle, and roll your own. You'll get about 18-20 rolls from a 100' bulk roll, will work out pretty cheap. How would I go about doing that? What would I need?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 11:50
|
|
|
Schofferhofer posted:How would I go about doing that? What would I need? A bulk roller and some empty cannister. You need a darkroom to load the 100' spool of film into the loader, but after that you can do the loading in daylight.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 12:24
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:This is awesome and you need to shoot some of that, right now. I have no goddam idea what it will turn out like, but I'm intensely curious. Heh. I work at an art school and I often carry weird old cameras around on First Friday Art Walk. Something about a 26-year-old carrying 70+ year-old cameras tends to attract a lot of conversation from older photographers, which occasionally leads to "hey, I have a bunch of stuff and I switched to digital" chats. Those Pan cans came from the store I've been helping to clean out though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 15:09
|
|
|
Anybody have colour print recommendations for shooting landscapes? I was thinking maybe the new Portra 400 (probably a bit too fast though), any favourites?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 19:17
|
|
|
Reala is probably my favorite color negative film. Great color and saturation but not overdone, and it doesn't get the funny color shifts of Ektar.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 19:27
|
|
|
Ok, this is a semi-cross post from the MF thread. My father has a ton of developing gear in the basement. tongs, a tank, and expired fixer & developer from the early 70s. (not pictured: the fixer & some bromide stuff that sounds highly toxic) So I think I have the basics I need to shoot medium format. I have his old Rolleicord Vb that needs a service, but otherwise seems to be in decent shape. I think the developer tank is for 35mm, so I'll probably have to find a MF developer. I want to try my hand at MF, I have all the materials except film. I'm leaning towards a b&w film like Tri-X 400 or Ilford Delta 400. Maybe a 100 for bright day shooting. My first question: can I still use this expired developer & fixer? I think the fixer is the kodak hardening kind. Or should I just go for all-new stuff? If I take the (hopefully successfully) developed film, scan it on my crappy flatbed, and invert the negative in GIMP, that should have enough resolution for online use, right? I don't want to mess with printing just yet, unless I somehow get some Ansel Adams quality photos. Edited for table breakage. vvv Correction: I mean the developing tank is for 35mm reels. red19fire fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Mar 11, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 23:13
|
|
|
red19fire posted:Ok, this is a semi-cross post from the MF thread. My father has a ton of developing gear in the basement. tongs, a tank, and expired fixer & developer from the early 70s. Same chemicals for 35mm, MF/LF; it's the exact same emulsion, just cut into different sizes. I wouldn't try using any of those chemicals, just buy new. You can't scan negatives without a scanner meant for it, without a backlight you won't get an image. You can take a picture of the negatives with a macro lens on a DSLR and invert/tweak in PS, but a dedicated scanner is best. You can pick up an Epson V500 for $100-125 secondhand.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 23:25
|
|
|
It doesn't matter what format the film is, you can use the same developer. What does matter is that stuff probably dates to the 70s. I would keep it for playing around with later, it might still produce decent results if it's still sealed and dry, but you'll have enough issues at the start anyway. I would just buy yourself some new chemicals. That reel looks like an older type, but it probably twists apart and resizes for 120 development. Here's a list I made a while back that *should* have everything you need: Paul MaudDib posted:-Developing Tank #5041 You will only be able to scan your film if your scanner is designed to do it. Look in your manual to see. The light from the flatbed won't be enough to properly illuminate the film. If your scanner doesn't have a light in the lid, your other option is to make a lightbox of some kind that shines through it. An Epson V500 is only $125 or so nowadays and produces decent enough scans, especially on medium format. Your best choices for cheap film are Fuji Acros 100 (Rodinal/Microdol) and Kodak Tri-X 400 (Rodinal/HC-110). Ilford products are nice too but tend to be a bit more expensive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 23:29
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Your best choices for cheap film are Fuji Acros 100 (Rodinal/Microdol) and Kodak Tri-X 400 (Rodinal/HC-110). Ilford products are nice too but tend to be a bit more expensive. I'll second this. Acros 100 and Tri-X are my primary films. I'll use Delta 400 for shooting concerts, but not much else for film variety other than Shanghai GP 100 for screwing around with medium format cameras. Ilford is a little more expensive but if you bulk load, you're talking about a relatively small premium over Kodak or Fuji and it's kind of like buying fair trade coffee; I like supporting Ilford because black and white film is pretty much all they do other than photo paper.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2011 01:09
|
|
|
red19fire posted:Ok, this is a semi-cross post from the MF thread. My father has a ton of developing gear in the basement. tongs, a tank, and expired fixer & developer from the early 70s. Worth pointing out, if you included all the developer your father has in that picture, you don't have anything for film either way. Notice that the cans say "for photographic paper", it's for making prints only. Also, I believe Dektol has always been sold as powder, not liquid. The powder probably keeps better so it might actually still be usable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2011 02:02
|
|
|
Alright, my first film since my adult life. We got burned on a 35mm Konica Auto S3, and through that found a pristine Nikkormat FT2 SLR, this is the first test roll we shot, so I have some questions. What is causing the weird light leaks (i guess?) in these photos?  Sagan 01 by zachary.spradlin, on Flickr  Cosmo 01 by zachary.spradlin, on Flickr  Cosmo 02 by zachary.spradlin, on Flickr Testing my SB-600 Speedlight on this shot, worked...except the light leak thing   Cosmo & Sagan by zachary.spradlin, on Flickr And some normal ones;  Ericka 01 by zachary.spradlin, on Flickr And the last one I'll post; do you guys love how my wife's expression reflects whats going on with the dog as much as I do?  Ericka & Sagan in Distress by zachary.spradlin, on Flickr Anyway, sorry if this is spamming my poo poo, but I'm very interested in whats causing some of those light leak looking things, if anyone can help. Edit, should say this was shot on some average Kodak Gold 400ISO film, varying F-stops and Shutter speeds, even reduced the ISO to 200 for some of the indoor shots, but light leaks appear on the ISO400 and 200 exposures. RizieN fucked around with this message at 03:08 on Mar 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2011 03:04
|
|
|
Have you checked the seals around the back of the camera? Those streaks might be light shining through the sprocket holes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2011 03:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 12:26 |
|
|
I just now did, and to my very amateur eye it looks really nice and tight. Luckily I bought this one locally so I can take it back if theres a malfunction. But its only on certain shots, and there's really nothing linking the different shots together that I could link to a cause. I used a softbox light for some of them, but then some of the shots from the same session with the light turned out fine (except I over exposed them a little bit)
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2011 03:20
|
|