|
trip9 posted:Ugg, Fuji needs to hurry up and send Walmart back my first roll of film from my Pentax 6x7, I'm a digital child, I'm not used to having to wait a month to see how my photos turned out. I use Samy's in Santa Barbara for my send-out developing (they have the cheapest rates on color 4x5, put 120/35mm slides in there by default). Even with dirt-cheap regular mail from Florida, the turnaround is only like 2 weeks or a bit more.
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2011 12:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 03:16 |
|
|
krnhotwings posted:Wow, that sounds quite a bit much. As Dr. Cogwerks mentioned, the technique seems to make sense for LF since exposures are all on independent pieces of film. In all practicality, nobody's gonna carry around separate cameras for various lighting conditions, so I'd imagine this technique is a major pain in the rear end for any sort of roll film. Lots of medium format cameras come with interchangeable roll film backs. It's doable with 35mm, it's just that no one does it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2011 15:26
|
|
|
If you've got a local lab, make sure to use it - I can get E-6 120 developed same-day 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2011 18:17
|
|
|
dukeku posted:If you've got a local lab, make sure to use it - I can get E-6 120 developed same-day Mine's 45 minutes away and wants 3x what Samy's charges per sheet 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2011 18:42
|
|
|
Icon in LA doesn't do mailers but have personally told me they'd take mailed film. It's $6/roll with cash for E6 and 4 hr turnaround in town. (link: http://www.iconla.com/icon/) That said, I almost always rather wait a week, send it to AI via my local shop, and then pay more than drive to Icon, wait for 4 hours in mid-wilshire, then go home with slides.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2011 23:07
|
|
|
Is there anything I should look for in a lightbox or can I just buy a lovely one off ebay for $50. Im guessing size and colour temp are the things they want the most? Think I might get this http://cgi.ebay.com.au/A4-Light-Box-Light-Panel-Fuji-Kodak-Hasselblad-Toyo-/280644995902?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_15&hash=item4157becb3e Fists Up fucked around with this message at 03:55 on Mar 18, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 03:35
|
|
|
I got my film back from Dwayne's!  These are all Portra 160NC. I'll scan the Ektar tomorrow.    
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 05:55
|
|
|
Just ordered that Gakkenflex clone kit from DX. Should be interesting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 06:10
|
|
|
Fists Up posted:Is there anything I should look for in a lightbox or can I just buy a lovely one off ebay for $50. Im guessing size and colour temp are the things they want the most? Never mind this. Found that a solid white light on my iphone 4 works really well. And then I just use a loupe to view. Only 1 at a time on the screen but I didnt pay anything
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 07:54
|
|
|
Is anybody here familiar with the Japanese photographer Daido Moriyama? I've been looking at his work a lot recently and find it quite captivating. He uses either a Nikon FM w/ a 35mm f/2.8 or a P&S. I'm posting here because I want to know what kind of developing + printing tecniques (no scanning + photoshop!) I can use to create a look similar to his:   http://www.moriyamadaido.com/english/#/gallery/ As you can see, it's a lot grittier and crunchier than what I'm used to with Tri-x + D-76, but not lacking in detail in the slightest.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 18:48
|
|
|
Moriyama is fantastic. A lot of what you see in his prints is a result of high contrast filters and a loooot of dodging and burning. Film + developer combination has a lot less to do with extreme looks like his than shooting style and printing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 19:00
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Moriyama is fantastic. A lot of what you see in his prints is a result of high contrast filters and a loooot of dodging and burning. Film + developer combination has a lot less to do with extreme looks like his than shooting style and printing. Yeah, I wasn't asking so much about materials as processing. From what I've managed to gather, everything is severely underexposed and then overdeveloped to the point that the highlights just about clip. In the second attached photo, some heavy dodging appears obvious. Just wondering if anyone has experience with this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 19:38
|
|
|
Rednik posted:Yeah, I wasn't asking so much about materials as processing. From what I've managed to gather, everything is severely underexposed and then overdeveloped to the point that the highlights just about clip. In the second attached photo, some heavy dodging appears obvious. Just wondering if anyone has experience with this. Yeah, it's usually the stuff I do when I gently caress up on shooting the photo or developing the film and have to recover it in post. If you want the look of the first photo, just gently caress around with the levels until it gets there. As for the second one, you could try maxing out the highlight recovery slider, clicking OK, then going back and doing it over and over. Also try loving around with the levels on top of that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 19:42
|
|
|
HPL posted:Yeah, it's usually the stuff I do when I gently caress up on shooting the photo or developing the film and have to recover it in post. If you want the look of the first photo, just gently caress around with the levels until it gets there. As for the second one, you could try maxing out the highlight recovery slider, clicking OK, then going back and doing it over and over. Also try loving around with the levels on top of that. I'm trying to do it all at a sink and then on an enlarger, though. I've given up on scanning--I hate it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 23:36
|
|
|
If you're posting in this thread without knowing of the holy duology of Japanese photography that is Araki and Moriyama then you should get to studying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 23:56
|
|
|
I HATE CARS posted:If you're posting in this thread without knowing of the holy duology of Japanese photography that is Araki and Moriyama then you should get to studying. I use the same P&S camera as them. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 01:59
|
|
|
HPL posted:If you want the look of the first photo, just gently caress around with the levels until it gets there. As for the second one, you could try maxing out the highlight recovery slider, clicking OK, then going back and doing it over and over. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 05:21
|
|
|
Those look pushed as all hell. Try using 3200-speed film in daylight, or push Tri-X up to that, shake the gently caress out of it when developing if you want it to look even grainier, then print with a #4 or #5 contrast filter. Should get somewhere close with that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 13:56
|
|
is go
|
Does anyone here do their own C-41 at home and have a kit to recommend? I'm looking for something I can preferable use in relatively small batches without it going bad too quickly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 14:06
|
|
|
Dr. Cogwerks posted:Those look pushed as all hell. Try using 3200-speed film in daylight, or push Tri-X up to that, shake the gently caress out of it when developing if you want it to look even grainier, then print with a #4 or #5 contrast filter. Should get somewhere close with that. I'm trying a roll of Adox ISO 100 (a 1950's style high silver content emulsion) pushed to 1600 right now. I might overdevelop, too. I'll try and post the results when I'm done.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 23:51
|
|
|
Rednik posted:I'm trying a roll of Adox ISO 100 (a 1950's style high silver content emulsion) pushed to 1600 right now. I might overdevelop, too. I'll try and post the results when I'm done. Eeek, good luck with this! Curious to see how it turns out. Which developer are you using?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2011 00:03
|
|
|
Ok! I finally got all the chemicals, supplies, and a scanner. This has been a huge learning process for me, and I made quite a few mistakes, but drat is this fun! (Biggest mistake so far, not sealing a room completely, and hanging my film in a spot that ended up being dusty  ) img024 by Seant018, on Flickr  img022 by Seant018, on Flickr These are 2 of the pictures I liked best. I still need a lot of practice developing, and I also need to make sure I don't get dust on my negatives next time haha. This was Tri-X 400 at ISO 800, and a Olympus 35 EC2. Developer was HC-110 and scanned with an Epson V330 Edit: Developed a roll from my F80 that I am pretty happy with.  img038 by Seant018, on Flickr Sevn fucked around with this message at 00:24 on Mar 22, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2011 15:29
|
|
|
I've was saddened to see LegacyPro 100 go essentially out of stock on Freestyle, but I just noticed that they have it back in stock (along with the iso 400) in some random quantities. Now I have to decide if I want 20 rolls of a film I haven't even seen developed yet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2011 23:59
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Does anyone here do their own C-41 at home and have a kit to recommend? I'm looking for something I can preferable use in relatively small batches without it going bad too quickly. I've done E6 with tetenal kit and I was very happy with results, I imagine their C41 kit will be just as good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2011 00:10
|
|
|
BeastOfExmoor posted:I've was saddened to see LegacyPro 100 go essentially out of stock on Freestyle, but I just noticed that they have it back in stock (along with the iso 400) in some random quantities. Now I have to decide if I want 20 rolls of a film I haven't even seen developed yet. Yes. It's that good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2011 01:18
|
|
|
I have a sudden urge to learn how to make lith prints. Someone stop me before I spend more money
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2011 01:46
|
|
|
Can someone tell me what these spots are on my picture... Am I not rinsing it good enough, or is it because I am using tap water? img093 by Seant018, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2011 14:49
|
|
|
BeastOfExmoor posted:I've was saddened to see LegacyPro 100 go essentially out of stock on Freestyle, but I just noticed that they have it back in stock (along with the iso 400) in some random quantities. Now I have to decide if I want 20 rolls of a film I haven't even seen developed yet. edit: yay
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2011 15:19
|
|
|
Sevn posted:Can someone tell me what these spots are on my picture... Am I not rinsing it good enough, or is it because I am using tap water? Take a look at your negative, if it's brown and eating your image it's fixer, if it's white it's mineral fallout. It looks like fallout to me. I had really bad issues with it for a long time. I was using Kodak Photo Flo, I made a new batch with Arista Flo 200 and they stopped. I'm not sure if that was the solution, if the PF I was using was contaminated, or if I was making it too strong. Regardless, I highly suggest you make your chemicals with distilled water. It's like $1 a gallon here which will make a full batch of chemicals (sans developer). It will pay off in cleaner negatives. Be sure to squeegee them with your finger as well as possible. atomicthumbs posted:I have a sudden urge to learn how to make lith prints. Someone stop me before I spend more money I have the urge to do AZO contact printing from medium format with some kind of inter-negative, but I can't think of a good way to do it. Could I start with a MF negative, enlarge onto copy film (interpositive), then enlarge/contact print onto an inter-negative? BeastOfExmoor posted:I've was saddened to see LegacyPro 100 go essentially out of stock on Freestyle, but I just noticed that they have it back in stock (along with the iso 400) in some random quantities. Now I have to decide if I want 20 rolls of a film I haven't even seen developed yet. Yes, you do. It's Fuji Acros 100, and it's definitely the best 100-speed T-grain film made if not the best 100 speed b+w film made. It's sharp, has tight grain, excellent tonality, and insane reciprocity characteristics (+0 exposure at 1 to 1000 seconds). I love LegacyPro because it lets Fuji move more film than they could at full retail (which is still very reasonable for the quality). My greatest fear with film is a death spiral, wherein nobody shoots it because of the price, causing shorter runs of film, causing further increases in cost. I assume most of the demand at this point is from film devotees who are going to shoot *some* film regardless of the cost, but it could end up costing so much that they shoot fewer rolls. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 15:36 on Mar 22, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2011 15:29
|
|
|
Alright, I ordered a 20 pack which should last me a while. As far as I know the film is still discontinued but I hope they get Fuji to make them up another batch down the line.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2011 17:23
|
|
|
Anyone printed on Adorama Variable Grade RC paper? I'm still hunting for lower-priced OC-safelight-compatible paper. I tried some of the Arista Private Reserve (supposedly Adox MCP 312 or something) and wasn't super impressed. It wasn't bad once you got used to it, but it seemed like it has an extreme decrease in speed when printing with low contrast. Burning in the highlights took something like 3x the time of the base exposure. It worked fine for contact sheets and proof printing but Ilford MG was just more predictable. Fotokemika Varycon sounds great but it's red-safelight only.
Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Mar 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 19:01
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Anyone printed on Adorama Variable Grade RC paper? I'm still hunting for lower-priced OC-safelight-compatible paper. DON'T PRINT ON RC!!!
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 20:49
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:
Was meaning to ask, what's your wash procedure for fiber paper? Seems like a huge PITA/waste of water, and I don't have a print washer or one of those siphon trays. I just need to mix up dedicated batch of fixer for paper and I'll be good to go in my home darkroom.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 21:05
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:
What's wrong with RC? I know it's not traditional, and I know you need to keep the wet times to a minimum to avoid chemical absorption into the paper, but there didn't seem to be a huge advantage when I tried fiber. I tried Ilford MG IV RC vs Ilford MG IV FB. The tonal scale didn't seem longer or anything but processing it sure did take longer, the prints crinkle themselves as they dry, and the drydown made it trickier to figure out exposures unless I wanted to wait for them to dry. e: Perhaps untoned print life expectancy isn't as good as untoned FB? Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 21:19 on Mar 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 21:06
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Was meaning to ask, what's your wash procedure for fiber paper? Seems like a huge PITA/waste of water, and I don't have a print washer or one of those siphon trays. I just need to mix up dedicated batch of fixer for paper and I'll be good to go in my home darkroom. I do 10 mins of permawash, followed by 15 mins of running water wash. At the lab I use the agitating drum washer, but at home I just run water into my tray and keep it circulating. Paul MaudDib posted:What's wrong with RC? I know it's not traditional, and I know you need to keep the wet times to a minimum to avoid chemical absorption into the paper, but there didn't seem to be a huge advantage when I tried fiber. I tried Ilford MG IV RC vs Ilford MG IV FB. The tonal scale didn't seem longer or anything but processing it sure did take longer, the prints crinkle themselves as they dry, and the drydown made it trickier to figure out exposures unless I wanted to wait for them to dry. The problem is that it looks like rear end! The surface looks cheap (esp glossy), and the feel is too. It's only a couple bucks more for a pack, I just don't see why it's worth cutting the corner. I don't honestly know about the difference in tonal range between the two, because I don't have any comparisons. I used RC my first semester of photography, and went to fiber after that. So it's been a long time since switching that I've become competent enough to make a print that could benefit from the better paper. Tip for dry down: Use a hair dryer on your test strips! Or a microwave. I'm not kidding. Also, when it comes to dry down, I've found the highlights and midtones are much more susceptible to it than the blacks. I always check highlights and make sure they dry down correctly, and everything else seems to follow nicely. McMadCow fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Mar 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 21:22
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Was meaning to ask, what's your wash procedure for fiber paper? Seems like a huge PITA/waste of water, and I don't have a print washer or one of those siphon trays. I just need to mix up dedicated batch of fixer for paper and I'll be good to go in my home darkroom. Ilford's got a sequence designed to minimize water usage. quote:The ILFORD Archival Sequence is a method of processing fiber base papers for maximum longevity while reducing the amount of water and time used. The method, which was fully tested more than a decade ago, requires the use of a non-hardening rapid fixer mixed at film strength. After the paper has been developed and stopped, it is placed in such a fixer for 60 seconds with intermittent agitation. Next the paper is placed in a running wash for five minutes, followed by an immersion in ILFORD Wash Aid (1+4) for ten minutes with intermittent agitation. The end of the sequence requires an additional five minute running wash. I think you can replace the running wash sequences with tank inversions. Two possible sequences on Ilford's forum: quote:First Tank - Ten Inversions e: McMadCow posted:The problem is that it looks like rear end! The surface looks cheap (esp glossy), and the feel is too. It's only a couple bucks more for a pack, I just don't see why it's worth cutting the corner. I use Pearl, which seems okay. If you're doing serious work you're probably going to mount them and put them behind glass anyway, at which point the surface doesn't really matter. I found the highlight drydown to be the worst too. I'll have to try the hairdryer, but could you elaborate on the microwave technique? Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 21:26 on Mar 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 21:24
|
|
|
Per my earlier post, I just picked up a Nikon FM2n on ebay for relatively cheap. Since most of my father's developing gear is for 35mm, that's what I'm going to shoot. I think the ancient fixer & developer should be good for learning the ropes. He also said it's a pain in the rear end to load the reels. He also has a Hammacher-Schlemmer negative scanner, so hopefully that will work for another free option. The development database from the OP doesn't have a listing for using Tri-X 400 with the developer materials I have. Should I just use the post from the front page as a guide? Also, I think the developer solution is the hardening type, is this bad? My plan right now is to shoot a few rolls of BW400CN to get the hang of exposing while I read The Negative, gather materials, and get my ducks in a row for developing on my own.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 21:48
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:I'll have to try the hairdryer, but could you elaborate on the microwave technique? Sure, you stick a test strip in the microwave until it's dry.  I usually did 85 seconds iirc.Probably don't want to use it for food after that, though. We had a dedicated one at my school.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 21:54
|
|
|
^^^ OK, sounds good. FM2n's are nice, I need to pick one up someday. I know free is free, but from what I just read that scanner is pretty awful. If it actually meets its rated spec of 1800dpi it might be okay for web snapshots or 4x5 prints, but I doubt it will. Plan on picking up an Epson V500 at some point - they cost around $125. Dektol is a paper developer, so your mileage may vary. The Massive Dev Chart suggests 5 minutes, 1+10 dilution (1 part Dektol stock solution to 10 parts water), at 22C (get this exact). That's a really fast development so timing will be critical. Your clock starts when you pour in the solution (this counts as agitation), and ends when the last of the developer is out. To agitate, swirl the drum so the liquid moves like an upright washing machine, or gently invert 2-3x, then thump it on a table to knock out the bubbles. You'll probably want to agitate continuously for 30s, then 3s per 30s. Also, proper film developers aren't really expensive. It's $16 for a 500ml bottle of Compard R09 (Rodinal) at Freestyle, or about the same for a 500ml bottle of HC-110. Pick up some film while you're at it, AP400 is Tri-X and Legacy Pro 100 (Fuji Acros) is back in stock (probably for a limited time). Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Mar 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 22:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 03:16 |
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:^^^ OK, sounds good. Crap, someone already corrected me on that and I forgot. Looks like I'm buying new stuff after all. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 22:08
|
|