|
red19fire posted:Crap, someone already corrected me on that and I forgot. Looks like I'm buying new stuff after all. Thanks! Well, film developing is the same idea as paper developing, I think the developers are just more active. If you're in a hurry to get started and you are willing to wash the gently caress out of them (you have no fixer remover) and risk some mineral fallout (you have no photo-flo), it could be done.
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 22:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 12:38 |
|
|
red19fire posted:He also has a Hammacher-Schlemmer negative scanner, so hopefully that will work for another free option. I'm pretty sure that that same model of scanner has been rebranded by pretty much everyone, and is complete junk. Someone tell me if I've mistaken it for the one that is junk.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 04:20
|
|
|
Has anyone used any infrared films? Not looking to make a steady diet of them but something neat to play with. If you had what are your experiences with it, and is a big pain in the rear end to load/develop ect.?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 14:30
|
|
|
Disclaimer: I haven't used infrared films. From what I've read, processing them is kind of a bitch. Infrared light is extremely hard to keep out, so you have to do crazy things like loading the camera inside a changing bag inside a darkroom. If your camera has a plastic window on back, it'll need to be taped over. Make sure you've got good light seals too. If it uses an infrared sprocket counter to advance the film, it can't be used. Some plastic developing tanks may also be semi-transparent to infrared. Kodak HIE is good if you can afford it. I've also read good things about Rollei Infrared 400. If you want color, EIR is only available in 120 cut down from 70mm rolls which are being discontinued. The seller is taking orders for his last roll now. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 16:30 on Mar 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 15:26
|
|
|
What kind of postprocessing do you guys think this guy could have used, if any, to create the look in these Velvia 50 photos? Or is he just exposing them differently? Untitled by Tyler Love, on Flickr  Untitled by Tyler Love, on Flickr  Untitled by Tyler Love, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 18:03
|
|
|
Just looks a bit underexposed to me (but on an uncalibrated monitor at work).
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 18:26
|
|
|
Definitely underexposing. edit: and apparently those are 100F, which definitely has a slightly different look than 50.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 19:12
|
|
|
That's actually surprisingly understated for velvia  . Might have to try underexposing more often.
Moist von Lipwig fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Mar 25, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 23:19
|
|
|
Moist von Lipwig posted:That's actually surprisingly understated for velvia Velvia 100F is like Velvia 50's super chill cousin.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2011 02:45
|
|
|
Moist von Lipwig posted:That's actually surprisingly understated for velvia
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2011 03:25
|
|
|
I've always heard that you overexpose Velvia to reduce craziness, underexposure results in even more saturation. Velvia 100F is a bit different of course, a bit more mild mannered. I actually rather like it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2011 04:26
|
|
|
You overexpose Velvia to blow highlights.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2011 04:34
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:You overexpose Velvia to blow highlights. Well, yeah that too. The advice given out is to overexpose it 1/3rd. But it's not something I've ever done or will ever do intentionally.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2011 05:06
|
|
|
Hey there! First time I've posted in the film thread, and I'm looking to make a pinhole camera to set up and do some solargraphy exposures. I'll try use an 80s-era 35mm film SLR as I can get one of these cheap (<$50 NZ second-hand), and there is a wide variety available for my perusal but I'm not sure what one to get. Could someone please tell me what camera I should buy. Also, I will require one not requiring batteries as this setup will be running for several months and I don't wish to have it powered for all of that time, for obvious reasons. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2011 08:39
|
|
|
Auditore posted:Hey there! First time I've posted in the film thread, and I'm looking to make a pinhole camera to set up and do some solargraphy exposures. I'll try use an 80s-era 35mm film SLR as I can get one of these cheap (<$50 NZ second-hand), and there is a wide variety available for my perusal but I'm not sure what one to get. Could someone please tell me what camera I should buy. You don't even need an actual camera to do stuff like this. You're better off just making something out of a box or a tube like these things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2011 10:10
|
|
|
I made a pin-hole camera out of a shoe-box in middle-school. So, you don't actually need a "real camera" per se...you just need to understand exposure, and film sizes (at least as far as how much light is going to expose how much of the size of film you're exposing (I think...) Pin Hole photography seems simple enough for anyone, but you at least have to know the fundamentals, which I don't think are too terribly hard to grasp. however, if you own an SLR or DSLR you can buy an offbrand body-cap for your camera, and do some drilling/modification to do digital/film SLR pinhole photography without buying a whole kit. Of course, as far as I understand its just as easy to poke a hole in a shoebox and expose that way, just google the basics of the technique, and I'm some DORKroom  experts can help you refine the technique.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2011 10:17
|
|
|
RizieN posted:I made a pin-hole camera out of a shoe-box in middle-school. So, you don't actually need a "real camera" per se...you just need to understand exposure, and film sizes (at least as far as how much light is going to expose how much of the size of film you're exposing (I think...) In all honesty I don't mind buying an actual camera and explore whether it can be done that way, if it's gonna be up on my roof or wherever for 3+ months I might as well do it well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2011 10:24
|
|
|
Another protip: When shooting 135 film with a manually wound camera, be careful when near the last frame. Today I used a bit too much force when hitting the last frame, and I managed to snap the film inside the canister. I couldn't wind it back. (I should have been smart, played it safe, and not open the camera. Then bring it home and open it in the darkroom.) On that note, any guidelines for developing C41 with b/w chemistry? Which is what I'd have ended up doing if I hadn't ruined it instead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2011 22:44
|
|
|
Auditore posted:In all honesty I don't mind buying an actual camera and explore whether it can be done that way, if it's gonna be up on my roof or wherever for 3+ months I might as well do it well. Honestly, your biggest hurdle for this is going to be reciprocity failure if you want to do months-long exposures.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2011 02:07
|
|
|
Auditore posted:Hey there! First time I've posted in the film thread, and I'm looking to make a pinhole camera to set up and do some solargraphy exposures. I'll try use an 80s-era 35mm film SLR as I can get one of these cheap (<$50 NZ second-hand), and there is a wide variety available for my perusal but I'm not sure what one to get. Could someone please tell me what camera I should buy. I've been doing some experiments like that too with sunprint paper and darkroom paper and I think you'd be better off skipping the 35MM camera. Solargraphy usually uses paper negs, not film, and at 35MM, a paper neg is pretty useless. Just too little space to work with. I've been using old box cameras, folders, and pseudo-TLRs from 1900-1950 for my own attempts- started with paper negatives in developer, trying blueprint paper now, hoping to move on to solargraphs next. These things are super cheap ($5-$20), millions of them are floating around in junk shops and on eBay. Here's a paper negative (but not a solargraph) I made with a $5 Duaflex IV from a garage sale:   Paper Negative by epomorski, on Flickr With the rotary shutters on these things, you can pretty much just click it onto Bulb mode and tape the shutter release down. This worked pretty well for several minute exposures on paper negatives that went into developer. For solargraphs, I'd imagine it'd work better than sticking an SLR's shutter open for months at a time. Old folding cameras usually have a "T" mode which is even more useful for this kind of thing: click once to open the shutter, walk away, click again to close it. I've got a nifty Kodak No.3A (~1910) that I've been trying to fix up for just that purpose, bellows still need some work. However, even with a box or a folder, any proper lens might still be too bright for that length of time - really, really long solargraph exposures would be pinhole territory, in which case you might as well just build your own box and design it around big paper sheets at either 5x7 or 8x10. There's nothing in a 35MM camera that would really help you in this sort of application, a cardboard (or plastic) box would actually be a much better tool for the job. edit- I'm guessing you already know about this guy, but if not, check these out. Michael Wesely:   And a writeup about his process: http://www.itchyi.co.uk/thelatest/2010/7/20/the-longest-photographic-exposures-in-history.html?ref=nf Dr. Cogwerks fucked around with this message at 04:27 on Mar 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2011 04:01
|
|
is go
|
I decided to play the "I have money in the bank" game and loaded a B&H shopping cart full of various 120 films in a number of desired quantities... Anyone got $307.45 I can borrow?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2011 04:25
|
|
|
Dr. Cogwerks posted:
I.G. fucked around with this message at 05:26 on Mar 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2011 05:23
|
|
|
I.G. posted:These are really cool. How does he calculate the correct exposure? It seems like you'd have extreme reciprocity failure. The article isn't very specific. It sounds like he calculated the reciprocity by doing tests at one month, two months, three months, then half a year before getting into the big ones. Since he's actually using real lenses though, I don't know how he's restricting the light enough. I wish he stated it. Ultimate ND filter perhaps?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2011 12:25
|
|
|
Dr. Cogwerks posted:It sounds like he calculated the reciprocity by doing tests at one month, two months, three months, then half a year before getting into the big ones. Large format and a teeny tiny aperture as well? Ansel & Co. used to like shooting at f/64.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2011 16:15
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:I decided to play the "I have money in the bank" game and loaded a B&H shopping cart full of various 120 films in a number of desired quantities... Anyone got $307.45 I can borrow? The only way to win is not to play 
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2011 20:06
|
|
|
Just bought an Argus C3 off of eBay. I intend to shoot a concert with it just for the sake of it even if I have to push my film to insane speeds for decent shutter speeds at f/3.5. Gotta maintain my rep as the craziest concert photographer in town.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2011 20:57
|
|
|
I got my 20 pack of Legacy Pro 100 from Freestyle last night. In case anyone cares, their "Short Date" film lists experation as 2011-01. I wonder if they just lost a few cases. Either way, it shouldn't matter much for B&W right? It's already in the fridge.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2011 21:45
|
|
|
Got some cheap film developed: CNV000017 by spf3million, on Flickr  CNV000022 by spf3million, on Flickr  CNV000007 by spf3million, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2011 02:27
|
|
|
Currently scanning some of the expired Kodak Gold 200 I shot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2011 23:40
|
|
|
Dr. Cogwerks posted:It sounds like he calculated the reciprocity by doing tests at one month, two months, three months, then half a year before getting into the big ones. I think it's probably also the fact that he was shooting at ISO 2. At f/22 that would be pretty slow. Anyone have experience buying eBay film? I'm hesitant but it seems like a god-drat goldmine of cheap film, especially for stuff like 4x5 where you have auctions like this one. Moist von Lipwig fucked around with this message at 13:06 on Mar 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2011 09:38
|
|
|
Moist von Lipwig posted:I think it's probably also the fact that he was shooting at ISO 2. At f/22 that would be pretty slow. I buy a lot of film on ebay. Just make sure you aren't paying more for it at an auction that you would at a retailer. I have seen expired film go for equal to or more the cost of ordering from B&H. I try to buy stuff that's no more than 2 years expired and not more than half the price of new film.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2011 19:21
|
|
|
I finally got around to scanning and processing some of my 35mm Velvia slides. Cupressus Sargentii by atomicthumbs, on Flickr  Cleaved by atomicthumbs, on Flickr I may have tweaked the green curve a little much  Lichenometry by atomicthumbs, on Flickr  Erosive by atomicthumbs, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 06:01
|
|
|
I've begun putting the Tri-X and Spotmatic to good use again. The rear lens element of the Takumar lens is incredibly yellowed, meaning that I've had to fix quite a bit of underexposure. bw009 by Zombotron, on Flickr  bw010 by Zombotron, on Flickr  bw014-crop by Zombotron, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 10:40
|
|
|
Zombotron posted:I've begun putting the Tri-X and Spotmatic to good use again. The rear lens element of the Takumar lens is incredibly yellowed, meaning that I've had to fix quite a bit of underexposure. Free yellow filter! Or: http://nortega.com/fastest-tool-to-clear-yellowed-thorium-lenses/
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 11:59
|
|
|
Zombotron posted:I've begun putting the Tri-X and Spotmatic to good use again. The rear lens element of the Takumar lens is incredibly yellowed, meaning that I've had to fix quite a bit of underexposure. The meter in the camera should be compensating for it. You may not be developing enough or metering off the wrong part of the scene.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2011 15:19
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:I finally got around to scanning and processing some of my 35mm Velvia slides.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2011 07:06
|
|
|
Cross posted with SAD. I think Pompous Rhombus was looking at doing some home C41, I couldn't help but do some myself (kit only cost 15 quid), turned out to be much easier than E6. I did a roll of Portra 160NC and a roll of Superia 400 in the same tank and they both came out pretty nicely, here's some from the Portra: Shaded by mr_student, on Flickr  Forth Bridge by mr_student, on Flickr  Dalgety Bay + E by mr_student, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2011 09:24
|
|
|
Are you kidding? That looks gorgeous. Where do you learn how to do that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2011 09:29
|
|
|
I promised pictures, so I am trying to keep up with posting pictures as I develop. This is as far as I have strayed from the comfort zone so far. Neopan 400 & 100, and I didn't exactly follow the dev chart, but I like the way it turned out. test by DarSevn, on Flickr I only did tones and curves, and the scratches because I still suck at developing. And one more  img183 by DarSevn, on Flickr Sevn fucked around with this message at 19:47 on Mar 30, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2011 18:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 12:38 |
|
|
Taking a road trip to Chicago tomorrow. I'm bringing the FM2n, 50mm f/2, BW400CN and my sekonic 308s light meter. The Fm2n meter appears to be overexposing by a stop (which is apparently normal), so I'll keep the 308 in my pocket for correct exposure, James Nachtwey style. Hopefully I'll get some good stuff out of it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2011 02:40
|
|
