|
notlodar posted:The lovely lab in NYC always returns my film with crap on it Which lab were you using, just out of curiosity?
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2011 03:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 03:32 |
|
|
Mannequin posted:Which lab were you using, just out of curiosity? Usually they're okay, I'm willing to take the chance for their way lower prices. edit: i was able to get most of it off pec-padding, so it wasn't stuck to the emulsion, so that's fine. i would use them again (and will). it's rare that anything is dirty from them... notlodar fucked around with this message at 04:43 on Apr 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2011 04:03
|
|
|
Got my Argus C3. This thing is a hoot. It's even more simple and mechanical than a Russian rangefinder. If you've used medium or large format cameras before, the operation will be somewhat familiar since cocking the shutter is an entirely separate operation from winding the film. Focusing isn't bad because you don't just get a rangefinder patch, you get the whole rangefinder window to focus with. It's split 50/50 top and bottom. The design of the camera is one of those paradoxical things where it's both ugly and elegant at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2011 05:17
|
|
|
HPL posted:Got my Argus C3. This thing is a hoot. It's even more simple and mechanical than a Russian rangefinder. If you've used medium or large format cameras before, the operation will be somewhat familiar since cocking the shutter is an entirely separate operation from winding the film. Focusing isn't bad because you don't just get a rangefinder patch, you get the whole rangefinder window to focus with. It's split 50/50 top and bottom. I felt like such a nerd recognizing the Argus in Harry Potter 2. Also at Dumbledore opening the back of the camera to see if there was anything on the film  Actually I should have felt like nerd already for watching HP2, nevermind.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2011 15:30
|
|
|
Harry Potter has magic, moving film, doesn't it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2011 15:38
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Yeah, a few drops of Photo-Flo is all you need. run it between the pads of my thumb and index finger (no fingernails!) to get the gunk out, then hang it to dry in the shower. wow, exactly the same workflow. sometimes i'll use a latex glove though fwiw. either way works plenty well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2011 21:26
|
|
|
What's a decent and inexpensive scanner for negatives? The market seems to be full of cheap ones that get bad reviews. What do you guys use and what's a model that isn't too pricey?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2011 22:55
|
|
|
The Film Thread: Get an Epson V500/V600, maybe a Betterscanning Holder too edit- The Film Thread: I'm so baller, I shoot film  
Pompous Rhombus fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Apr 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2011 23:02
|
|
|
More than $20 per roll!? Welp, definately not getting any camera that takes instant film, then.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 01:43
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:More than $20 per roll!? Welp, definately not getting any camera that takes instant film, then. It's 4x5, so he's getting even less shots out of it than you though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 02:30
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:It's 4x5, so he's getting even less shots out of it than you though. Yeah, it works out to like $2.65/shot (still not terrible if you compare it to shooting color 4x5, although instant film isn't nearly as detailed). I used to be able to get the FP-100C45 short-dated on eBay for significantly less in bulk ($1.50-$1.65/shot), but the guy is no longer selling I guess. Will be a lot more stingy shooting and giving them out :-\
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 02:49
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:More than $20 per roll!? Welp, definately not getting any camera that takes instant film, then. Photography is an insane money pit. Large format photography is a black hole filled with money and tears.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 03:23
|
|
|
10 sheets of 8x10 Portra 160NC from B&H is $85. Color Developing 8x10 from North Coast Photographic Services is $7 per sheet. So each picture costs around $16. I think it's worth it if you're careful and take really good pictures.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 04:39
|
|
|
As a (trying-to-recover) devote of the "spray and pray" technique, I get the shakes just thinking about prices like that. I'm loving the home-developed C41 pictures that keep showing up in the dorkroom, and I've got a couple rolls of (probably expired) Kodak Gold 200 that I wouldn't mind ruining (they came free with some filters I bought second-hand on Pentaxforums). I've got exactly 1 successfully-developed roll of B&W notched on my camera strap, how ridiculous would it be for me to dive into C41? I understand colour is more sensitive to temperature than B&W and obviously I'll need to buy a few chemicals, but is there anything else I need to worry about? Are the negatives more vulnerable to dust and scratches?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 04:53
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:
Fixed that for you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 07:03
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:The Film Thread: Get an Epson V500/V600, maybe a Betterscanning Holder too How is the Epson V300? the 500 is a bit outside my price range, at least on Amazon it's ~$180, versus $80 for the V300. Also, is $5 for a roll of Tri-X a decent price?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 07:28
|
|
|
red19fire posted:Also, is $5 for a roll of Tri-X a decent price? $2.59 is better
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 07:35
|
|
|
notlodar posted:Harry Potter has magic, moving film, doesn't it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 08:00
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:As a (trying-to-recover) devote of the "spray and pray" technique, I get the shakes just thinking about prices like that. All you need is a tub of hot water and some containers to put the chemicals in and you'll be able to do your own C41. I process with the chemicals about 2 to 3 degrees hotter than they recommend and I've never had any problems. The negatives are just as robust as black and white, it really is just a hot version of b&w processing, check out the little guide I wrote a page or two ago, it should tell you nearly everything you need to know. My girlfriend successfully processed her first roll of film ever on Sunday and that was a roll of C41, so get a kit, some containers and give it a go.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 08:03
|
|
|
red19fire posted:How is the Epson V300? the 500 is a bit outside my price range, at least on Amazon it's ~$180, versus $80 for the V300. It is remarkably okay for an $80 scanner. Just remember:
In all seriousness, I received the V300 as a gift and I discovered its limitations fairly quickly. I'm a total loving amaetur when it comes to photography and I've only been shooting for about a year but I can already feel myself itching for a better scanner. I think I'm going to save up for a V700 though; if I'm gonna buy twice, I might as well get it right the second time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 09:15
|
|
|
King Hotpants posted:I think I'm going to save up for a V700 though; if I'm gonna buy twice, I might as well get it right the second time. You haven't lived til you've scanned with the v700 
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 10:18
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:As a (trying-to-recover) devote of the "spray and pray" technique, I get the shakes just thinking about prices like that. Yeah, a lot of LF is having the self-discipline not to just go "gently caress it" and take a pic you know is going to suck. I'd use a good roll of C-41 if you're experimenting with developing, if you do something wrong you won't really be able to distinguish your mistake from potentially bad film. Spedman posted:All you need is a tub of hot water and some containers to put the chemicals in and you'll be able to do your own C41. I process with the chemicals about 2 to 3 degrees hotter than they recommend and I've never had any problems. The negatives are just as robust as black and white, it really is just a hot version of b&w processing, check out the little guide I wrote a page or two ago, it should tell you nearly everything you need to know. My girlfriend successfully processed her first roll of film ever on Sunday and that was a roll of C41, so get a kit, some containers and give it a go. This is heartening, got the C-41 powder kit from Freestyle on the way  Will hopefully have time to scour Goodwill shops for a cheap slow cooker this weekend. With any luck, I won't be sending 120 out again. Maybe even 4x5!
Pompous Rhombus fucked around with this message at 13:22 on Apr 13, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 13:19
|
|
|
Moist von Lipwig posted:You haven't lived til you've scanned with the v700 We have v750s and a nikon super coolscan 5000 at my university lab. Free scans until the professors leave.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 13:24
|
|
|
Fiannaiocht posted:We have v750s and a nikon super coolscan 5000 at my university lab. Free scans until the professors leave. We apparently have an Imacon at our university photo department, but I don't know anyone there and I'm just staff/alum now -___-
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 14:22
|
|
|
Moist von Lipwig posted:You haven't lived til you've scanned with the v700 You haven't lived 'til you've scanned with the Nikon Super Coolscan 5000. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 14:25
|
|
|
VoodooXT posted:You haven't lived 'til you've scanned with the Nikon Super Coolscan 5000.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 17:27
|
|
|
.
Jose Pointero fucked around with this message at 05:05 on Aug 28, 2019 |
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 22:46
|
|
|
It depends on what enlarger (Omega C700?). At this point you should give 35mm enlargers a pass, a 6x7 enlarger might be worth $50, a 4x5 enlarger might be worth $100-200. The stuff is probably worth an extra $25-50 on top of it, again depending on precisely what he's got. It'd cost a lot more than that to buy it new, but there's a lot of old darkrooms sitting in boxes now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 22:53
|
|
|
.
Jose Pointero fucked around with this message at 05:06 on Aug 28, 2019 |
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 23:12
|
|
|
King Hotpants posted:It is remarkably okay for an $80 scanner. Just remember: Thanks, I'll take this into consideration. The V500 comes bundled with Photoshop Elements, so that might make it a stronger investment. I'm also curious if it will work with my linux computers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2011 00:27
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:We have a Coolscan V in the office because one of our biology professors has 40 years worth of slides he needed scanned. Compared to it, flatbeds are nothing. Seriously, dedicated film scanners are like orgasms in film scanning equipment form. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2011 00:59
|
|
|
Has anyone had much luck shooting Provia 400x pushed a stop or two, in an automatic point-and-shoot? I hate how negatives scan, but I'm afraid that correct exposure will be a complete crapshoot with pushed slides. On the topic of scanners... I'm not sure if it's been brought up here, but the company that makes those junky 35mm scanners that are all over ebay is supposedly releasing one in June that scans both 35mm and 120... I'm not optimistic but maybe it'll be better than a flatbed. http://www.scanace.com/product/pf_120.html
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2011 01:39
|
|
|
VoodooXT posted:You haven't lived 'til you've scanned with the Nikon Super Coolscan 5000.  OuchI never shoot 35 so a coolscan is worse than useless for me 
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2011 02:22
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #20 posted:Has anyone had much luck shooting Provia 400x pushed a stop or two, in an automatic point-and-shoot? I hate how negatives scan, but I'm afraid that correct exposure will be a complete crapshoot with pushed slides. I've shot 400x at 1600 and 3200 in an SLR. The latter was pretty awful but the former was surprisingly decent. I didn't find it harder to expose than slide film is ususally.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2011 03:25
|
|
|
red19fire posted:Thanks, I'll take this into consideration. The V500 comes bundled with Photoshop Elements, so that might make it a stronger investment. I'm also curious if it will work with my linux computers. I use my 4490 with the linux version of Vuescan, and it works exactly as well as it does in Windows. I'd assume the V500 also works fine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2011 04:24
|
|
|
Jose Pointero posted:Thanks for the quick comeback. Why pass on 35mm? That's what I'll be using for a while at least. Plus I see enough enlargers pass through craigslist here that I could probably move up to larger format easily later on if I wanted to. Quality: A medium format enlarger is more "pro" gear so it may be easier to find spares/upgrades if you need them (and you're probably less likely to need them). It's heavier, so it should be more resistant to shaking. A lot of the consumer-grade 35mm enlargers aren't built so well and are in pretty bad shape at this point. By putting your negative in the center of the light circle, you should guarantee there's no falloff (I suspect consumer enlargers suffer from this). Cost: It's easier to resell (people who are still enlarging often shoot medium format). I've seen 35mm enlargers sit on Craigslist for a while here. You guarantee you won't have to rebuy if you decide to switch to medium format. I know you say you don't plan to, but you never know what you'll find at a garage sale and it's a big increase in quality for not much extra cost. Basically, there's some potential upsides and medium format enlargers are still dirt cheap anyway. 35mm enlargers should basically be free at this point. On the other hand, if it's in good condition and does what you need, that's what counts. I couldn't find an Omega C enlarger, maybe it's a C700? If so, those look well-built. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 15:02 on Apr 14, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2011 14:55
|
|
|
  Sending this to Australia with the R2/Ultron I'm selling to a goon in Perth. God bless you, USPS flat rate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2011 15:01
|
|
|
Would laugh if they X-rayed the gently caress out of that box  ..... 
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2011 18:12
|
|
|
What's the deal with ISO200 film?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2011 19:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 03:32 |
|
|
GWBBQ posted:What's the deal with ISO200 film? British summer? 400 is too bright but 125 is a bit optimistic Zegnar fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Apr 14, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2011 20:40
|
|