|
Well I've developed my first batch of film ever, some Ilford HP5 ISO400 with sprint developer. Will post some scans once I've figured out how to upload them... edit: here they are! i'm only posting here because i don't know poo poo about critiquing and the nazis in photo-a-day don't allow you to post without doing so...    
Suicide Watch fucked around with this message at 01:15 on Apr 15, 2011 |
#
?
Apr 15, 2011 00:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 15:09 |
|
|
Zegnar posted:British summer? 400 is too bright but 125 is a bit optimistic Actually ... In Scotland I shoot 100 pushed to 200 in the summer, and 100 pushed to 400 in the winter. So pretty much, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2011 03:58
|
|
|
Hello! So I bought 100feet of the Legacy 100 expired film. I don't have have enough canisters to load all 18 rolls so I'm going to have the store the rest. Any suggestions on how to store it? In the metal tin and just throw it in the freezer? Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2011 04:43
|
|
|
Moist von Lipwig posted:I never shoot 35 so a coolscan is worse than useless for me Unless I had bought the Coolscan 9000 like I had originally planned, then I could wave my giant film scanning dick. But I figured that it'd be overkill and I wouldn't even shoot MF, so why pay more? I kinda regret it now. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2011 05:22
|
|
|
.
Jose Pointero fucked around with this message at 05:07 on Aug 28, 2019 |
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2011 05:51
|
|
|
Speaking of enlargers, if I get one without contrast filters, how badly will that affect prints made on multigrade paper?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2011 06:11
|
|
|
I think they print at 2 contrast under most lights, but you can also buy multigrade filters for your contrast adjustment needs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2011 06:43
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Speaking of enlargers, if I get one without contrast filters, how badly will that affect prints made on multigrade paper? On multigrade paper it really wont affect them. No filter is basically the same contrast range as a #2 filter. Graded paper is where you'll see differences. Get filters, though. They're like $20 a set. If you're stuck on #2 or its equal, it's unlikely you'll get anything very interesting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2011 06:43
|
|
|
Bongodrums posted:Hello! Umm, in the bulk loader? nielsm posted:Speaking of enlargers, if I get one without contrast filters, how badly will that affect prints made on multigrade paper? You can buy your own contrast filters. I've had a really hard time finding info about my enlarger so no idea if there's a filter drawer I can buy, but I picked up a set that clamps to the lens that should be useable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2011 12:50
|
|
|
Jose Pointero posted:Cool. Did ya scan with a flatbed I'm guessing? I'm gonna have to figure out a good way of scanning mine in a few weeks. In case it hasn't been said on this page yet, buy an Epson V500  You can develop color film in Rodinal. I tried it last spring, I want to say it was 1:100 stand developed for 1hr. There's no way to get rid of the brown base mask, so you can't really enlarge it. The image will be very faint, there's not as much emulsion as B+W film. Overexposing one stop might help this a bit. You'll also need to wash really well (preferably in a column washer) because there's some kind of backing. The grain is pretty big (that was 200 speed) and there were some bubbles or emulsion flakes, I don't know if it was my fault or if it's more delicate. You should be able to get it to scan, but if you want perfect results it's a lot easier to just use B+W film for B+W or desaturate from a color negative. I had a bunch of free C-41 and wanted to experiment. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 15:51 on Apr 15, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2011 15:27
|
|
|
I need to find someplace to set up a damned darkroom already. Just scored a free medium-format enlarger today while helping out again at that going-out-of-business camera store... It's a gently caress-all huge Omega B-3, circa 1950. It's got a 6x9cm carrier, an "Autofocus" track, a Wollensak Enlarging Raptar 90mm lens, and an extra bellows on the top so you can adjust the condenser lenses for other enlarging lens lengths. It was supposed to cost fifty bucks, but when were testing the bulb on it, I saw that the top condenser lens had apparently cracked and cleanly lost an edge... so the store owner changed it to "free or it goes in the dumpster." Didn't notice any problem in the actual projected image though. Also went home with another bulk loader full of mystery film (what the hell has a pearlescent light pink emulsion?) and about a thousand sheets of various ancient papers - Kodak AZO, Portralure, Ektamatic (some temp process stuff with developer already in the paper), Kodabromide, Afga Brovira and Portriga, and Ilford Ilfobrom, as well as a box of 4x5 Kodalith film. All were dated from 1965 through 1980, free because the seals were broken and some sheets had already been used. It'll be neat to see if anything still works through the age fog, some of them have amusing surfaces like "tweed" and a few are pretty sought after still. If anyone with enlarger access is interested in experimenting, I could probably put together some little paper samplers to mail out once I figure out what's still viable in there. Snagged a Zorki 6 rangefinder for $15 too, so there's another fun thing to screw around with. It's kinda cute. I have too many goddamned cameras now
Dr. Cogwerks fucked around with this message at 02:15 on Apr 17, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 01:45
|
|
is go
|
I just loaded a bunch of rolls of Technical Pan. I'm curious to see how it does with different developers, would a few of you guys be willing to experiment for me if I sent you some?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 02:15
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:I just loaded a bunch of rolls of Technical Pan. I'm curious to see how it does with different developers, would a few of you guys be willing to experiment for me if I sent you some? Got a bulk roll of it? I found a couple packs of the proper Technidol developer down in that basement a few weeks ago, should have an extra pack or two after I develop my two rolls if you'd like some. Seriously expired, not sure of how well it's going to work. Rodinal at heavy dilution (1:100 or more) supposedly works decently for tech pan, Photographer's Formulary sells a new adaptation of the Technidol recipe too. Dr. Cogwerks fucked around with this message at 02:19 on Apr 17, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 02:17
|
|
|
Dr. Cogwerks posted:Got a bulk roll of it? I found a couple packs of the proper Technidol developer down in that basement a few weeks ago, should have an extra pack or two after I develop my two rolls if you'd like some. Seriously expired, not sure of how well it's going to work. edit: I think orange lime called dibs on a roll if I ever got a bulk roll of Tech Pan, but I haven't seen him post in here in a while. What's the trick again? look in the mirror ans say "M42" seven times? GWBBQ fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Apr 17, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 02:33
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:I would love some, I can't find it anywhere online. It's powdered stuff, right? Yeah. It's probably pretty damned old, as just about everything else there was. Was nice to pick some up for free when the place at the other side of town wanted $17 for the same stuff, just as expired. My apartment is completely trashed now after acquiring so much stuff there, but I think I know where it ended up. There should have been more than 2 packs in there, takes about one packet per tank. USPS might bitch about mailing chemistry around though. By the way, do you use the IRC channel at all? I don't have PM. edit: It'd be rad to start organizing some dorkroom swaps. I've got a fuckton of expired c-41 stuff now, much more than I can really afford to develop and use, along with a bunch of weird things in those bulk loaders. (and dammit, I need to start posting photos again, I've got a backlog of a dozen or so rolls still waiting to be scanned since my laptop's power adapter pooched out.) Dr. Cogwerks fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Apr 17, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 02:50
|
|
|
I just bought half a dozen rolls of Kodak Tmax in 135 format (3 of 400, 3 of 100). If there's more film floating around the dorkroom for experiments / take-it-off-my-hands / expired weirdness I'm very interested. I don't have the ability to turn bulk film into rolls that fit in my camera, but I'm happy with my developer set up (Ilford chems) and I'm more than willing to try some new thing. I'm planning to try C-41 process at home at some point this year, probably in the next month or two. Mailing chemicals shouldn't be a problem unless they're condsidered dangerous goods. Try googling the ingredients if it doesn't just flat out say "dangerous goods" on the package. Most chemical powders are not dangerous goods, in my experience. EDIT: It just occurred to me I might be mis-interpreting GWBBQ. Are you proposing to send out rolls that you've already exposed, to compare developers? I'm down with that, too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 02:57
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Umm, in the bulk loader? I'm going to load around 3 rolls then I need to store the rest. Should I just throw the film back into the metal tin it comes in and toss it in the freezer?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 03:31
|
|
|
Bongodrums posted:I'm going to load around 3 rolls then I need to store the rest. Should I just throw the film back into the metal tin it comes in and toss it in the freezer? Toss the whole loader in the freezer still loaded.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 06:27
|
|
|
Jose Pointero posted:Cool. Did ya scan with a flatbed I'm guessing? I'm gonna have to figure out a good way of scanning mine in a few weeks. Scans were made in a Nikon Coolscan V. It's awesome, as you can tell. All my screwups in development and handling show up very clearly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 07:58
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:I just loaded a bunch of rolls of Technical Pan. I'm curious to see how it does with different developers, would a few of you guys be willing to experiment for me if I sent you some?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 08:17
|
|
|
Dr. Cogwerks posted:I need to find someplace to set up a damned darkroom already. Just scored a free medium-format enlarger today while helping out again at that going-out-of-business camera store... It's a gently caress-all huge Omega B-3, circa 1950. It's got a 6x9cm carrier, an "Autofocus" track, a Wollensak Enlarging Raptar 90mm lens, and an extra bellows on the top so you can adjust the condenser lenses for other enlarging lens lengths. It was supposed to cost fifty bucks, but when were testing the bulb on it, I saw that the top condenser lens had apparently cracked and cleanly lost an edge... so the store owner changed it to "free or it goes in the dumpster." Didn't notice any problem in the actual projected image though. Grab a new lens for that enlarger, what used to be top-shelf enlarging lenses are going for dirt cheap now. I've got a Componon and a Rodagon just because I couldn't justify spending any less money on an EL-Nikkor  What lens did the Zorki come with? I've had great experiences with the two Jupiter-8's I've owned.I have my darkroom set up but still haven't tried it out, been busy with work lately and I feel kind of daunted not having taken a class on it and just working from books/the internet. Some relatives are visiting in 2 weeks so I'll have to take it down temporarily, I think that's going to give me the push to actually start. Has anyone else been in a similar situation (no class/mentor, just working from instructions)? I know the basics aren't rocket science, but it's definitely a step up in difficulty from developing my own B&W. On that, C-41 powder kit arrived today. I'm gonna buy some proper bottles for it. edit, missed this: Suicide Watch posted:Well I've developed my first batch of film ever, some Ilford HP5 ISO400 with sprint developer. That first one is some great use of multiple exposures. The last one it looks like you have some poo poo on your film, are you using a wetting agent after you rinse? Pompous Rhombus fucked around with this message at 14:17 on Apr 17, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 14:14
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Has anyone else been in a similar situation (no class/mentor, just working from instructions)? I know the basics aren't rocket science, but it's definitely a step up in difficulty from developing my own B&W. Yep. I read as much as I could beforehand, but there was a ton of stuff that I was unclear on. Once I made my first few prints, it all came together and started to make sense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 16:48
|
|
|
I got me some stuffs for free the other day. My first K-1000 with the standard f/2.0 50mm and a 80-200 f/4 that is some kind of korean lens (I can't find a brand on it) I already had the Promaster body and lens. (it was my $3 goodwill find I posted about a while back.)  Film Cameras-4782-Edit.jpg by jdorseydesign, on Flickr  Film Cameras-4800-Edit-Edit.jpg by jdorseydesign, on Flickr Edit: I just did some googling, and I think this 80-200 is a Sears branded Korean made lens. Like this one maybe http://cgi.ebay.com/SEARS-80-200MM-F-4-MACRO-ZOOM-LENS-PENTAX-KR-MT-/370483356583 echobucket fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Apr 17, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 22:34
|
|
|
CPC is the brand name, going by what's printed on the front of the lens. They just rebadged other manufacturers' gear, so it may very well be the same make as that Sears one you linked.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 23:26
|
|
|
I had a CPC 70-200 when I shot Pentax and it was actually a pretty decent lens. Wasn't going to win any awards, but it wasn't total crap either.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 23:55
|
|
|
I've got a CPC 80-200/4.5 in Canon FD mount that I haven't actually shot anything with yet (just used the basic 50 for the first test roll), glad to hear that it might not be crap.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 00:13
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Grab a new lens for that enlarger, what used to be top-shelf enlarging lenses are going for dirt cheap now. I've got a Componon and a Rodagon just because I couldn't justify spending any less money on an EL-Nikkor I'll look into those lenses, this one sounds kinda meh and it's a bit scuffed. I need to conserve money for awhile though, the financial gap between spring and summer teaching contracts is pretty harsh, need to stop myself from buying any more camera junk for awhile. The Zorki came with the Industar 50 f3.5 (Tessar clone). Seems like the rangefinder is out of alignment, it looked alright indoors when compared to the scale focus marks, but it's not matching up at infinity. Sounds like it's easy enough to fix though, and it's a pretty satisfying camera to hold and shoot... however, the roll of Neopan SS I've got in there is really difficult to advance, I can hear it squeaking and grinding its way out of the canister. Kinda sucks. Dr. Cogwerks fucked around with this message at 09:23 on Apr 18, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 04:17
|
|
|
I finally got my third roll of Chicago BW400CN from Walgreens, thought I would share the results if anyone was interested. Does Walgreens push film if it's underexposed? There's a couple of shots that are grainy as hell that I think I underexposed. more bean by Chris Hayden Photo, on Flickr  R1-07014-003A by Chris Hayden Photo, on Flickr Anyway, I mentioned to my dad that I was using film, and he gave me a plastic bag full of film! Kodak Max 400, Kodak Gold 200 & 100, Fujicolor Super G Ace 400 (purchased in Japan!), Fujicolor Superia 400, and a single roll of BW400CN. All of these rolls have been stored in the refrigerator since approximately 1992, it should still be good, right? Or at least make for some interesting results? Also, he has two rolls of Seattle Film Works film that use a special process called SFW-XL. Apparently it's a proprietary process that only SFW could do at the time, but they have since gone out of business. Does anyone know if I can do that process myself, or at least get decent results cross-processing with C41?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 04:20
|
|
|
They would only scan it harder or whatever the word is for shadow gain, Walgreens doesn't push C41 AFAIK. I too recently inherited a mini stack of 5 rolls of new Kodak Gold 100, expiry July 2000, fairly sure stored in a dresser drawer. Will it be complete poo poo or can it be saved?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 04:23
|
|
|
red19fire posted:Also, he has two rolls of Seattle Film Works film that use a special process called SFW-XL. Apparently it's a proprietary process that only SFW could do at the time, but they have since gone out of business. Does anyone know if I can do that process myself, or at least get decent results cross-processing with C41? My dad used to shoot Seattle Film Works stuff on all of our hiking trips. It's usually kinda lovely, they sold surplus movie film that was repackaged into 35mm cassettes. SFW-XL is actually "ECN-2" processing, which some places can still do by mailorder if you're willing to bother. Edit: Quick research suggests it can shed its backing layers in C41 chemistry and screw up the minilab machines. so labs won't crossprocess it. However, you can either be hardcore and mix up your own ECN-2 chemistry as like one or two people on APUG did, or home process it in C-41 yourself - this guy has a set full of results from that. http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonathanbowerbank/sets/72157614573399785/ pwn posted:I too recently inherited a mini stack of 5 rolls of new Kodak Gold 100, expiry July 2000, fairly sure stored in a dresser drawer. Will it be complete poo poo or can it be saved? 100-speed consumer film is pretty stable. Might have some color shifts, pinkish skies, a bit more noise, and a bit of saturation and contrast loss, but that stuff is pretty much made for people who leave film laying around for years. It should be alright. Outdated Kodak Gold has actually kept better saturation and reliability than most of the other expired films I've used. Here are some snapshotty things I've done on color films that were between 10-15 years out of date, found in attics and free bins:  Fuji Superia, I think it was 200 speed, came from a hot attic. Expired Xtra 400 has worked just fine.  Minolta VX-100 (120 format, expired 1997)  Minolta VX-100 again. (I have a bunch of this stuff left if one or two people want a free roll, I don't like it enough to bother paying to developing much more of it.) Some looked a little dingier and grainier than others, but they work well enough for test rolls and for screwin' around. e: updated some things Dr. Cogwerks fucked around with this message at 05:00 on Apr 18, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 04:26
|
|
|
red19fire posted:Also, he has two rolls of Seattle Film Works film that use a special process called SFW-XL. Apparently it's a proprietary process that only SFW could do at the time, but they have since gone out of business. Does anyone know if I can do that process myself, or at least get decent results cross-processing with C41? As far as I can tell, there's some guy who does ECN2 processing for photographic use, and also sells new movie film spooled on 35mm cartridges, and also makes positives from the negatives on movie print film... I'd give it a shot but their website doesn't inspire much confidence: http://xxlab.angelfire.com/
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 05:02
|
|
|
red19fire posted:I finally got my third roll of Chicago BW400CN from Walgreens, thought I would share the results if anyone was interested. Does Walgreens push film if it's underexposed? There's a couple of shots that are grainy as hell that I think I underexposed. It won't be pushed unless you take it to a lab that push processes and tell them to do so before developing - by the time you can see that it's underexposed it's too late to change anything. The scanning/printing process has to pull the detail out of a smaller portion of the film's dynamic range on an underexposed shot, so that exaggerates the grain (and makes all your shadows a big muddy mess if you do it badly enough).
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 05:13
|
|
|
Dr. Cogwerks posted:
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 05:22
|
|
|
pwn posted:I too recently inherited a mini stack of 5 rolls of new Kodak Gold 100, expiry July 2000, fairly sure stored in a dresser drawer. Will it be complete poo poo or can it be saved? I've been shooting primarily Kodak Gold 200 that expired in the 90's and it's perfectly fine. It seems slightly warm, but I'm guessing it was probably designed that way. Other then that it's been great. Examples of expired Kodak from my XA.     Scans from my Minolta seemed to have less color shift. My guess is that it's probably metering better. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 05:33
|
|
|
Just got back 5 rolls of film from the developer's and this is one of my favorite shots: Comrades by Setzu, on Flickr I don't know, maybe there's something wrong with me...
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 05:46
|
|
|
Cross post with the SAD thread as people seem to be keen on home processing C41. These are some Ektar 100 shots I souped last night and scanned before work this morning: In the front by mr_student, on Flickr I can't believe how saturated this is, I haven't tweaked this at all, just a very mild white balance adjustment. Taken in the middle of the day with bright sunshine.  Saturate by mr_student, on Flickr  Sunny EDI by mr_student, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 10:57
|
|
|
/\Nice pictures/\ Really looking foreward to see how my Ektar stuff turns out. Seems like people are getting almost slide like results with it. How hard was the home C41?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 11:30
|
|
|
Dr. Cogwerks posted:My dad used to shoot Seattle Film Works stuff on all of our hiking trips. It's usually kinda lovely, they sold surplus movie film that was repackaged into 35mm cassettes. SFW-XL is actually "ECN-2" processing, which some places can still do by mailorder if you're willing to bother. It's also more susceptible to fading. Movie master reels are stored in the freezer and your ECN-2 negatives should be too, if you want them to last.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 15:46
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:Whoa, is that SF State? Are you a local?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 19:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 15:09 |
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:It's also more susceptible to fading. Movie master reels are stored in the freezer and your ECN-2 negatives should be too, if you want them to last.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 20:34
|
|