|
Hot Dog Day #20 posted:I don't think modern movie film is inherently more prone to fading than C41, I have some ~20 year old Kodacolor negatives stored carelessly in a warm environment that have faded appreciably. Movie studios just have a significant economic interest in long-term preservation of negatives worth millions of dollars. Don't take my word for it, here's the storage recommendations from Kodak's ECN-2 process Vision2 500T: quote:Store processed film according to the recommendations in ANSI/PIMA IT9.11-1998: for medium-term storage (minimum of ten years), store at 10°C(50°F) or lower at a relative humidity of 20 to 30 percent; for extended-term storage (for preservation of material having permanent value), store at 2°C (35°F) or lower at a relative humidity of 20 to 30 percent. For active use, store at 25°C(77°F) or lower, at a relative humidity of 50 +/- 5 percent. After usage, the film should be returned to the appropriate medium- or long-term storage conditions as soon as possible. Their new Vision3 500T actually wants to be colder, they say keep it under 21*C for active use. People were having problems with Seattle Film Works fading 15 years ago, so it's not just older films. Maybe they were cutting some corners (wouldn't surprise me). I'd say get it scanned ASAP if you really want to do it. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Apr 18, 2011 |
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 21:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 05:49 |
|
|
McMadCow posted:Whoa, is that SF State? Are you a local? Funny story: My first semester taking photography at ccsf I stumbled into the gallery while your show was there and got hit with the worst case of deja vu. I recognized every photo there but for the life of me I couldn't remember where I had seem them before. This was before I was a regular in the dorkroom so it took me a while to figure it out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 01:46
|
|
|
Developed my first roll of B&W 120 film in over 20 years today, in my bathroom, it was a fun experience. Didn't mess anything up I don't think, though I don't have a scanner yet, so I jury rigged my 7D to "scan" the negatives. Here's a couple of examples. I was basically testing to see if my Mamiya 645 worked properly, seems it does   B&W-2172 by NathanNYC, on Flickr  B&W-2170 by NathanNYC, on Flickr It seems Epson v500 and v600's are sold out everywhere, I almost snagged one cheap on craigslist, but that fell through. Only option right now is back order on amazon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 05:01
|
|
|
mysticp posted:...so I jury rigged my 7D to "scan" the negatives. Did you just use macro mode with a bunch of image adjustments then?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 05:30
|
|
|
Suicide Watch posted:Did you just use macro mode with a bunch of image adjustments then?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 06:15
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:Yup. Wow, small world! I keep thinking there needs to be a Bay Area Dorkroom gathering/shoot day/workshop or something. There's so many of us.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 06:20
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:Wow, small world! I keep thinking there needs to be a Bay Area Dorkroom gathering/shoot day/workshop or something. There's so many of us. In that case, please do it when I actually come back to the Bay Area permanently. EDIT: Hot Dog Day #20 posted:I don't think modern movie film is inherently more prone to fading than C41, I have some ~20 year old Kodacolor negatives stored carelessly in a warm environment that have faded appreciably. Movie studios just have a significant economic interest in long-term preservation of negatives worth millions of dollars. Nope, cinema filmstock is no more prone to fading than standard C41 filmstock... unless we're talking about Kodak's cinematographic film offerings from the mid 70s to 80s. Holy poo poo, now THOSE are prone to fading. VoodooXT fucked around with this message at 06:35 on Apr 19, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 06:32
|
|
|
mysticp posted:
Last week, the v600 was $200 and the v500 was $220 on Amazon. Now they're $199 & $149. Hopefully the price will keep fluctuating wildly for some sweet deals in the future. General film question: do you guys write down your speed & aperture for each frame? I feel like I should take notes because there's no exif info to refer to later.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 06:32
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:Wow, small world! I keep thinking there needs to be a Bay Area Dorkroom gathering/shoot day/workshop or something. There's so many of us. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 07:29
|
|
|
Ferris Bueller posted:/\Nice pictures/\ Like I've said before, C41 is just a hot version of B&W, if you can do one you can do the other. I've decided I'm going to take a pile of Kodak Ektachrome and Fuji Acros to Iceland with me to shoot in the Bronica, and I'm also going to get myself 150mm lens to go with the 50 and 80mm, super excited.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 09:13
|
|
|
Spedman posted:Like I've said before, C41 is just a hot version of B&W, if you can do one you can do the other. Sorry, my father has always gone on about how you need to be much more precise with temps (ie black and white dev gives you more temp latitude,) so I guess I just need to get over this misnomer. Since I'm really looking forward to see how my Ektar shots turned out, I'll probably get them lab developed, but for future get a C41 home development kit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 14:52
|
|
|
Ferris Bueller posted:Sorry, my father has always gone on about how you need to be much more precise with temps (ie black and white dev gives you more temp latitude,) so I guess I just need to get over this misnomer. Yeah I don't even measure temps for B&W anymore since unless you're using literally boiling water I've seen very little difference with most modern developers. On the other hand I wouldn't mess with C-41 since temperatures will cause colour shifting if you get that wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2011 12:50
|
|
|
I got a bag of expired Fomapan F17/F21, I think it's Czechoslovakian. Is it equivalent to the Fomapan on the massive development chart?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2011 20:12
|
|
|
What's the consensus on light meters here? I've just graduated to film and I'm in need of one. I don't want to take my dslr as a meter (it's an old 1dsII - gently caress carrying that around just to use as a meter), and I want something small and cheap. I might get an arax metered prism at a later date as a spot meter, so I'm thinking cheap incident meter. Do I want just an incident meter? are the <$50 ones ok? Preferably stocked by keh or easy to find on ebay, and also preferably of a type that doesn't have a finite shelf life (I've heard selenium ones slowly degrade over the years - is this true?)
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2011 10:03
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:What's the consensus on light meters here? I've just graduated to film and I'm in need of one. I don't want to take my dslr as a meter (it's an old 1dsII - gently caress carrying that around just to use as a meter), and I want something small and cheap. I might get an arax metered prism at a later date as a spot meter, so I'm thinking cheap incident meter. Do I want just an incident meter? are the <$50 ones ok? I have a meter app on my phone that works in a pinch (and is very very inexpensive), but using a exposure guide and the sunny 16 system is a better way IMO. My main weakness is that when I'm carrying one, the impulse is to use it all the time, even on shots that I should know how to expose.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2011 12:03
|
|
|
Sushi in Yiddish posted:I have a meter app on my phone that works in a pinch (and is very very inexpensive), but using a exposure guide and the sunny 16 system is a better way IMO. My main weakness is that when I'm carrying one, the impulse is to use it all the time, even on shots that I should know how to expose. Any recommendations for a desire hd?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2011 13:18
|
|
|
As I have no patience to wait for V500/V600 scanners to be restocked I picked up a CanonScan 9000F. Here's a couple of shots on Ilford Delta 400, processed with Ifosol 3 on my Mamiya 645  Ashley by NathanNYC, on Flickr  Casa Mono by NathanNYC, on Flickr I just scanned stuff at 1200dpi for now, using Vuescan. Very happy with the results for the web and general med rez home use. When I shoot something I want printing I will try it at the full 9600 dpi.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2011 18:44
|
|
|
mysticp posted:When I shoot something I want printing I will try it at the full 9600 dpi. That's interpolated resolution, it likely gives up any hope of more detail around 2400dpi.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2011 18:53
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:That's interpolated resolution, it likely gives up any hope of more detail around 2400dpi. Ok cool good to know, will save me time and hassle.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2011 19:11
|
|
|
mysticp posted:Ok cool good to know, will save me time and hassle. Going with 300dpi will save even more time and hassle, depending on the size of your print.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2011 20:52
|
|
|
I sometimes have some minor problems with my Olympus OM-1 meter. If I take a picture, the light meter sometimes "shuts off" - meaning that it drops down like it would if you turned the camera off. If I just change the aperture (on any lens), it "wakes up" again and goes back to normal. I do have to change the aperture back and forth for that to happen though. Anybody know what's wrong? Easy/cheap fix?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2011 23:25
|
|
|
mysticp posted:As I have no patience to wait for V500/V600 scanners to be restocked I picked up a CanonScan 9000F.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 01:11
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:I like your pictures - I've been shooting some Ilford myself, it's nice to see the grain and contrast. How are you finding the CanonScan 9000F? A decent scanner is my next planned camera-related purchase, and I've been watching V500 prices, which around here sit at $200. How much did the Canon set you back, if you don't mind me asking? I actually started missing grain shooting Delta 100. That stuff is so fine that I run into lens softness before graininess. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 04:20
|
|
|
Moist von Lipwig posted:I actually started missing grain shooting Delta 100. That stuff is so fine that I run into lens softness before graininess. Wow that is insane. There is basically no grain. What developer did you use? I friend who sells pictures in Union Square swears by Delta 100, his stuff is very grain free as well, but the prints are less than 8x10 so I figured that was why.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 05:35
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:I like your pictures - I've been shooting some Ilford myself, it's nice to see the grain and contrast. How are you finding the CanonScan 9000F? A decent scanner is my next planned camera-related purchase, and I've been watching V500 prices, which around here sit at $200. How much did the Canon set you back, if you don't mind me asking? I am happy with the Delta 400, I did try a 3200 the other night at a dinner party but I think I messed everything up, developing, fixing and metering. I will take another attempt with it next week. So far happy with the 9000f. I was $176.99 on Amazon so in the v600 price range and seems to have similar features. I can scan 4 120 frames at a time, and at 1200dpi it is way quicker than I expected. Although I really just got it so I could take all my b&w and scan it to decide if it was print worthy, rather then spend money on store scans or contact sheets. I can get 120 color processed for $2.05 and 135 done for $4.10 without contact sheets or scans, so I just need to scan that myself as well. Anything I really want to print (which is rarely) I will get done at a pro shop in the city. mysticp fucked around with this message at 05:50 on Apr 22, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 05:45
|
|
|
mysticp posted:Wow that is insane. There is basically no grain. What developer did you use? I friend who sells pictures in Union Square swears by Delta 100, his stuff is very grain free as well, but the prints are less than 8x10 so I figured that was why. I used DD-X for this particular shot but ID-11 & Microphen have given me exactly the same results before. That shot I posted could easily be printed at 24x24. It's crazy how smooth the Ilford T-Grain films can be with Ilford developer. On the other hand I threw some delta 400 in HC-110 and it came out looking like smallpox. Not bad, I enjoy the film grain look, but man was it grainy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 11:51
|
|
|
Moist von Lipwig posted:I used DD-X for this particular shot but ID-11 & Microphen have given me exactly the same results before. That shot I posted could easily be printed at 24x24. It's crazy how smooth the Ilford T-Grain films can be with Ilford developer. On the other hand I threw some delta 400 in HC-110 and it came out looking like smallpox. Not bad, I enjoy the film grain look, but man was it grainy. Interesting. Could something dethrone Acros 100 as my daylight B&W film of choice? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 11:56
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Interesting. Could something dethrone Acros 100 as my daylight B&W film of choice? I've never shot with Acros, but I was actually planning on trying some soon. Even if delta is smoother, I think Acros might have slightly better tonality, and delta is expensive! Acros is by far the cheapest name brand B&W film you can buy I believe. Too bad only Delta comes in sheet film.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 12:06
|
|
|
I'm hoping someone can help with this one. I was shooting on some very sunny days last weekend with my Olympus OM10 using Ilford 400 Delta and then a roll of Hp5. I've run 1 roll through the camera before and it seemed fine but on these 2 new rolls when i got the prints back (and i checked it's on the negatives too) there seems to be a sort of white band coming in from the top on some of the pictures. I may be imagining it but it does seem to appear on the images where i haven't taken a shot for a while and then disappears again till the next break in shooting. This is making me wonder if it is a very slow light leak. The seals all look fine except for the one down the hinge which is sticky but does seem tight when it's shut, presumably it's just degraded a bit.  This is an example, the original picture is obviously nicer than this and it's a lot harder to see the band but i cranked it up and marked it in photoshop to make sure it'd be visible on other monitors. Any ideas what it might be? I'm hoping you'll say it's a problem with the processing rather than the camera Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 12:29
|
|
|
Have anyone tried the Lucky SHD100 film? It seems to be a Chinese brand. I've seen it on Fotoimpex.de (here) and it's really cheap. I'm just worried that it seems to be sold as a gimmick film, "The ideal film for getting creative with your 35 mm Holga."
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 12:36
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Have anyone tried the Lucky SHD100 film? It seems to be a Chinese brand. I've seen it on Fotoimpex.de (here) and it's really cheap. I'm just worried that it seems to be sold as a gimmick film, "The ideal film for getting creative with your 35 mm Holga." Yeah, I shot it when I was living in Beijing because it was like $.80/roll for 120. I prefer Acros now, but it's not terrible; I'd say no worse than the Foma 100/Arista EDU Ultra 100. Some examples out of my Seagull TLR:  Chengfu Lu by ethics_gradient, on Flickr  Peace and Love by ethics_gradient, on Flickr  Temple of Industry by ethics_gradient, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 13:11
|
|
|
I am now officially ignoring all comments on my Flickr account, positive or negative, that don't come from people I know*. I just uploaded my test roll, first roll I've ever developed at home, after sorting out all of my notes about exposure and such. These are all photos I deliberately set out to not make at all interesting, because (based on advice from here) I didn't want to lose anything good if I hosed up the developing. I didn't gently caress up, but that didn't make any of my test shots interesting. * in the sense of recognizing the user name from here or some other part of the internet. Then this comment came through, on a picture of my goddam closet from when I was testing my old flash (it works, but cycles very slowly). quote:Amazing shot, I love the composition and the angle that
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 22:56
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:I am now officially ignoring all comments on my Flickr account, positive or negative, that don't come from people I know*. I just uploaded my test roll, first roll I've ever developed at home, after sorting out all of my notes about exposure and such. These are all photos I deliberately set out to not make at all interesting, because (based on advice from here) I didn't want to lose anything good if I hosed up the developing. I didn't gently caress up, but that didn't make any of my test shots interesting. It looks like he's using some kind of auto-commentor application to spam everyone so they view his lovely HDR.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 23:35
|
|
|
.
Jose Pointero fucked around with this message at 05:08 on Aug 28, 2019 |
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2011 23:36
|
|
|
I'm thinking of picking up a second film SLR to shoot color so I can complement my Nikon N8008s with is usually loaded with B&W. The Nikon N80 was perfectly fine back in its heyday, was it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2011 04:47
|
|
|
Suicide Watch posted:I'm thinking of picking up a second film SLR to shoot color so I can complement my Nikon N8008s with is usually loaded with B&W. The Nikon N80 was perfectly fine back in its heyday, was it? Very much so, I have one and I like it quite well for when I want to get all computery and let the camera do the thinking. It's also my quietest camera.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2011 05:02
|
|
|
N80 if you have more AF lenses, N90 if you have more MF lenses. They're both cheap and good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2011 05:10
|
|
|
So a few new shots, some on the last roll of Delta 400 I have and a few on Tri-X. The delta I have been developing in Ilfosol3 but I tried the Tri-X in HC-110. Both of these are on Delta 400  live-bait-1 by NathanNYC, on Flickr  movie-poster-wall-1 by NathanNYC, on Flickr These below are all on Tri-X  Scan-110423-0015 by NathanNYC, on Flickr  Scan-110423-0008 by NathanNYC, on Flickr So a few questions. I am getting consistent results with the Delta and Ilfosol 3 combo, which I am liking. The HC-110 with Tri-X I am a bit unsure about, mainly because I didn't notice much difference, maybe a little more contrast. I was using 6.5mins at dilution E which is what digital truth said. I guess I would like some opinions from those who have had more experience with this combo and what timing and dilution do you use? Do they look under or over developed? Or how about the Delta 400 combo as well? Also is there anywhere online to get cheaper 120 b&w film than Adorama or B&H (I live a 10 min walk from both so no shipping)? I just stocked up on 35mm Arista Premium 400 and Legacy Pro 100 from freestyle, but their price on 120 is no real difference than local stores for me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2011 07:21
|
|
|
mysticp posted:So a few questions. I am getting consistent results with the Delta and Ilfosol 3 combo, which I am liking. The HC-110 with Tri-X I am a bit unsure about, mainly because I didn't notice much difference, maybe a little more contrast. I was using 6.5mins at dilution E which is what digital truth said. I guess I would like some opinions from those who have had more experience with this combo and what timing and dilution do you use? Do they look under or over developed? Or how about the Delta 400 combo as well? Can't comment on the HC110 dilution you used but they look properly developed with good tonality and contrast. I think a bunch of folks around here use rodinal with Tri-X, I use D76 1:1 with Tri-X, and the interweb is rampant with "the best soup" to use with Tri-X, so I would just experiment, find what works for you and then go with it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2011 11:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 05:49 |
|
|
Adorama's selling HP5 Plus 400 twin packs for $5. I picked up two packs/4 rolls, $13.35 with shipping.
pwn fucked around with this message at 13:22 on Apr 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2011 13:19
|
|
