|
Captain Postal posted:final shopping list is: 2 gallons of HC-110 is going to last... a very, very long time. Is it liquid fixer or something? The powdered stuff just comes in a packet, shouldn't add too much to the cost of shipping. I can't volunteer because I'm extremely busy and will be out of town soon, but if you shoot much 35mm and there's an Amerigoon willing, you should get them to take the B&H stuff, combine it with some cheap B&W film from Freestyle, and send it over to you.
|
#
?
May 20, 2011 11:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 12:59 |
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:2 gallons of HC-110 is going to last... a very, very long time. Hmmm... I was thinking that each bottle makes 4gal of dilution B, which is ~30 rolls of 120, or am I horribly mistaken? drat, any way I look at it I just can't justify the shipping. With 1 bottle it comes out at $61.80 for product (+film if any) and $61.20 for shipping. The film is just because the stuff is so damned expensive here and hey, it'd be free shipping if bundled with something like the tank. I can live without if I can get decent shipping on the rest. It'd probably help with delivery time if customs don't have to unpack it and instead just x-ray for drugs. As for fixer, which one keeps the best? I can mix up single shot developer, is there an economical way of dealing with fixer without heaps of bottles laying around?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2011 12:35
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:Hmmm... I was thinking that each bottle makes 4gal of dilution B, which is ~30 rolls of 120, or am I horribly mistaken? Yes. Dilution B is 1+31, meaning you get 32 gallons of working solution from 1 gallon of concentrate.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2011 12:47
|
|
|
You guys are both hearing something different to what I'm asking (I think), so I must be asking it wrong. The HC-110 bottle says "makes 2 gal". That should give me about 30 rolls of 120 assuming ~500ml of dilution B per roll. Correct? 2 of these bottles of syrup vs. 2 bottles of LC-29 locally makes the b&h option cost the same as the local option, but giving a 3 reel tank instead of the local 2 reel one, so is 1 bottle going to last a while or should I be looking at 2? Or maybe buy 1 and some more film to offset shipping? On an unrelated note: The US formally abandoned imperial measurements in the 1790's when you formally abandoned the empire. What the gently caress? As an aero engineer in an enlightened SI country, you guys suck.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2011 12:59
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:The HC-110 bottle says "makes 2 gal". That should give me about 30 rolls of 120 assuming ~500ml of dilution B per roll. Correct? Yeah, you're right. What was missing was probably of dilution A. Neither you nor the store page really specified what those 2 gallons measured.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2011 13:22
|
|
|
I squinted, tilted my head and tried to read the bottle in the picture. Hope the picture is of the item though... I ended up buying 1 bottle and adding 5 rolls of ilford 3200 instead. Hope it all works out in the end. edit: and if they ship me 2gal of syrup for $14, I won't object too loudly
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2011 13:26
|
|
|
I use the unofficial Dilution H (1:63, half of Dil B) so a bottle of HC-110 lasts me ages.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2011 13:36
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:On an unrelated note: The US formally abandoned imperial measurements in the 1790's when you formally abandoned the empire. What the gently caress? As an aero engineer in an enlightened SI country, you guys suck. We have one more measurement system than you guys do 
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2011 16:08
|
|
|
Dr. Cogwerks posted:More props for Argus: the 1950s Argus C-four is pretty fantastic. They're also fairly cheap ($10-50 on ebay), the ergonomics are a lot better than the C3 brick, and the coated Cintar 50mm lens is sharp and contrasty as all hell. I think it's sharper than a lot of my SLR lenses. Only lame thing is the lack of strap lugs. God, any other camera has better ergonomics than the C3. I like my C3, but jesus, who thought it would be a good idea to have pointy square corners on an instrument designed to be handheld? And then there's the whole shutter cocking lever placement thing. On the other hand, the camera just oozes character simply because there's nothing else like it out there. I was considering getting a C-four, but I've got a bunch of old normal rangefinders already and I wanted something wackier.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2011 16:26
|
|
|
This is stupid, Target doesn't even sell 100 speed film anymore. I'm not even looking for good film,i just wanted a 3 or 5 pack of Kodak Gold
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2011 01:26
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:This is stupid, Target doesn't even sell 100 speed film anymore. I'm not even looking for good film,i just wanted a 3 or 5 pack of Kodak Gold Try walgreens if you have one near you. They actually still carry aps film.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2011 03:18
|
|
|
I've even seen BW400CN in a Walgreens before, that's probably your best bet for anything that isn't an actual camera store.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2011 03:34
|
|
|
Beerios posted:I've even seen BW400CN in a Walgreens before, that's probably your best bet for anything that isn't an actual camera store. I saw Tri-X at my local CVS 
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2011 03:38
|
|
|
CVS had tmx 400 and store brand color 2 00. Even Ritz Camera didn't have 100 speed color film
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2011 23:30
|
|
|
Finally took a crack at fixing the sticking mirror in my Spotmatic SP, and got it going again! Got some film and a new battery for the spot meter (which still seems hosed up) and I've almost burned through my first roll. So, do most people get horrible eyestrain from manual focus lenses, or is it just me? 
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2011 23:35
|
|
|
Adams says overexposing a negative is better than underexposing because once you underexpose below a certain point the data is lost forever. On a negative, the darks are represented by lights and lights are represented by darks, so underexposing is akin to blowing out the highlights on transparency film or with a digital camera. Beyond a certain point the data is gone. Alternatively, if you overexpose, you can compensate for this in the darkroom and resuscitate some detail. I think that makes sense. But my question is this: what if you're not developing your own film? I don't really develop my own film, certainly not color, and the last b&w I sent away for because I knew they would do a better job than me. So if you are handing your film off to someone who will standardize its processing, isn't it better to underexpose even the negatives? That is to say, if you are erring one way or another when you are taking the shot, it's still better to underexpose because when they give you back the prints, (or the CD with JPEGs in my case), I can pull more out of the shadows using Photoshop just like I would with a regular digital file.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2011 03:55
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:Adams says overexposing a negative is better than underexposing because once you underexpose below a certain point the data is lost forever. On a negative, the darks are represented by lights and lights are represented by darks, so underexposing is akin to blowing out the highlights on transparency film or with a digital camera. Beyond a certain point the data is gone. Alternatively, if you overexpose, you can compensate for this in the darkroom and resuscitate some detail. I generally expose color negative film by metering the brightest thing I want detail in and then setting my exposure 3 or 4 stops below that depending on film stock. Low contrast situations are a bit different, I tend to sort of wing it when the total scene contrast is less than 5 stops.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2011 05:32
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:Adams says overexposing a negative is better than underexposing because once you underexpose below a certain point the data is lost forever. On a negative, the darks are represented by lights and lights are represented by darks, so underexposing is akin to blowing out the highlights on transparency film or with a digital camera. Beyond a certain point the data is gone. Alternatively, if you overexpose, you can compensate for this in the darkroom and resuscitate some detail. Adams recommendation is based on the assumption you are shooting sheet film, not roll, as you have development control over the individual negatives. He was also referring to black and white film specifically (if i recall), as color film reacts in more ways than just contrast (such as color casting) to exposure changes. It is generally true to think about color negative film as the reverse of slide/digital, in that you can compress tonal range into the highlights to gain shadow detail more than the opposite (overexpose c-41, underexpose e-6). I would say that if you are taking it to someone, i would standardize your shooting to their processing, not the other way around,
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2011 08:47
|
|
|
Beerios posted:Can anyone recommend a place to send C-41 for push processing? I'd like to try shooting some Fuji 800Z at 1600 this weekend, but I'm having trouble finding somewhere to get the processing done. A lot of labs (including mine) dont push/pull C41 because it doesnt really make sense, especially if you are only going one stop. C41 usually has at least a 2 stop usable latitude.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2011 19:05
|
|
|
How many stops can I safely underexposive Porta 160NC by and still get a usable picture? Gonna be shooting the Maker Faire today, but the highest speed color film the store had was 160NC.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2011 20:12
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:How many stops can I safely underexposive Porta 160NC by and still get a usable picture? Gonna be shooting the Maker Faire today, but the highest speed color film the store had was 160NC. I shoot a lot of 160NC and it tends to cool way down color temp wise if you underexpose it but you should get usable negs even with up to 2 stops of underexposure. However the stuff I'm shooting is two years expired , fresh film will have more latitude. Will your lab push process c41?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2011 22:31
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Will your lab push process c41? Probably, but I dunno if that would screw up the well-exposed shots on the roll. I tried to take some photos of Arc Attack at the Maker Faire, but 160 was just too slow. Most of them ended up either with a shutter speed that was way too slow, or two or three stops underexposed. A little cool might do the lightning good, though. I did get some good shots with HP5+ at 1600, though. Next time I have to do something like this I'm bringing Portra 800 or Delta 3200.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2011 03:29
|
|
|
All the labs around me push C41, it's typically a buck and change more/stop for push/pull.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2011 03:38
|
|
|
What are some good small, mechanical SLRs? I'd love to have an SLR with a small normal lens (or other pancake lens) that would work without a battery in it, and fit in my jacket's (large) camera pocket. I like the Nikkormat FT3 very much, but the Nikon 45mm pancake lens is expensive, and there are probably smaller SLRs out there. And no, I don't want a rangefinder. I like seeing mah scene.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2011 08:50
|
|
|
The Nikon FM series might work. There's also the 50mm Series E lens which should be cheaper than the 45mm and I think relatively small, although it doesn't have the non-AI coupling.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2011 14:58
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:What are some good small, mechanical SLRs? I'd love to have an SLR with a small normal lens (or other pancake lens) that would work without a battery in it, and fit in my jacket's (large) camera pocket. I like the Nikkormat FT3 very much, but the Nikon 45mm pancake lens is expensive, and there are probably smaller SLRs out there. What about a Pentax MX and the 40mm f/2.8 Here's a picture of it I found upside a K-1000 + 50mm http://www.flickr.com/photos/slimjim/531840542/ Wow, while googling, I found this thing. http://www.cameraquest.com/pentx110.htm Yes, that's a 110 SLR made by pentax. That's crazy. echobucket fucked around with this message at 15:43 on May 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2011 15:38
|
|
|
Another Stupid Newbie question: how do I store developer and fixer? My plan is to store the HC-110 in the bottle it ships in (keeping the bottle dark and cool) and take one shot quantities with a syringe and to hell with any air contamination. For the fixer (kodak professional powder to make 3.8L), should I 1) buy a 4L water jug and mix it in there? 2) reuse some 2L PET bottles by splitting the powder and mixing? 3) reuse 1x2L PET bottle and leave the rest in powder form? 4) do I really need to buy a proper brown bottle to store this in? Also, there is no way I'll get through it all in the 8 weeks the pack says, so I'm looking for a solution to give a good shelf life. As an aside, I read the trick about "twice the leader clearing time" for fixing, how do you guys do that with 120/220 that doesn't have a film leader?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2011 23:29
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:As an aside, I read the trick about "twice the leader clearing time" for fixing, how do you guys do that with 120/220 that doesn't have a film leader? There's usually a few cm of film that doesn't fit into a frame on each end of 120. I'd say, just shoot at 3 minutes for your first roll, then see how much you could safely cut off in the dark for next time. It should be perfectly safe to just cut off 1 or 2 cm on either end of a 120 film, after removing the backing.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2011 23:38
|
|
|
echobucket posted:What about a Pentax MX and the 40mm f/2.8 Some goon picked up an ME Super + nifty fifty of some variety not too long ago, and a belt clip from ebay for cheap. Still needs a battery to shoot, but it is still pretty small and the ME Super shows up at least twice as often as the MX in various places, and usually for a bit cheaper. The Pentax 110 is hilariously small, and has a decent line of lenses available. Unfortunately, most existing examples have various things wrong with them and it's difficult to get them serviced - the handful of people not simply admiring their 110 on a shelf have done fairly involved home-repairs on theirs. Also the film is nearly impossible to get ahold of outside of special connections or really, really old and thoroughly expired stocks somebody has in their basement.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2011 23:42
|
|
|
nielsm posted:There's usually a few cm of film that doesn't fit into a frame on each end of 120. I'd say, just shoot at 3 minutes for your first roll, then see how much you could safely cut off in the dark for next time. It should be perfectly safe to just cut off 1 or 2 cm on either end of a 120 film, after removing the backing. Cheers. How long do you have to fix before you start over fixing? If I say 8-10min to be really sure on the first one, will that damage it?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2011 23:50
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:Cheers. How long do you have to fix before you start over fixing? If I say 8-10min to be really sure on the first one, will that damage it? A fresh, modern fixer solution shouldn't need more than 3 minutes, AFAIK. If the time to fix starts exceeding 5 minutes you should probably replace the fixer. I don't know what films you're using, but Kodak has a handy chart for their films. It mentions 2-4 minutes fixing time in Kodak Rapid Fixer and 5-10 minutes in any other fixer. That last part is a lie, any fixer that claims to be rapid will work in the 2-5 minutes range. (I am using Tetenal Superfix Odorless myself, and it usually works in 2-3 minutes.) At any rate, you should probably find the tech publications about the chemicals and films you have and read them, cross reference them, and compare them to what you find on the Massive Devchart.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2011 00:07
|
|
|
I think you have to go pretty far with fixer before it starts to damage anything... leaving it in for 6-10 minutes hasn't really hurt anything that I've noticed and over-fixing a bit has made some of my Kodak negatives finally turn fully clear instead of the usual purplish cast. However, all that time in fixer probably requires a bit more washing afterwards. edit: fix for too long though and it'll eventually start to dissolve fine details and bleach the negatives. Dr. Cogwerks fucked around with this message at 00:44 on May 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2011 00:36
|
|
is go
|
I've always heard that tabular grained films (TMax, Delta) like to be fixed in the 8-10 minute range, too.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2011 01:25
|
|
|
What's a good general use (400 ISO, I'd say) B&W film to use for travel? I'm guessing different films have different 'feels' to them. I'd like to get back into practice now that I have a new OM body on the way. I'll be going to Paris later this summer and I think some B&W would be pretty fun.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2011 01:37
|
|
|
DJExile posted:What's a good general use (400 ISO, I'd say) B&W film to use for travel? I'm guessing different films have different 'feels' to them. I'd like to get back into practice now that I have a new OM body on the way. I'll be going to Paris later this summer and I think some B&W would be pretty fun.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2011 01:45
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:The answer to any question containing the phrases "400 ISO" and "B&W film" is Tri-X. Awesome. Seeing it on Adorama for $3.59. Good price? E: This one, unless I'm wrong somewhere
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2011 02:08
|
|
|
nielsm posted:At any rate, you should probably find the tech publications about the chemicals and films you have and read them, cross reference them, and compare them to what you find on the Massive Devchart. So the Devchart says 6 minutes for Tri-x in Tmax developer, but the quoted kodak pub says 4 3/4 minutes. What would you guys recommend?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2011 02:11
|
|
|
red19fire posted:So the Devchart says 6 minutes for Tri-x in Tmax developer, but the quoted kodak pub says 4 3/4 minutes. What would you guys recommend? Honestly, I just always fix for 8 minutes. You're in no danger of bleaching regular films at that time, and t-grain films will be adequately fixed.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2011 02:35
|
|
|
DJExile posted:Awesome. Seeing it on Adorama for $3.59. Good price?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2011 02:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 12:59 |
|
|
red19fire posted:So the Devchart says 6 minutes for Tri-x in Tmax developer, but the quoted kodak pub says 4 3/4 minutes. What would you guys recommend? Those are at different temperatures! Kodak's 4.75 min value is also quoted on Devchart, but it's for 24 C, while the 6 min value is for 20 C.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2011 02:37
|
|