|
MrBlandAverage posted:That's it. Haven't seen it cheaper anywhere recently. Cool, thanks 
|
#
?
May 24, 2011 02:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 03:53 |
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:That's it. Haven't seen it cheaper anywhere recently. http://freestylephoto.biz/192364-Arista-Premium-BandW-400-ISO-35mm-x-36-exp.?cat_id=402
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2011 03:42
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Those are at different temperatures! It's weird that Kodak sometimes encourages <5min processing... as far as I've heard, processing times under five minutes can cause pretty inconsistent development unless you're spot on with the temps and timing of everything.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2011 03:54
|
|
is go
|
nielsm posted:Those are at different temperatures!  Yep, I'm a moron. Good catch, thanks!
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2011 03:55
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:The answer to any question containing the phrases "400 ISO" and "B&W film" is Tri-X. And the other answer is HP5+. I've only tried Tri-X once, and I didn't get good results (but that's probably because I pushed it to 800 and maybe exposed it wrong). I've been using Ilford stuff exclusively since I can use FP4 and HP5, since apparently Kodak discontinued Plus-X in 120. I need a changing bag. I discovered the five undeveloped rolls of film I thought someone had stolen or had been thrown away in the back of my mom's freezer under a bag of peas. Of course this is the day after the last day of darkroom access I have  For those of you in SF who go to the Harvey Milk photo center, how much is a membership there? I didn't see that info on their website. Edit: Also, thanks for the SLR recommendations. I didn't get that the FMs were mechanical and the FEs were electronic; now I really want an FM2n or FM3a and the GN Nikkor they have at my camera store 
atomicthumbs fucked around with this message at 07:43 on May 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2011 07:36
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:For those of you in SF who go to the Harvey Milk photo center, how much is a membership there? I didn't see that info on their website. Annual Unlimited - 269 Six Months Unlimited - 150 Six Months Limited - 54 + 5 per visit (It's on their brochure.)
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2011 08:15
|
|
|
For some stupid reason, I thought it took 12-15 minutes for fixer.... Aside from wasting a lot of my time, it seems, I see no other problems with how long I fixed for. Guess next time I won't skim directions so much hah.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2011 08:45
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:The answer to any question containing the phrases "400 ISO" and "B&W film" is Tri-X. e: but they're way more expensive than T-Max in the US. Could also give fomapan and neopan a try. Some more example here. HP5+ is probably my favorite out of the bunch. Delta is kinda tricky to push more than 1 stop IMO. evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 10:51 on May 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2011 10:30
|
|
|
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. Doesn't get much smaller than the Olympus Pen FT, it has very good ergonomics and decent image performance for something that is rangefinder sized.  Picture from flickriver, for size comparison. The OM-1 is also tiny, costs less but won't give collectors camera boners.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2011 17:43
|
|
|
Sushi in Yiddish posted:Doesn't get much smaller than the Olympus Pen FT, it has very good ergonomics and decent image performance for something that is rangefinder sized. I'll second that, although it is a half-frame camera (frame is a vertically oriented 18x24 rather than a horizontal 36x24). You do get 72 shots on a roll that would normally give you 36, which is cool . It's also limited by a 1/500s top shutter speed, although it's really only an issue if you're trying to shoot wide open in bright sun. A lot of the lenses are kinda crazily priced because collectors love them, but the 38mm f/1.8 is reasonable and pretty good quality. If anyone's interested in mine I've been thinking about selling it, but apparently the meter is dead, and it wouldn't come with the lens (I use it on my NEX all the time).
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2011 18:01
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Or delta/HP5+ 400 (HP5 is easier to knock around). If you shoot a lot of people, T-grained films and standard grained films are really not interchangeable. T-grained films like Delta and T-Max tend to make skin look a little flat. They don't really model light across skin very well unless your scene has a bit more lighting contrast. I don't shoot on location with t-grain films in 35mm for that reason. The effect seems to be a little diminished with MF films, though, so I'll them in those cameras.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2011 18:05
|
|
|
Sushi in Yiddish posted:Doesn't get much smaller than the Olympus Pen FT, it has very good ergonomics and decent image performance for something that is rangefinder sized. That exact OM-1 just arrived and I can't wait to get home tomorrow to put it to use 
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2011 01:57
|
|
|
Kodak Gold 400 (CVS's standard 400 speed film) does pretty a-o-k with rendering pretty colors:  But when it's in a lovely underlit tent on a dark, rainy day and you can only stop down to 2.8 it's pretty hard to save - even when forced to lose the color and go to B/W:  
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2011 13:54
|
|
|
Looks like adorama is shipping my neopan acros order put in like 2 months ago fwiw
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2011 16:51
|
|
|
Is this the place to post your 35mm photos? Taken with a Canon EOS with a Quantaray telephoto lens:  
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2011 22:15
|
|
|
I just got a freebie bag of old 120 film all at various levels of expiration and I have no idea how it has been stored. Kodak Portra T100 (02/2005) Kodak Tri-X 320 (10/2009 and one from 05/2005) Ilford FP4 125 (08/2006) I will shoot all the b&w myself. No idea what to expect from the Portra though, it's tungsten balanced so stuff I would never usually shoot. I'll try a roll and see how it looks, maybe anyone here interested in trying it?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2011 23:02
|
|
|
mysticp posted:I just got a freebie bag of old 120 film all at various levels of expiration and I have no idea how it has been stored.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2011 23:40
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:I'd gladly take the Portra T100 off your hands. How much do you have? 
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2011 23:45
|
|
|
mysticp posted:I just got a freebie bag of old 120 film all at various levels of expiration and I have no idea how it has been stored. I'd love to try a roll of Portra, it would force me to get over my fear of posting my stuff in the Dorkroom. But, since I'm not a heavy poster and I don't have PMs, you can tack me at the bottom of the list in case there are any leftovers, that'd probably be more fair to frequent posters? I dunno. I should get over that post-shyness regardless.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2011 00:28
|
|
|
Cannister posted:Kodak Gold 400 (CVS's standard 400 speed film) does pretty a-o-k with rendering pretty colors: This is such a pretty portrait, I wish she wasn't on the phone. It takes so much out of it for me.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2011 00:31
|
|
|
mysticp posted:PM me. As long as you put the effort into shooting a roll and showing us the results here I will mail you a roll for free. I only have 5 rolls so I want to try and spread the love a bit PM sent
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2011 00:54
|
|
|
Mannequin fucked around with this message at 01:48 on May 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2011 01:45
|
|
|
mysticp posted:PM me. As long as you put the effort into shooting a roll and showing us the results here I will mail you a roll for free. I only have 5 rolls so I want to try and spread the love a bit Also, I'll send you a PM. \/\/\/ Nice. Getting out of the city and finding starscapes is pretty straightforward, I think I know what I'm going to do with that film! ExecuDork fucked around with this message at 04:33 on May 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2011 01:54
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Rumour has it the tungsten-balanced films keep their reciprocity for longer exposures at night, I've seen people talk about "up to 4 minutes" though I don't know the details (or how trustworthy such reports are).
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2011 02:29
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:\/\/\/ Nice. Getting out of the city and finding starscapes is pretty straightforward, I think I know what I'm going to do with that film! I think you may find the stars will begin to leave trails before you get up to a usable exposure. If you can deal with that, cool, if not, I know there is a formula as to how long you can expose with a particular focal length but I can't find it. Otherwise you'll need a tracking mount.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2011 04:58
|
|
|
I don't know the focal length of my ancient folder that takes 120 film (or the aperture - it's just labelled "Small", "Medium", "Large" - I've been assuming small is about F/16), so I'm planning on shooting some test shots with my DSLR, and when I get bored of star trails I'll move on to playing in traffic - I'm a sucker for car headlight / taillight long exposures.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2011 06:03
|
|
|
mysticp posted:Portra 100T Everything is now spoken for, will send out films tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 00:02
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:I don't know the focal length of my ancient folder that takes 120 film (or the aperture - it's just labelled "Small", "Medium", "Large" - I've been assuming small is about F/16), so I'm planning on shooting some test shots with my DSLR, and when I get bored of star trails I'll move on to playing in traffic - I'm a sucker for car headlight / taillight long exposures. Most 6x9 folders are in the 100-110mm range for focal length. Most 6x6 folders are in the 75-90mm range.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 00:59
|
|
|
With the arrival of a new battery today, I'm joining the ranks of ye olde Film Shooters. While mourning the loss of my d7k, my dad informed me he had a pretty sweet film set up collecting dust that I could have.  (stock photo, but mine looks drat near brand new) So now I have a Minolta SRT-102 in absolute mint condition, an MC ROKKOR 135mm 3.5, a Vivitar 35mm 2.8, 55mm Macro 2.8 and a Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm 3.5 that was in an unopened box, original packing and all. Really looking forward to shooting film again, haven't done any since high school, about 8-10 years by now. Don't have any plans to develop myself just yet, but after I move this summer might get back into that. Question - is there a general recommendation for a good quality, not-too-high priced negative scanner? Or are you guys scanning prints? Basically, what's the path of least resistance to still get the photos to the flickr?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 02:22
|
|
|
New OM body is here! It's boring and rainy, so I'll... photograph the camera!   I've covered wars, ya know 
DJExile fucked around with this message at 02:40 on May 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 02:33
|
|
|
onezero posted:So now I have a Minolta SRT-102 in absolute mint condition, an MC ROKKOR 135mm 3.5, a Vivitar 35mm 2.8, 55mm Macro 2.8 and a Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm 3.5 that was in an unopened box, original packing and all. Last week I snagged an Epson Perfection 3170 for $20; no film holder (previous owner had lost some accessories) but I've been having good luck just holding the negatives down with a piece of plate glass. If you're never going to be scanning medium format, there are many more scanners out there for you - stick with negatives. Getting a lab to make prints or scan to CD costs more than having them just develop the negatives, so a second-hand scanner will pay for itself relative to either prints or CDs in only a few rolls. **** As part of GWBBQ's experiments with different developers, I'm about to run a roll of Technical Pan 25 through my Ilfosol S. That combination doesn't show up on the Massive Dev Chart, so I did some comparisons between developers that do have listings for Tech Pan and for films that my Ilfosol S is listed for; it looks like the handful of developers that are used in my pairwise comparisons generally run about 3/4 of the time on Tech Pan compared to films listed with Ilfosol S. So, about 7:30 is my planned development time. I've never tried to push or pull film, but my understanding is you let it stay in the developer for longer to push and shorter to pull, slightly less than doubling the time to push by 1 stop - is that about right? I shot this roll of ISO 25 film as ISO 25 (slowest film I've ever met, very cool), so I don't want to push or pull it at all, if my guesstimate is off by 30 or 60 seconds should I expect much of an effect? EDIT: By "about to" I mean I'm going to have dinner, then procrastinate a bit, then clean up so I can develop the film. Plenty of time for any from-the-cuff opinions on my timing calculations. 
ExecuDork fucked around with this message at 03:10 on May 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 03:01
|
|
|
onezero posted:
Seconding the Series 1 love. I managed to find one of those for my Pentax awhile ago for twenty bucks (craigslist rules) and it's a damned great lens.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 03:46
|
|
|
onezero posted:So now I have a Minolta SRT-102 Haha, I just got one of those a couple weeks ago too, with a 50/1.7. Now I keep looking at lenses on keh because they're cheaper than the Nikon equivalents, even though I have 3 Nikon SLRs.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 03:52
|
|
|
onezero posted:With the arrival of a new battery today, I'm joining the ranks of ye olde Film Shooters. While mourning the loss of my d7k, my dad informed me he had a pretty sweet film set up collecting dust that I could have. I use an Epson V600 but I scan mostly 120. Path of least resistance is to pay a lab for low rez scans and then make higher rez scans when you actually want to print something. You are in Seattle right? Capitol Hill One Hour Photo (http://www.capitolhillphotoseattle.com/) is your new friend. Great service and develop only color is cheap.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 04:00
|
|
|
Dr. Cogwerks posted:Seconding the Series 1 love. I managed to find one of those for my Pentax awhile ago for twenty bucks (craigslist rules) and it's a damned great lens. So as the story goes, my dad got it from his sister's friends who inherited it from their dad...who happened to be a school photographer in the Santa Barbara area, and purchased the lens right before he died. So it's just sat in a box for god knows how long. They gave all the gear to my dad when he was down there last year, as they were just going to finally dump it all at a goodwill. 8th-samurai posted:You are in Seattle right? Capitol Hill One Hour Photo (http://www.capitolhillphotoseattle.com/) is your new friend. Great service and develop only color is cheap. drat - you weren't kidding, that is cheap. That's awesome, thanks.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 06:20
|
|
|
So, I just developed my first roll of film  1st note: Paterson reels suck. I figured out at least 8 ways of improving the design while tearing my first roll and having to shoot a second. Not happy Mr Paterson! 2nd and more importantly: How do you guys deal with dust? I admit that while my house has no food scraps or mess anywhere, I'm really slack with dusting so that may be part of the issue. Is there an easy way to remove dust? I tried cleaning the film and scanner with lens cleaning gear and had no luck. Any suggestions (Including software ones - I'm using a canoscan 8800F)?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 09:36
|
|
|
DJExile posted:New OM body is here! Which body is that? I have an OM10 but wouldn't mind having one of the single digit ones but they all seem to have their own pros and cons so i can't pick which to go for :S
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 09:43
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:I've never tried to push or pull film, but my understanding is you let it stay in the developer for longer to push and shorter to pull, slightly less than doubling the time to push by 1 stop - is that about right? I shot this roll of ISO 25 film as ISO 25 (slowest film I've ever met, very cool), so I don't want to push or pull it at all, if my guesstimate is off by 30 or 60 seconds should I expect much of an effect? Of course it depends on what percentage of the total development time those 30 seconds are. If your total dev time is just 5 minutes it's 10% of the total time and would have a clear impact. If your dev time was 20 minutes, it wouldn't make much of a difference. I may be wrong on this, but I assume it's safer to err on the side of over-developing, for the same reason it's safer to err on the side of over-exposing for negative films: It's easier to recover details out of a dense area of a negative than it is to recover details from a clear area.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 11:30
|
|
|
Look, I know I was a naysayer when it was first announced but god drat is Portra 400 a good film stock. I am editing a few shots I took of my brother and his fiance in terrible light and they look amazing.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 13:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 03:53 |
|
|
EvilRic posted:Which body is that? I have an OM10 but wouldn't mind having one of the single digit ones but they all seem to have their own pros and cons so i can't pick which to go for :S OM-1. I had the OM-2 Program but it was a bit busted, and apparently it is brutal on battery life with the meter. I should have my first roll through the OM-1 today.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 14:49
|
|