|
Captain Postal posted: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 15:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 20:25 |
|
|
DJExile posted: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. Cool my friend has an OM1 and loves it. I have a really knackered one i got from a sale but i haven't tried it out yet.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 15:31
|
|
|
I haven't heard anyone in the thread talk much about Kodak Ektar 100. I've been thinking about ordering some from B&H (seems to have it the cheapest). I've heard rumors that it's the closest you can get to the colors and saturation of slide film while still being C41 processing.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 15:42
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:Assuming you're developing in the bathroom, turn on the hot water in the shower to full blast and steam it up for a few minutes. All the dust gets heavy from soaking up water and falls out of the air. Seconding this, it really does wonders, compared to not doing it. Also, I am not sure if this is good practice, but I haven't had any problems, I scan my negatives when they are still just SLIGHTLY moist. No drops on the negative, but not 100% dry, maybe 15-20 more minutes and they would be completely dry.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 15:53
|
|
|
EvilRic posted:Cool my friend has an OM1 and loves it. I have a really knackered one i got from a sale but i haven't tried it out yet. Really worth it. OM-1s are everywhere and they run like a tank. If yours is a bit too busted, you can easily find them on KEH for $100 or less.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 15:56
|
|
|
echobucket posted:I haven't heard anyone in the thread talk much about Kodak Ektar 100. I've been thinking about ordering some from B&H (seems to have it the cheapest). I've heard rumors that it's the closest you can get to the colors and saturation of slide film while still being C41 processing. To be honest I don't really think it looks that much like slide film exactly. I'd say the saturation and colour is more pastel (while still being bright and smooth) than the punchy vivid colour of high saturation slide films. However that really shouldn't put you off because it's a really really good film. For one thing you can actually use it on people unlike Velvia etc. Velvia being the only slide film I like enough to make the price and awkwardness of E6 development totally worth it.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 16:19
|
|
|
echobucket posted:I haven't heard anyone in the thread talk much about Kodak Ektar 100. I've been thinking about ordering some from B&H (seems to have it the cheapest). I've heard rumors that it's the closest you can get to the colors and saturation of slide film while still being C41 processing. I got my first roll of Ektar processed yesterday, I underexposed but was still pleased with the results. I think the colors are nice. A bit of a cold cast, but I feel like that comes from my underexposing. I'm not finished scanning yet, but here's a snapshot for illustrative purposes (I don't know if that'll help you decide). 
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 16:26
|
|
|
echobucket posted:I haven't heard anyone in the thread talk much about Kodak Ektar 100. I've been thinking about ordering some from B&H (seems to have it the cheapest). I've heard rumors that it's the closest you can get to the colors and saturation of slide film while still being C41 processing. I just did my first roll of Ektar a few days ago. These are the scans from the lab. In good light, the grain is ridiculously fine, and has a very pleasing colour saturation. I think I'll buy more of this stuff.  Cafe by Winston85, on Flickr  Center Street by Winston85, on Flickr  Ferrari 599 by Winston85, on Flickr  Treeline by Winston85, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 16:30
|
|
|
Ektar is gorgeous and I don't think it's as unforgiving as most people say. Worked fine when I sunny-16'd it... it's still one of my favorite films to use with old pre-1970 screwmount or fixed-lens cameras, something about that combination works really damned well.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 16:56
|
|
is go
|
Mightaswell posted:I just did my first roll of Ektar a few days ago. These are the scans from the lab. In good light, the grain is ridiculously fine, and has a very pleasing colour saturation. I think I'll buy more of this stuff. This looks incredible. Now I'm going to quiz you. What camera/lens combo, and what lab are you using to do the scans. Edit: answered my own question on the lens/camera by looking at your flickr tags... echobucket fucked around with this message at 17:02 on May 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 16:59
|
|
|
echobucket posted:This looks incredible. Now I'm going to quiz you. What camera/lens combo, and what lab are you using to do the scans. Thanks!! Both shot with a Pentax MX. Cafe and Center Street were shot with a Bushnell 135mm 2.8 (weird pawnshop find). Ferarri and Treeline were shot with the Pentax SMC-M 28mm. Lab was London Drugs. They use a Fuji minilab and Noritsu scanners.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 17:39
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:Assuming you're developing in the bathroom, turn on the hot water in the shower to full blast and steam it up for a few minutes. All the dust gets heavy from soaking up water and falls out of the air. ok, I'll give that a try. The air only needs to be steamed before hanging though, right?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 23:35
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:ok, I'll give that a try. The air only needs to be steamed before hanging though, right? Well you might want to wipe your bathroom down first to minimize the amount of dust, but yeah. If you steam it while there's film in there you'll probably get droplets on it.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2011 23:38
|
|
|
I was thinking more along the lines of there is no advantage to using steam when the film is in the changing bag or tank, only once it's out of the tank
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2011 00:03
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:I was thinking more along the lines of there is no advantage to using steam when the film is in the changing bag or tank, only once it's out of the tank Nope, none at all. Once it's in the tank, the film will be immersed in liquid (hopefully from distilled water) which will wash any dust off, and unless the water is visibly filthy it will be fine. You don't want to let oil from your fingers get onto the emulsion side if you can avoid it though, as that can block the developer and cause fingerprint marks.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2011 00:24
|
|
|
Goddamn, I need to remember to never ever look at shopgoodwill.com when I'm already short on rent. There's a Rolleiflex 35 + Planar on there for like $12 right now, a Contaflex for about the same price and a whole bunch of other rad schwag. My ladyfriend just won a couple of bids there last week, she thought she was getting one Argus C3 brick for like $15 but the box ended up including three of 'em.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2011 03:55
|
|
|
Photo dump of stuff I've shot over the last few months. All Kodak Ektar 100, all Nikon FM2 w/ 50mm f2.    
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2011 06:40
|
|
|
I ran into a problem the other day. I was in the woods taking pictures and accidentally had the diffusion dome over the sensor on my light meter. The purpose of the dome is so that you can get a meter reading by aiming it at the camera instead of the subject (or grey card). I typically do the latter. With the dome on I guess it takes off about 1.5 stops, maybe more? Anyway, I took a few pictures with it accidentally on, and when I realized it I made a note that the shots would be underexposed. Then I went back and re-shot the pictures using the correct metering. Here's what I came up with: With dome (should be overexposed):   Without (should be exposed correctly):   Why do the second batch lack contrast? Is it because they're underexposed? They don't really look it, but I'm thinking that maybe I overcompensated and underexposed a little too much. And maybe the dome actually helped give me a correct reading with the first pictures just by chance. What do you think? Mannequin fucked around with this message at 07:29 on May 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2011 06:57
|
|
|
If something keeps light away from your meter but not your sensor/film, it'll come out overexposed, not under. It gets shot for a lower amount of ambient light that what's actually there! Did you have your meter set correctly apart from the dome? Are you sure the meter's not meant to be used with the dome on?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2011 07:17
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:If something keeps light away from your meter but not your sensor/film, it'll come out overexposed, not under. It gets shot for a lower amount of ambient light that what's actually there! D'oh. Typo in my labeling, but yes, that's why I was surprised because it is the second batch that was underexposed, not the first. So I am thinking that I was just metering wrong in the woods. There was a lot of overhead leaves and in some places you could meter in the light and get one reading, and meter in the shade and get another. The changes were very subtle, though. Basically, though, I just wanted to confirm that the issue with the second batch was underexposure. I thought the first batch would be overexposed so I compensated for the second batch too much, and they are underexposed. (It's just weird because I am used to underexposed shots having more contrast, but I guess with film it's a little different.) quote:Did you have your meter set correctly apart from the dome? Are you sure the meter's not meant to be used with the dome on? Yeah, the meter is otherwise set correctly.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2011 07:28
|
|
|
It may just be your technique. I'm not sure how often you use a hand held meter versus in camera matrix metering. Reflective meters are looking for a neutral gray subject and some of them are very easily fooled by bright areas. So in the second set the meter gave you the settings for the sky light coming through the trees. Which would underexpose the vegetation. Meters with incident modes compensate for the loss of light from the diffuser so that coupled with the effect the dome more evenly spreading out the incoming light is how you ended up with decent negs on the first set. Negative film has great dynamic range but handles over exposure better than underexposure so there is a greater margin of error when overexposing.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2011 08:31
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:Assuming you're developing in the bathroom, turn on the hot water in the shower to full blast and steam it up for a few minutes. All the dust gets heavy from soaking up water and falls out of the air. If this is a problem for you then you might think of cleaning your goddamn bathroom.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2011 12:09
|
|
|
I HATE CARS posted:If this is a problem for you then you might think of cleaning your goddamn bathroom. Dust happens bro. Especially if you live in an old apartment with poor air circulation. Or maybe the previous tenants had cats? A humid bathroom is the only place I can hang my negs for these two reasons.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2011 14:41
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:It may just be your technique. I'm not sure how often you use a hand held meter versus in camera matrix metering. Reflective meters are looking for a neutral gray subject and some of them are very easily fooled by bright areas. So in the second set the meter gave you the settings for the sky light coming through the trees. Which would underexpose the vegetation. Meters with incident modes compensate for the loss of light from the diffuser so that coupled with the effect the dome more evenly spreading out the incoming light is how you ended up with decent negs on the first set. Negative film has great dynamic range but handles over exposure better than underexposure so there is a greater margin of error when overexposing. I meter off an 18% gray card in the light that I want my subject exposed. It's the only type of metering I use for my Hasselblad, and I base it off of the instructions here (last section at the bottom). But that lighting was tricky because one moment you would be standing in the light and the next you might be in the shadows because of the leaves overhead, and the difference was visually quite subtle but strong enough that you really had to be careful about how you were metering. I think I just overcompensated in the second batch. I thought I way overexposed the first time and became a little too conservative for the second lot. Again, I'm just not used to seeing underexposure in film and to me the characteristics look quite unusual. In digital, when you underexpose the contrast seems to go up. But in film the contrast seems to go away.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2011 18:31
|
|
|
I don't know. It may be the lens and film used? I find I get more contrast when I underexpose a stop with Kodak Ultramax.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2011 18:39
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:I think I just overcompensated in the second batch. I thought I way overexposed the first time and became a little too conservative for the second lot. Again, I'm just not used to seeing underexposure in film and to me the characteristics look quite unusual. In digital, when you underexpose the contrast seems to go up. But in film the contrast seems to go away. This is due to the nature of the medium. Film has a long "shoulder", which allows overexposed areas to retain some color/tonal information instead of blocking up. You are essentially compressing the tonal information into a smaller range on the film on the shoulder. When you overexpose, there's less in the proper area on the curve and more on the shoulder, therefore, less contrast. Positives (and digital) work the exact opposite way. pwn posted:I don't know. It may be the lens and film used? I find I get more contrast when I underexpose a stop with Kodak Ultramax. This assumes you know the perfect exposure, though. Meters are just devices that need calibrating and can be fooled by unusual conditions, and the film may not actually be the speed listed on the box.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2011 18:43
|
|
|
First roll through the OM-1 came out great  I picked up some Kodak 400 TX and 100 TMAX to try out, and a friend ended up giving me a roll of FujiChrome Velvia 100F. What's this stuff? I'm not seeing a lot of reviews for it. E: He also gave me an expired roll of Fuji Superia Reala 100 to play around with.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2011 21:04
|
|
|
DJExile posted:I picked up some Kodak 400 TX and 100 TMAX to try out, and a friend ended up giving me a roll of FujiChrome Velvia 100F. What's this stuff? I'm not seeing a lot of reviews for it. Velvia 100F is like Velvia lite. It's not quite as saturated as Velvia (in particular it doesn't go as crazy in the skin tones) but it is still veeeery saturated. It's fun stuff though and Velvia itself is my favourite slide film. Take photos of colourful things. l33tc4k30fd00m fucked around with this message at 23:11 on May 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2011 23:09
|
|
|
l33tc4k30fd00m posted:Velvia 100F is like Velvia lite. It's not quite as saturated as Velvia (in particular it doesn't go as crazy in the skin tones) but it is still veeeery saturated. Sweet, thanks 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2011 01:20
|
|
|
A while ago there was a discussion about getting film out of 135 canisters by grabbing the leader, or only rewinding the film enough to leave the leader out. I finally got around to finish my first roll in an F90x, turns out it actually leaves the leader out after rewinding the film! Fancy  Overall, the F90x seems like a great camera, and about the only reasons to get an F5 or F6 over it might be for aperture-priority or manual mode on G lenses (i.e. most AF-S ones), better ergonomics or mirror lock-up. (The first one will probably be the main killer.)
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2011 01:28
|
|
|
Like all Velvia films you also have to be really careful with your exposures. You'll want to be on the money because it's hardly got any latitude at all.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2011 01:30
|
|
|
Why does anyone need the leader out anyways? I don't see why you'd want it unless you accidentally lost the leader on an un-shot roll.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2011 02:44
|
|
|
Dr. Cogwerks posted:Why does anyone need the leader out anyways? I don't see why you'd want it unless you accidentally lost the leader on an un-shot roll. It makes taking film out of the cannister much easier, I do it whenever possible.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2011 03:08
|
|
|
Dr. Cogwerks posted:Why does anyone need the leader out anyways? I don't see why you'd want it unless you accidentally lost the leader on an un-shot roll. l33tc4k30fd00m posted:Velvia 100F is like Velvia lite. It's not quite as saturated as Velvia (in particular it doesn't go as crazy in the skin tones) but it is still veeeery saturated. 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2011 04:21
|
|
|
FasterThanLight posted:It's handy if you ever change film mid-roll. I'll do this once in awhile if I started exposing a roll of Tri-X at 3200 at night, but don't finish it. When you do that, where/how do you keep note of how many frames you had shot? And for that matter, what speed you were shooting at. I find it pretty hard to make any kind of writing stick to a 135 cartridge.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2011 04:27
|
|
|
If f/16 warrants an exposure of 1/2, it's safe to say that f/22 would warrant 1 second, correct? If so, what if I put a 3-stop ND filter over the lens at f/22? The 1 second would have to go to 2, then 2 to 4, and 4 to 8 seconds. Right? Or would an 8 second exposure be underexposed because it doesn't take into consider reciprocity - i.e. for very long exposures you have expose beyond the normal doubling up method? I'm just trying to think if I screwed up a shot today.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2011 04:30
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:If f/16 warrants an exposure of 1/2, it's safe to say that f/22 would warrant 1 second, correct? If so, what if I put a 3-stop ND filter over the lens at f/22? The 1 second would have to go to 2, then 2 to 4, and 4 to 8 seconds. Right? Or would an 8 second exposure be underexposed because it doesn't take into consider reciprocity - i.e. for very long exposures you have expose beyond the normal doubling up method? I'm just trying to think if I screwed up a shot today. You need to look up the datasheet for your specific film stock, it will have corrections for reciprocity failure and/or filtration to correct color casts. Most films start failing at the 1/2s to 1s area.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2011 04:39
|
|
|
nielsm posted:When you do that, where/how do you keep note of how many frames you had shot? And for that matter, what speed you were shooting at. I find it pretty hard to make any kind of writing stick to a 135 cartridge. Most of my film is bulk loaded, so I always stick a label on the canister to write the film type, ISO, and number of frames shot. If I ever start part-way through a roll, I usually try to be safe and advance the film a frame or two past where I left off.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2011 04:41
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:And maybe the dome actually helped give me a correct reading with the first pictures just by chance. What do you think? With the dome on, the meter is an incident light meter and gives you a reading of how much light is present in the scene, and giving you correct exposure. Dome off, it's a reflected light meter and (probably) needs an 18% grey card to be correct, and is subject to the same limitations of an in-camera meter. (objects being above or below average reflectance throwing the reading off, hence the grey card) Use the dome on unless you specifically need it off. Edit: This is the quick and dirty explanation, I can speak to this at great length though, and if you want a longer explanation I would be happy to write. Don't hesitate to ask me any and all metering questions. Rontalvos fucked around with this message at 13:17 on May 29, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2011 13:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 20:25 |
|
|
Are gray microfiber cloths usually 18%?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2011 17:59
|
|