|
A5H posted:Is there a thread for talking about 35mm range finders? There should be. Rangefinders kick rear end.
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2011 19:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 10:36 |
|
|
I recently got rid of a D40x, that I didn't use very seriously, and am thinking about picking up my first camera that uses this film stuff you cats keep chatting about. So far, it seems like the Nikon FE is a pretty solid choice. It seems to be pretty friendly to newbies in addition to having a lot of lens compatibility. Is there any reason why I shouldn't be going after this camera in particular? Anything that might be better? I'm not married to Nikon cameras. In terms of budget, I'm happy to pay more if it means I'll get more use out of the camera. I'm trying to keep it relatively low, though. I think I'll end up doing a lot of portrait work. Let me know if I sound like an idiot
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2011 20:08
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:There should be. Rangefinders kick rear end. I was thinking the same thing recently about how there really should be a rangefinder thread, but I don't think I'm qualified to write the OP.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2011 22:20
|
|
|
EAT DOG TODAYYYY posted:I recently got rid of a D40x, that I didn't use very seriously, and am thinking about picking up my first camera that uses this film stuff you cats keep chatting about. Get an F3. If you end up liking film, you'll be in luck because you'll have a camera that'll last you till the end of time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2011 22:22
|
|
|
A5H posted:Guys guys. I just bought a FED 3! The shots I've seen I liked and it's a beautiful looking thing. Awesome, welcome to the russkie rangefinder club  Which lens did it have? I've got a Zorki-6, it's a bit leaky but cheap ol' Neopan SS worked nicely with it. It's grainer than Acros but it seemed to fit pretty well.  Shack by epomorski, on Flickr Do you want to shoot color or black and white? Ektar looks great with old soviet lenses, Fuji XTRA 400 is a bit cheaper and more versatile, and any of the Kodak Golds should be decent enough if you want something cheap and (usually) easy to find.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2011 00:06
|
|
is go
|
A5H posted:Is there a thread for talking about 35mm range finders? McMadCow posted:There should be. Rangefinders kick rear end. beeker posted:I was thinking the same thing recently about how there really should be a rangefinder thread, but I don't think I'm qualified to write the OP. I've got one half written up, but I've been snowed under with other things recently. If someone doesn't beat me to it, it'll be up by Wednesday next week. I still need a snappy title for it too... MediumWellDone fucked around with this message at 00:22 on Jun 3, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2011 00:20
|
|
|
I want to try colour and black and white  .The lens is a something 61 which is a 50mm f2f.8 I think! That looks cool as heck and I can't wait to get started. Is it really going to cost me about 10 pounds to have a film developed?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2011 00:21
|
|
|
A5H posted:Is it really going to cost me about 10 pounds to have a film developed? The trick is to only get it developed and then choose which frames you want to get printed. Have you thought about home dev?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2011 00:25
|
|
|
MediumWellDone posted:The trick is to only get it developed and then choose which frames you want to get printed. There's nowhere I can make a darkroom really. Maybe one day. I guess I'll just have to shoot a little less often than I would like  .
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2011 00:29
|
|
|
you can do bw dev with only a darkbag
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2011 00:31
|
|
|
guidoanselmi posted:you can do bw dev with only a darkbag Is it easy? I wouldn't want to risk my shots.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2011 00:35
|
|
|
A5H posted:Is it easy? I wouldn't want to risk my shots. The whole process is pretty lenient, so as long as your temps and times are about right you'll get something usable. Once you are comfortable with the process, you can start doing cool things like pushing and pulling the film. You end up having more control doing it yourself and it'll also be faster and cheaper than commercial development.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2011 00:40
|
|
|
A5H posted:There's nowhere I can make a darkroom really. You don't need a darkroom for developing, only for printing. You can use a $20 ebay film changing bag and a $20 paterson tank mentioned in the OP. edit: too slow. I did my first ever 2 rolls last weekend. The first one I got the dilution wrong and used half strength dilution and normal strength developing time. Pictures came out just fine (albeit with a bump in exposure in lightroom). In B&W, catastrophic errors like that don't really matter so you may as well give it a go! Captain Postal fucked around with this message at 00:54 on Jun 3, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2011 00:48
|
|
|
Hell, you can even DIY a changing bag out of a few black garbage bags. Put a small cardboard box in a garbage bag, then put that bag into another bag and layer enough of them that the plastic is really not translucent anymore, then put all your stuff inside and pin the bag closed with clothespins, leaving only two holes for your hands. It helps if you turn out the lights in whatever room you're working just because it's not as sealable as a regular changing bag. I did this for like half a year before I bought a changing bag with no ill effects. I'd go so far as to say that it was actually more roomy and enjoyable to use than the changing bag I ended up buying.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2011 01:10
|
|
|
A5H posted:Is it easy? I wouldn't want to risk my shots. Losing a roll or two isn't that big of a deal, just don't shoot anything critical when you're starting out. Develop-only b&w is about $6/roll around here, $14 with prints. I bought most of my stuff back in Photo 1, think it ran around $30 for a stainless tank with reels and $40 worth of chemistry will process a LOT of rolls. Pays for itself pretty quickly, definitely worth doing it yourself if you like shooting black and white more than once every couple months. A bottle of HC110 or Rodinal at the higher dilutions can handle like a hundred rolls or more, works out to about 50 cents/roll and an hour of your time. Dr. Cogwerks fucked around with this message at 01:57 on Jun 3, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2011 01:54
|
|
|
I started using a Slim Devil (an ultra wide and slim clone) recently, and have gotten the itch to try something a little more involved than point->click->develop. I've gotten my hands on a Pentax MV and an Olympus OM-2S, but unfortunately neither are completely working at the moment and I probably only have the money to get one working. I was hoping you guys could help me decide which one to go with. The MV's light meter isn't working so it either needs a new battery, or something else is wrong with it (my dad gave me what he thought was a new battery but he wasn't sure how old it was  ). I've got the standard 50mm lens, a zoom lens (I haven't seen it yet, so I don't know the length), and a flash. The OM-2S definitely needs a new battery, and it has this weird film advance issue. Sometimes, after you pull back the film advance lever, when you go to press the shutter release, nothing happens, and you have to pull back the film advance lever again. I'm not sure if this is a result of not having a battery, or if it's something more serious. I only have the body and standard 50mm lens for this one. I'm leaning towards the MV, since I've got a couple of accessories for it, and because I can remember my dad showing me how to use it when I was a kid... nostalgia blah blah blah. But I'm worried that I'll soon want the ability to manually adjust the shutter speed once I get a little more experienced with shooting film, and the MV doesn't have that option (as far as I can tell). Do you guys think this will be a problem? Should I just use the MV until I get comfortable and then upgrade to something better if I know I want to stick with film? Or just start using the OM-2S? EDIT: This is kind of long so: TL;DR Should I fix/use the simple Pentax MV (with accessories), or the more advanced Olympus OM-2S (without accessories)? JZA-Jenius fucked around with this message at 06:07 on Jun 3, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2011 06:01
|
|
|
If i get some film developed, what are my options for getting them scanned instead of getting prints?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2011 18:17
|
|
Have you seen my apex seals? I seem to have lost them.
|
Aeka 2.0 posted:If i get some film developed, what are my options for getting them scanned instead of getting prints? B&W or color? 35mm or 120? Pretty much any 1 hour photo can scan to CD instead of prints if youre talking 35mm color neg. B&W, chromes, and MF you'll have to go to a pro lab. They all offer it, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 02:37
|
|
|
A cheap scanner (Epson V500) will quickly become worth it, though. It can match low- and maybe medium-res scans from a prolab and will pay for itself in ~10 rolls.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 03:29
|
|
|
Can I just go to CVS and buy film, or is there a more sensible way to go about this?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 04:06
|
|
|
Elite Taco posted:Can I just go to CVS and buy film, or is there a more sensible way to go about this? B&H, Adorama, Freestyle Photo, eBay...
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 04:12
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:A cheap scanner (Epson V500) will quickly become worth it, though. It can match low- and maybe medium-res scans from a prolab and will pay for itself in ~10 rolls. Just picked up a CanoScan 9000f for under $180. Tonight I ran my first color 35mm through it, seems to be doing a great job.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 04:26
|
|
|
I have a flatbed that is great for 120 but does not do a good enough job on 35mm. What's the cheapest dedicated scanner that will do at least 10mgpx scans?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 04:58
|
|
|
brad industry posted:I have a flatbed that is great for 120 but does not do a good enough job on 35mm. What's the cheapest dedicated scanner that will do at least 10mgpx scans? For dedicated 35mm a Plustek is the best option. Vary from $250 or so upwards. That is if you want something new. If you can figure out how to get a SCSI interface working, then older Nikon coolscans can be had cheap on ebay.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 05:33
|
|
|
Am I correct in saying that film size does not affect dynamic range? I'm having an Internet Argument with a guy. Edit: Internet Argument is here and I am having trouble wrapping my head around the guy's argument that since larger film has more silver particles the midtones are smoother which means higher dynamic range. 
atomicthumbs fucked around with this message at 06:31 on Jun 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 06:00
|
|
|
mysticp posted:For dedicated 35mm a Plustek is the best option. Vary from $250 or so upwards. That is if you want something new. I just picked up my first film camera this week, so all of this is really new to me. Please pardon my ignorance. So film scanners scan the negatives, like after the roll has been developed, right? Waaay back in elementary school when I had a cheap film camera, I don't remember getting the negatives back after it was developed, just the prints. So if I have this scanner, I don't need to get them to give me digital copies on a cd, and instead just ask for them to develop and return the roll to me? Is that usually cheaper, or is it more just for having the control?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 06:26
|
|
|
CarrotFlowers posted:I just picked up my first film camera this week, so all of this is really new to me. Please pardon my ignorance. If you buy a scanner, you just need them to develop it. You scan it (and make prints) yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 06:33
|
|
|
CarrotFlowers posted:I just picked up my first film camera this week, so all of this is really new to me. Please pardon my ignorance. In the old days your lab threw away your negatives after making a set of prints, which is terrible. Walgreens, CVS, and possibly WalSTARMart, their scans will be about as good of quality as you can do yourself with a consumer flatbed. A pro lab, if you should be fortunate enough to live near one, could very well be using nice machines that scan better than those in even the wettest dreams of any flatbed. My local lab doesn't even charge for developing colour neg film, just for scanning. For a $4 I get development and a CD or thumbdrive of scans at whatever resolution I ask. I typically ask for 6 MP scans (3000x2000.) Pick up the Yellow Pages and let your fingers do the walking.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 07:32
|
|
|
Can someone with a v500 and/or v700/750 take a picture of it next to something of reference so I can see how big they are in real life?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 07:57
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:Am I correct in saying that film size does not affect dynamic range? I'm having an Internet Argument with a guy. Yup, he's pretty much correct.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 08:00
|
|
|
spf3million posted:Can someone with a v500 and/or v700/750 take a picture of it next to something of reference so I can see how big they are in real life? I don't have one, but you can find plenty of images on google with 35mm film loaded in the film carrier which should at least give you some ballpark.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 08:12
|
|
|
I saw some (a bunch of the GIS results are blocked in China for some retarded reason), I still couldn't really tell. I'd be leaving it at a friend's so I can scan my film when I'm stateside and I don't want to ask to leave a big honking plastic box there if they're really big.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 08:16
|
|
|
quote:Am I correct in saying that film size does not affect dynamic range? I'm having an Internet Argument with a guy. I think you are confusing dynamic range and contrast. Contrast is the difference between the maximum and minimum densities of the film, which is the same regardless of the format. If you photograph the exact same thing on 35mm and 4x5, the larger film has more information. More tonal information = more dynamic range. This is why prints made from 4x5 have "that look". If you make an HDR image you're not changing the contrast (if there's a 0 black point and a 255 white point you can't go beyond that), you're adding tonal information that increases the dynamic range.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 08:19
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:Am I correct in saying that film size does not affect dynamic range? I'm having an Internet Argument with a guy. "Contrast is the difference in visual properties that makes an object (or its representation in an image) distinguishable from other objects and the background". This is the spatial resolution required for gradiation between full black and full white, surely. "Dynamic range, abbreviated DR or DNR,[1] is the ratio between the largest and smallest possible values of a changeable quantity". This is how bright white is, and how dark black is. I'm siding with atomicthumbs on this one unless someone can explain to me how I'm misunderstanding. edit: I mean, I can see that there is a maximum spatial gradient between full underexposed and full overexposed due to limitations of the optics and sensing (film or digital) and that given the same gradient a larger format can resolve object mid tones better due to having more space to blow up the image circle and hence fit the gradient, or conversely increase image contrast by having more 0-1-0 transitions per image, but it can't record a higher or lower exposure than any other format, everything else equal Captain Postal fucked around with this message at 08:35 on Jun 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 08:22
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:I'm siding with atomicthumbs on this one unless someone can explain to me how I'm misunderstanding. It's like Brad explained it- larger formats have more information density. That equals subtler tonal gradations. The silver clumps themselves aren't more or less capable of reproducing tones, it's the fact that there are more of them doing the work that makes the difference. All you have to do is compare prints made from the same emulsion and different formats.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 08:35
|
|
|
I thought dynamic range wasn't "the number of tones" or the smoothness, but the difference between lightest and darkest possible light recorded by the film (for instance, something with higher dynamic range could record detail in bright clouds and darker landscape, whereas with a digital camera you need to tonemap or whatever).
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 08:42
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:It's like Brad explained it- larger formats have more information density. That equals subtler tonal gradations. The silver clumps themselves aren't more or less capable of reproducing tones, it's the fact that there are more of them doing the work that makes the difference. I think what you're saying is that if I take an image of the sun on 135 through a 10mm aperture at whatever focal length is required to fill the frame it will cook the film, but taking an image in 20x24 through a 10mm aperture at whatever focal length will fill the frame will expose correctly due to the light energy being distributed over a larger area, so more silver absorbs the photons and it doesn't blow out. Is this correct?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 08:43
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:I thought dynamic range wasn't "the number of tones" or the smoothness, but the difference between lightest and darkest possible light recorded by the film (for instance, something with higher dynamic range could record detail in bright clouds and darker landscape, whereas with a digital camera you need to tonemap or whatever).
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 08:44
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:I think what you're saying is that if I take an image of the sun on 135 through a 10mm aperture at whatever focal length is required to fill the frame it will cook the film, but taking an image in 20x24 through a 10mm aperture at whatever focal length will fill the frame will expose correctly due to the light energy being distributed over a larger area, so more silver absorbs the photons and it doesn't blow out. Is this correct? No... it's got nothing to do with the ISO or the ability of the film to make exposures. It has everything to do with the grains of emulsion being a smaller part of the equation as the negative gets larger. It's why larger formats appear sharper, and display subtler tones. For an example that continues in the other direction, look at the difference in quality between 35mm movie film and Super 8.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 08:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 10:36 |
|
|
yeah but what do subtler tones have to do with the range between largest and smallest light values captured in the image without blowing out or losing shadow detail? this whole thing is confusing me
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 08:55
|
|