|
Do what I (was told to do by goons here) did. Go on Craigslist or equivalent and find somebody unloading darkroom stuff - you don't need an enlarger, paper, a safelight, and some other things if you're not making prints at home. There's a list somewhere in this thread of what you need, I'm too lazy to find it so I'll just repost what Pompus Rhombus and PaulMaudDib told me. Basically, you need a tank, at least one reel, some chemicals and a way to measure those chemicals (i.e. graduated cylinders or similar). I was lucky enough to pick up an unused-but-opened starter kit plus a set of small bottles of chemicals for $50 - find a person whose photography hobby has moved away from chemicals and fussing around due to the sudden appearance of small children in their life.Pompous Rhombus posted:If you're doing it on the cheap, the best way is to find someone on Craigslist unloading their whole setup. Otherwise: Paul MaudDib posted:Developing by hand isn't hard. You'll need:
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2011 04:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 21:47 |
|
|
Mannequin posted:At some point I'll give Dwayne's a shot and see how they compare. The scan sizes are the same for both companies. They're decent, not the best but they are really really cheap. Their dimensions are a bit misleading as the scans I got from another lab seem much sharper. Some full size comparisons: Dwaynes - Olympus XA - Kodak Gold 200 Photoworks - Olympus XA - Kodak Gold 200 Dwaynes - Minolta srT201 - Kodak Gold 200 Photoworks - Minolta srT201 - Fuji s400
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2011 04:36
|
|
|
Man_alive posted:I have some Kodak Tri-X on the way. When it comes to actually getting this developed, am I able to take this to a normal lab (say, my local camera shop) and get it developed? Or is it a little more complex than that? Do it yourself, see the million and one posts here for info (and the quotes above). It's actually pretty expensive to get b&w done at a lab even compared to color. Plus it's way more rewarding to do it yourself. Eventually if you really get into it you won't want anyone else to do it for you. Then you get into printing....
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2011 05:46
|
|
|
CarrotFlowers posted:I just got back a roll of Kodak Gold that I shot this weekend, and I have a question: there seems to be a wide array of contrasts/saturation on the same roll. For example, the two shots below. The one of my sister and her dog is super clear and the colours are quite vibrant, but the one of the treeline is very dull and looks washed out. Did I just underexpose it? Was it a developing issue? What can I watch out for next time to avoid this? Exposure issues could be part of it, but I think the lab scanners basically do an "auto-correct" on each jpeg they pump out as well. If you have dark silhouetted areas like those trees it could assume you underexposed and want to pull detail out of them so it will make your blacks look muddy. mysticp posted:Take notes on every shot you take. It seems like a pain, but that is how you can look back on shots and figure out how to improve them. This is very good advice. Some cameras can remember your settings for later downloading (EOS 1V) or imprint them on the edge of the film (Fuji GA645 series).
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2011 07:00
|
|
|
At the advice of a friend I've been trying Fomapan 400 in 120, stand developed in Rodinal 1:100. Really liking the results so far.  img002-2.jpg by Bobsledboy, on Flickr  img002.jpg by Bobsledboy, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2011 10:51
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:They're decent, not the best but they are really really cheap. Their dimensions are a bit misleading as the scans I got from another lab seem much sharper. I really don't like the noise reduction Dwayne's does, it creates an ugly watercolour effect in slightly unfocused areas, like the distant houses in the first picture and in the grass in the background on the second.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2011 13:46
|
|
|
gib posted:Exposure issues could be part of it, but I think the lab scanners basically do an "auto-correct" on each jpeg they pump out as well. If you have dark silhouetted areas like those trees it could assume you underexposed and want to pull detail out of them so it will make your blacks look muddy. I'll start bringing a notepad with me. Seems like good advice. Maybe in a few months when I'm more comfortable with film and stuff I'll start trying to develop and scan my own. Doesn't seem like it's too too expensive, but I should probably wait until I know I want to commit to film a bit more, I think. Thanks for all the help, guys.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2011 16:48
|
|
|
Martytoof posted: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.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2011 17:27
|
|
|
apparently reddit thinks that nobody shoots film anymore because there are very few "working photographers" who use film, and the guy who says that used to work at a place that taught law enforcement photography that stopped teaching how to develop film years ago
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2011 14:24
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:apparently reddit thinks that nobody shoots film anymore because there are very few "working photographers" who use film, and the guy who says that used to work at a place that taught law enforcement photography that stopped teaching how to develop film years ago That is just sad to read  quote:Hey man I don't know about you but I always use film in my cameras. quote:Careful, agitate him and he may lash out with his mobile phone. It weighs 5kg and comes in a suitcase. At least this one was good quote:Ken Rockwell couldn't find his rear end in the dark, but Velvia 50 is awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2011 15:20
|
|
|
Sevn posted:At least this one was good That was me 
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2011 16:10
|
|
|
"Couldn't find his ASA in the dark" would have owned bones though bro. Totes bones. Jelly? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2011 17:23
|
|
|
I'm gelatin
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2011 17:40
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:apparently reddit thinks that nobody shoots film anymore because there are very few "working photographers" who use film, and the guy who says that used to work at a place that taught law enforcement photography that stopped teaching how to develop film years ago Just show them this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1M7rSayb05M
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2011 18:52
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:apparently reddit thinks that nobody shoots film anymore because there are very few "working photographers" who use film, and the guy who says that used to work at a place that taught law enforcement photography that stopped teaching how to develop film years ago To be fair, it's really hard to do high-throughput film shooting, so studios, photojournalists, and sports shooters who shoot many images a day or need quick turnaround have very justifiably gone to digital. The thing is, your average person doesn't really see much art, and when they do it's likely these photographers or their cousin using their p+s. Artists still use film for the "look" or technical factors, and could care less about anything else. Is there much of a quality difference between (scanned) medium format and decent DSLR gear? Probably not, but no one demands watercolors die out because oil paints are around or whatever. It's just another medium, and it's one that still has a lot of advantages in image quality, cost, and in practical terms. But your mother doesn't care about depth of field, she wants her vacation pictures to turn out, and that's the extent of her photographic knowledge. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 22:57 on Jun 11, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2011 20:36
|
|
|
Wow, have none of those guys ever heard of art photographers? When you see photos in a gallery, a lot of them are taken with medium format or view cameras, jeez. "Photographers" aren't just fat guys with a DSLR shooting weddings and events.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2011 22:33
|
|
|
Slightly unrelated, but now that Blu-Ray is a big thing they're going back and remastering old titles. I've heard that counterintuitively, titles shot on film look a lot better in HD than titles shot digitally. Advances in scanner technology let us go back and pull a lot more information off the film than we could 10 years ago, whereas with digital the pixels you have are it. I don't have a source for it, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2011 23:01
|
|
|
Rednik posted:Wow, have none of those guys ever heard of art photographers? Or hipsters.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2011 23:32
|
|
|
I was just in lake tahoe and went to the only photo shop they had around and asked if they had any 120 film. The guy looked at me funny and asked if I was going to use it for a Holga. I said no. He then asked if I was a professional. I said no. He ended up having a bunch of expired 160S (for $1/roll!!) which he didn't want to sell if I was shooting professionally and he said he hated hipster photography. Explaining I was going to film while the old pros shed their MF stuff made him a bit nostalgic for film, too, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2011 05:00
|
|
|
I just found a few old old rolls of 400 speed Signature Color film at my parent's house. I don't think it's c-41, it says you have to mail it to Austin, TX for processing. Is this worth shooting or is it like the Seattle Film Works movie film which is more trouble than it's worth?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2011 16:03
|
|
|
spf3million posted:I just found a few old old rolls of 400 speed Signature Color film at my parent's house. I don't think it's c-41, it says you have to mail it to Austin, TX for processing. Is this worth shooting or is it like the Seattle Film Works movie film which is more trouble than it's worth? These guys will develop, scan, and print for the low, low price of only $42.50. For one roll. That's probably extreme, but I think it gets the point across.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2011 19:45
|
|
|
snuffles posted:These guys will develop, scan, and print for the low, low price of only $42.50. For one roll. That's probably extreme, but I think it gets the point across. quote:Service Time 
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2011 20:16
|
|
|
snuffles posted:These guys will develop, scan, and print for the low, low price of only $42.50. For one roll. That's probably extreme, but I think it gets the point across.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2011 23:43
|
|
|
What about cross-processing it, in C-41 or E-6 or some other non-horribly-rare chemistry? It's old, weird film anyways, a bit more oddity from chemicals it wasn't designed for won't hurt too much, will it? I am utterly unfamiliar with Signature Color though, so I could be completely wrong on this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2011 23:50
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:What about cross-processing it, in C-41 or E-6 or some other non-horribly-rare chemistry? It's old, weird film anyways, a bit more oddity from chemicals it wasn't designed for won't hurt too much, will it? I am utterly unfamiliar with Signature Color though, so I could be completely wrong on this. As a bathroom one-shot development maybe, but I remember someone talking about movie film stock here earlier: They have some special backing layer that can make a bad mess of machine developers. You probably also don't want the backing stuff into a replenished developer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 00:25
|
|
|
There's also Film Rescue International, though I can't say anything about their services because I haven't used them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 06:54
|
|
|
Finally got everything I need to start doing my own black and white at home... EXCEPT the tank/reels... Was in Nagoya last weekend and big camera store had a nice selection of tanks, but zero reels for any of them. I will be there again next weekend and they have a nice stainless steel tank which can fit 4x35 or 2x120 that I would like to buy. Are reels fairly mix and match? Can I safely pick up that tank and then find some reels somewhere else online?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 14:19
|
|
|
Does anyone know of a good reference book on making RA-4 prints? Figured I'd ask here instead of the print thread as it's a bit more faster-moving.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 20:53
|
|
|
Lon Lon Rabbit posted:Finally got everything I need to start doing my own black and white at home... EXCEPT the tank/reels... I can't say with experience, but I've been doing research because I have paterson reels and they are a rubbish design (for 120, a bit better for 135) and I want to replace them. It seems that most plastic reels go with most plastic tanks (I haven't looked at SS). Also, buy a paterson tank by all means, but get reels with a wide loading flange like the AP photo ones. Note the lumps on the side, and compare with the paterson ones with just the tiny 2mm triangle of plastic. These suck for 120 film. These reels are supposedly interchangeable with tanks The clone brands are of one or the other style, and should also work with either brand tank.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 23:48
|
|
|
Lon Lon Rabbit posted:Finally got everything I need to start doing my own black and white at home... EXCEPT the tank/reels... The only stainless steal reels I've seen in Japan are made by LPL and they are every where. I'd wager that the tanks you have seen are made by the same company. I'm not sure about compatibility between systems, but everything does look similar to the Hewes' products. Disclaimer: I have never handled Hewes product. Also, if it is the LPL tank you are looking at, it can easily fit 2x120 + 1x135. I've only done that once, but it didn't seem to have an adverse effect on developing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2011 01:04
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:Also, buy a paterson tank by all means, but get reels with a wide loading flange like the AP photo ones. Note the lumps on the side, and compare with the paterson ones with just the tiny 2mm triangle of plastic. These suck for 120 film. These reels are supposedly interchangeable with tanks You did practice with the things first before trying to use them? I basically started on my own with only advice from the internet, Paterson reels, and had no problem loading them with 120(thanks sacrificial HP5 roll.) They're not that bad in my experience. If it helps I found feeding it through one ball bearing at a time (ie I stagger the loading flanges from each other,) really helps me and pulling the front of the film completely around the first spiral really helps me. Ferris Bueller fucked around with this message at 03:51 on Jun 14, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2011 03:47
|
|
|
Ferris Bueller posted:Has anyone used any of the Pyro developers? Just wondering what your experience with them was/is? The film I'll be using is Neopan Acros in 120mm flavor. So in about 6-8 weeks I'll let you know how it goes
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2011 08:08
|
|
|
notlodar posted:I'm going to Italy in a week and I'm going to cook up a batch of pyrocat-hd for the first time when I get back. I just got 20 rolls of Acros 120 for the trip. Looking forward to it. I may just do it for my trip as well, drat the torpedoes, full speed ahead and all that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2011 11:26
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2011 14:03
|
|
|
pwn posted: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 14, 2011 16:16
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Just FYI I now hate your guts. no kidding my two options are $4.50 for dev and CD with grainy, oversharpened 2MP files (wal-mart) -or- $14.50 for dev and decent quality scan @ 4MP (still only ~800kb files wtf)
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2011 17:33
|
|
|
Recommend me a cheap color film (preferably negative).
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 04:03
|
|
|
Suicide Watch posted:Recommend me a cheap color film (preferably negative). Ektar 100. I love the colours but the range is so-so for a negative film.  img005 by Moist_von_Lipwig, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 04:31
|
|
|
Moist von Lipwig posted:Ektar 100. I love the colours but the range is so-so for a negative film. I like the colors but it definitely feels a bit red-ish. Are there any other films that I should try?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 04:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 21:47 |
|
|
Suicide Watch posted:Recommend me a cheap color film (preferably negative). Reala 100 is great for slow film, Porra 400 (no VC or NC) is the new go-to for fast film.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 04:50
|
|