|
QPZIL posted:In the meantime - have a picture I took about a month ago. Who wants some dust?! I really like the DOF of this picture. Have you ever used the Spot Healing Brush tool in Photoshop? If you scan in a terribly dusty negative and can't really seem to fix it in scanning, I find that the Spot Heal tool is pretty much the best thing for digitally removing dust.
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2011 19:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 18:35 |
|
|
Captain Briney posted:I really like the DOF of this picture. Have you ever used the Spot Healing Brush tool in Photoshop? If you scan in a terribly dusty negative and can't really seem to fix it in scanning, I find that the Spot Heal tool is pretty much the best thing for digitally removing dust. I have, but I actually like the dust in this photo. Most pictures I would clean up a bit, but my dog is incredibly messy and dirty so I thought it fit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2011 20:02
|
|
|
I've found that a can of compressed air is a godsend for clearing off dusty negatives. I used to use Pec Pads but even that didn't get all the dust off. Works great for cleaning off vinyl records too... I'm so analog I think I should have been born 40 years ago. Anyway, I just contacted the Ritz Camera in Chicago at 750 N Rush St. They develop C-41 35mm & 120 for ~$5 a roll, and they scan an uncut roll of 35mm for $5! And they have a 1hr turnaround time!  This is the best deal in town, folks. Central Camera sends ALL their film out and the cheapest I've gotten there was $7.50 for develop only. Ritz will do slide film, but they send that stuff out and it costs $13 for developing and mounting. I'll have to drop some 35mm off there to be scanned and I'll report back with how their quality is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2011 21:27
|
|
|
Ciro-Flex posted:I've found that a can of compressed air is a godsend for clearing off dusty negatives. I used to use Pec Pads but even that didn't get all the dust off. spf3million in medium format thread posted:CSW Film Systems in Chicago does 120 in E6 or C41 for $4.10/roll. http://www.cswfilmsystems.com/. There's also Phoenix for $4.60/roll for 120 in E6, C41, and B&W. http://phoenixchicago.com/services/#film
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2011 21:34
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, thanks for those links. I didn't even know those companies existed. Phoenix is like 5 blocks from my apartment. I honestly was getting so fed up with scanning my own stuff & with the lack of local development/scanning options that I considered buying only B&W and slide film. C-41 color film has been such a pain in the rear end but now I can pay someone else to scan it for me! I'm totally taking all my Ektar to Ritz and I'll be using CSW for my 120. Ritz charges $13 to scan a roll of 120, so I won't be taking it there. Edit: holy balls, I think CSW is even closer to my apartment than Phoenix. Ciro-Flex fucked around with this message at 22:12 on Jun 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2011 21:45
|
|
|
How many people here actually darkroom print their own negatives? I am primarily asking about b&w because color printing requires a lot more equipment as well as setup. I work at a b&w only lab as well as having my own bathroom darkroom. I am asking because I would be happy to start a wet printing thread if there are enough people who actually would do it (and contribute) as well as people who would want to start.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2011 23:50
|
|
|
I don't, due to lack of a properly ventilated, dark space. We already have a print thread, though it is digital and analogue.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2011 00:04
|
|
|
mysticp posted:How many people here actually darkroom print their own negatives? Do this. I just bought all the stuff to lightproof my bathroom and start learning to print.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2011 03:38
|
|
|
mysticp posted:How many people here actually darkroom print their own negatives? I do all my own wet printing and I'd be happy to contribute anything I can.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2011 05:30
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:I do all my own wet printing and I'd be happy to contribute anything I can. I do as well, though not nearly at the level MadCow does. I can share my rank amateur mistakes. I think there is another Kalamazoo photo goon who wet prints as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2011 12:02
|
|
|
mysticp posted:How many people here actually darkroom print their own negatives? I'd be very interested to hear about it all, I'm thinking about putting together a set up soon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2011 13:39
|
|
|
mysticp posted:How many people here actually darkroom print their own negatives? I do my own wet printing, and I'd enjoy a thread targeted just towards that, as I like to talk about to to anyone who can't get away fast enough. And I think there are things I could definitely learn from people who've been doing it longer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2011 13:59
|
|
|
Knowledge is good. I'd like to read about your setups.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2011 16:01
|
|
|
A friend found a photo club with a dry/wet darkroom in the city I now live in, so share away. I've dev'ed a ton of B&W but never really printed my own stuff.
evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 16:24 on Jun 25, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2011 16:18
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:I've dev'ed a ton of B&W but never really printed my own stuff. Same here. Xtol is my go-to developer, I love the grain you can get with it, but I've never printed anything myself, I'd love an informative post about other peoples' techniques  I'm still learning how to use this AE-1 and accidentally popped open the back when I was trying to rewind the film... "oh, those light leaks? Yeah, they're uh... for artistic purposes... not because I'm an idiot."
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2011 16:25
|
|
|
I'll either start a new thread or just revive the print thread. It will take me a while to do a write up on my techniques plus McMadCow. I am usually in the dark room 3 times a week, I am lucky as I get unlimited use of a very high end pro setup as well as have my own bathroom version at home.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2011 17:07
|
|
|
mysticp posted:How many people here actually darkroom print their own negatives? Do it, I'm almost done building my wet darkroom.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2011 17:11
|
|
|
Please be safe and have proper ventilation, prints aren't worth chronic health problems.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2011 17:31
|
|
|
Ferris Bueller posted:I do as well, though not nearly at the level MadCow does. I can share my rank amateur mistakes. I think there is another Kalamazoo photo goon who wet prints as well. That's me, I wet print when I can sneak into the lab at school. I'm trying to get an enlarger set up at home so I can print more than once in a blue moon. How much ventilation do I need? I have a 4x6 bathroom that I do my developing in, with a 1ft square fan in the ceiling. I'm planning to do roller development. Could I get away with just turning the fan on or am I going to fumigate myself?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2011 18:37
|
|
|
mysticp posted:How many people here actually darkroom print their own negatives? I do. But I'm the only one I know who does. I don't have my own darkroom (yet) but I have access to my school's darkroom year round. I took a year long photo course my senior year. Within a week of developing our first rolls of film, all eight other members of the class, other than myself, had switched to digital. I basically have the darkroom to myself all year.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2011 18:44
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Please be safe and have proper ventilation, prints aren't worth chronic health problems. I know a dude who burned his lungs selenium toning prints in a darkroom with a broken ventilator. He was hospitalized 
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2011 19:25
|
|
|
That's a sad story, but at least he can't say he never lived and breathed his art.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2011 19:28
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:That's a sad story, but at least he can't say he never lived and breathed his art.  Is it ideal to have a fume hood or something for best ventilation?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2011 21:37
|
|
|
Yay got my R3M in the mail Now if only I had some time outside of the office to shoot stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 05:34
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:How much ventilation do I need? I have a 4x6 bathroom that I do my developing in, with a 1ft square fan in the ceiling. I'm planning to do roller development. Could I get away with just turning the fan on or am I going to fumigate myself? To be blunt, no, that isn't sufficient. Many will tell you to do it ('famous photog x printed in a enclosed box for years and it was good enough for them'), but safety guidelines just don't mesh with that. This is a good primer, and another good resource is to check your state's workplace health and safety standards for photo labs. A friend of mine suggested something that I hadn't even considered: Fume hoods. He used them in the laboratory he worked in, I'm looking into them but am not sold yet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 07:34
|
|
|
Fists Up posted:Yay got my R3M in the mail i would buy a R3M if i took any pleasure in shooting 35 mm film. that is one sexy camera.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 07:46
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:A friend of mine suggested something that I hadn't even considered: Fume hoods. He used them in the laboratory he worked in, I'm looking into them but am not sold yet. Actual lab fume hoods are crazy expensive and bulky and probably way beyond what's necessary.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 08:19
|
|
|
Fists Up posted:Yay got my R3M in the mail You're going to have a blast, it's a great camera and the 40mm Nokton is a great lens too!
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 12:32
|
|
|
Looks like the AE-1 works, woohoo. I'm not a huge fan of Superia but it's all I had on me. Rat Race by iantuten, on Flickr  The sky above by iantuten, on Flickr Count Thrashula fucked around with this message at 14:37 on Jun 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 14:34
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:To be blunt, no, that isn't sufficient. It depends on the size of the bathroom and how many cubic feet of air the fan moves. Most fans will say it somewhere on them, so just look at that and you can approximate how quickly the air is being changed over.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 21:58
|
|
|
Yeah I'm overstating a bit, but always check, and have input as well if you can.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 22:19
|
|
|
A buddy brought me an old camera this weekend and a few other goodies his parents made him take as well: I hope I can find film for this thing.  I could kill a man with this camera. It's a brick. Completely mechanical. I doubt I'll run a roll of 35mm through it, the viewfinder is awfully cloudy.  This might actually still be useful. I need to research it up.  I'm skeptical that I can even find Kodak 127 film any more, but I'll look into it. Oddly enough, I found models of this for sale on ebay with an external flash.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 23:09
|
|
|
Elite Taco posted:I'm skeptical that I can even find Kodak 127 film any more, but I'll look into it. Oddly enough, I found models of this for sale on ebay with an external flash. Efke still makes B&W 127 film, I think it's pretty nice stuff too: http://freestylephoto.biz/100127-Fotokemika-Efke-R100-iso-100-127-size?cat_id=403
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 23:48
|
|
|
Elite Taco posted:A buddy brought me an old camera this weekend and a few other goodies his parents made him take as well: J66 uses the long-dead rollfilm, so no, you can't find film for it. Packfilm polaroids can still be used though with fuji stuff. quote:
Ergonomics are pretty dumb on The Brick but those Cintar lenses are fantastic. Clean that viewfinder and use it! quote:
http://www.frugalphotographer.com/cat127.htm http://freestylephoto.biz/100127-Fotokemika-Efke-R100-iso-100-127-size?cat_id=403 http://freestylephoto.biz/810827-Rollei-Retro-80s-ISO-127-size-with-plastic-can?cat_id=403 127 is hard to find and even harder to get developed, though a plastic multi-format spool should be able to accomodate it if you're doing your own black and white processing. If you've got access to a bandsaw, you could also try cutting a 120 spool down to 46mm in height.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 23:48
|
|
is go
|
Dr. Cogwerks posted:127 is hard to find and even harder to get developed, though a plastic multi-format spool should be able to accomodate it if you're doing your own black and white processing. If you've got access to a bandsaw, you could also try cutting a 120 spool down to 46mm in height. Any plastic Paterson spool can do 127 film, but good luck finding a 127 film holder for a scanner. I have a 127 camera but what turns me off is that Efke doesn't play nice with HC-110, which is my preferred developer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 23:52
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Yeah I'm overstating a bit, but always check, and have input as well if you can. I realized there's no reason to actually develop in the bathroom. My drums have light traps so I can pour liquid in the light. I can expose in the dark, load the print into the roller drum, then go outside and develop in the open air. Ciro-Flex posted:Any plastic Paterson spool can do 127 film, but good luck finding a 127 film holder for a scanner. I have a 127 camera but what turns me off is that Efke doesn't play nice with HC-110, which is my preferred developer. Try Rodinal, it's a one-shot like HC-110, keeps well, and works well with a wide variety of films. Freestyle carries it as Compard R09, but it's the same stuff. Elite Taco posted:
The light meter may be toast. It looks like it might have a selenium cell (no batteries). At this point, those rarely work anymore. Flash bulbs were actually a pretty common technique with those. They have simple plastic meniscus or doublet lenses which are pretty bad wide open. With a flash, you could stop down to f/16 and get acceptable results. The same technique is used by modern film and digital point and shoots.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 00:05
|
|
|
Opened every junk point-'n'-shoot camera at my favorite thrift store for funsies; found a roll of Kodak "Funtime", which even the Internet can't tell me much about. I figured that the roll wasn't used and was just sitting in the camera unexposed, and I was right. Looks a lot like your average Kodak Gold film, I guess. Maybe it's rare in name only.  Untitled by Zombotron, on Flickr  "Hey, look this way!" by Zombotron, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 06:40
|
|
|
Elite Taco posted:
The Argus is totally a brick, but it was also the camera that popularized 35mm as a film format. I have my grandfather's somewhere but have never shot with it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 07:14
|
|
|
 Cross-processed Fujichrome  Sandra BTS by iantuten, on Flickr  Sandra BTS by iantuten, on Flickr  Sandra BTS by iantuten, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2011 00:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 18:35 |
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:The idea is that Portra 400 has such wide exposure latitude that even severely underexposed/thin negatives will be usable, especially if you push a bit too. See some demonstrations of thin Portra 400 here Did I read this wrong, or is that second to last picture on the right a 500 speed film shot at 6400 with no push? If so, that's incredible... On a related note, is bulk loading complicated? And how do you get ECN-2 film developed? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2011 07:03
|
|
