|
HPL posted:I figured out how to load two rolls of 120 on one reel. Couldn't you have figured that out a little earlier?  I just finished the last roll in a batch of 12, one roll at a time. In retrospect, it's obvious. I'll make sure to try it next time. Bonus question: I have some Delta 3200 expired January 2002. I have shot and developed one roll so far, and it came out extremely fogged. That's to be expected of high-speed film that old, right?
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 05:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 12:39 |
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:If you shoot Tri-X your negatives will always have a purple tint, it's just the color of the base. I've been getting my tri-x to lose that tint by just fixing the hell out of it. 8 minutes seems to do the trick. Dr. Cogwerks fucked around with this message at 06:13 on Jul 11, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 05:51
|
|
is go
|
So I just learned that a "snip test" refers to putting the leader in more than just the fixer (i.e. the test that was explained on page one to figure out fixing time) Is there a way to do a full-development snip test? Or is that something only big labs can do? ...or is it even worth it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 15:27
|
|
|
Just got my last ever 35mm camera  
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 19:23
|
|
|
That's a killer combo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 19:37
|
|
|
Please excuse the really dumb new guy question, but is that still considered a lens hood? Or is there another name for it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 19:57
|
|
|
Yeah it's a lens hood. The reason it is vented is because part of it would overly obscure the viewfinder otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 20:00
|
|
|
Here's two from Sanghai, can't decide which I like better.   Are the splotches from lovely development or is it lovely film? spf3million fucked around with this message at 22:56 on Jul 11, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 22:34
|
|
|
spf3million posted:Here's two from Sanghai, can't decide which I like better. It's dust/hairs/etc. For skies or out of focus areas I lasso and use a dust/scratches filter, for areas with detail I'll clone stuff out manually (graphics tablet makes this a lot less tedious). If you're scanning them yourself, just try to keep the negatives/scanner as clean as you can to minimize post-work on your scans. If not, I dunno, try to find a better lab. That last one is pretty bad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 22:51
|
|
|
I'm thinking that it's film defects because these two are neighbors on the end of the roll and the rest of the roll scanned pretty cleanly. Tough to see on the upload but the splotches are kind of off-colored too, sort of blue-ish.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 23:05
|
|
|
I was in Walgreen's yesterday and spotted their house brand (fuji) 800 speed film on sale for $1 a roll. I bought all the rolls available (only 6), but I couldn't help wonder why they were so cheap, as they don't expire until next year, Then last night I had a dream where I was walking by there at night and they were junking all of their Noritsu equipment and cackling. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 23:22
|
|
|
Here is a shot I took with Portra 800. Notice how the blacks are not really black? They are like 80%? This is overexposure, correct? Same with these...   I am just trying to understand what I am doing wrong. I believe I am erring on the side of overexposure instead of underexposure when I am metering, but it seems to be giving me problems. I also shot a roll of Provia, but it seems that I may have underexposed the entire roll. Here's an example shot:  This is a fallen tree stump that is in the light. I believe I metered for both the light and the shadows and chose a middle value. But clearly the shot is underexposed. I just can't figure out what I am doing wrong. Mannequin fucked around with this message at 00:37 on Jul 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2011 00:33
|
|
|
Yeah the first 3 are all over exposed. Last is under. Are they lab scans or your own? I usually pick where I want shadow detail, meter there then drop that setting 2 stops. It's a quick and dirty zone system. It depends on the scene though, plus I always shoot b&w and printing my own stuff also helps me recover if I screw up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2011 00:49
|
|
|
The first two aren't really overexposed. If it were, you'd see all the white areas blown out. What you might want to try is doing an automatic level adjustment. That'll make things look more like what you were expecting. I just did a quick check with Photoshop Elements and they look way, way better with an auto level. I would say that the one with the fire engine is pooched though. The main thing with the first two is that the lower threshold of the black level isn't high enough so you're getting that weird washed-out look. Check the histograms of the photos and you'll see it. If I were the one shooting those first two, I would have shot it the same way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2011 01:07
|
|
|
What helped my metering is doing a bunch of gray card tests. Do this with a bunch of different lighting situations where you meter the scene without the card first, then with it. I use a spotmeter but I imagine people use 18% gray cards with other meter types. In your first image I'd have probably metered right off the street itself (the asphalt), it'd probably be close to Zone V.
East Lake fucked around with this message at 01:31 on Jul 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2011 01:28
|
|
|
East Lake posted:In your first image I'd have probably metered right off the street itself (the asphalt), it'd probably be close to Zone V. ...with the benefit of hindsight. It turns out that asphalt is not always 18% gray, so I rely on my gray card to give me the right reading. Which is where the problem lies, because sometimes I get the right reading and sometimes I don't. So I must be doing something wrong, but only some of the time because half of my shots are okay! It's just the other half that are not...
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2011 02:00
|
|
|
First two just look like lovely levels straight from the scanner, shrink them a bit and get rid of the magenta. Should be normal. When you say you metered for light and shadow are you using a spot or incident meter? I don't think that works quite as well without a spot meter. A dark forest floor metered correctly with a grey card/incident meter should be something like 1-2 stops below "zone 5". You set your exposure 2 stops above as an average of the light and dark incident meter reading and it's more like zone 2 or 1. Transparency can't deal with that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2011 02:00
|
|
|
Try finding some green grass instead of asphalt for an 18% gray card surrogate. I believe the light it reflects is pretty close to 18% so it will get you close enough for negative film.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2011 02:11
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:...with the benefit of hindsight. It turns out that asphalt is not always 18% gray, so I rely on my gray card to give me the right reading. Which is where the problem lies, because sometimes I get the right reading and sometimes I don't. So I must be doing something wrong, but only some of the time because half of my shots are okay! It's just the other half that are not... Edit: The darker grey section on the asphalt might be a bit better spot, hard to tell without being there. East Lake fucked around with this message at 02:33 on Jul 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2011 02:15
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:Here is a shot I took with Portra 800. Notice how the blacks are not really black? They are like 80%? My Silverfast scans look like this when I'm using the wrong film profile. So that could be a clue if you're doing your own scanning.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2011 02:45
|
|
|
Anyone have any advice on getting some expired film developed? I found some Blacks slide film that expired in 1982 and shot it for fun @ ISO 75 instead of it's rated 100, to try and account for the 3 decades. I'm pretty sure it's E6 but it doesn't say on it. Might just get it developed as C41 for fun.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2011 06:39
|
|
|
Well I just got 200' of Vision 3 500T motion picture film and started bulk loading it. I learned two valuable things today: 1. 200' of film is a LOT of film, especially when only 100' fits in your bulk loader and you have to spool it by hand. 2. Apparently when you unstick tape from things it gives of a weird, faint green light. Usually not something I would notice, but when you're taping 200' of film to a spool in total darkness, it catches you off guard a bit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2011 07:34
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:I was in Walgreen's yesterday and spotted their house brand (fuji) 800 speed film on sale for $1 a roll. I bought all the rolls available (only 6), but I couldn't help wonder why they were so cheap, as they don't expire until next year, Could be the last of the now discontinued Fuji 800z.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2011 10:29
|
|
|
penneydude posted:2. Apparently when you unstick tape from things it gives of a weird, faint green light. Usually not something I would notice, but when you're taping 200' of film to a spool in total darkness, it catches you off guard a bit. That isn't just weird light, those are x-rays!
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2011 12:56
|
|
|
penneydude posted:2. Apparently when you unstick tape from things it gives of a weird, faint green light. Usually not something I would notice, but when you're taping 200' of film to a spool in total darkness, it catches you off guard a bit. Triboluminescence! 
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2011 13:35
|
|
|
I've got 10 rolls of Arista Premium 400 on the way to me. This stuff better be as good as you guys say >: (
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2011 13:47
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:I've got 10 rolls of Arista Premium 400 on the way to me. This stuff better be as good as you guys say >: ( It's good poo poo. Develop in HC-110 and you'll have a lot to be happy about.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2011 15:46
|
|
|
Ciro-Flex posted:It's good poo poo. Develop in HC-110 and you'll have a lot to be happy about. HC110 is on its way in the same order 
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2011 15:51
|
|
|
Ciro-Flex posted:It's good poo poo. Develop in HC-110 and you'll have a lot to be happy about. I've had good luck developing Tri-X 400 with Diafine as well. There's nothing like being able to shoot half a roll on the streets of Paris in broad daylight and the other half at 3200+ in Notre Dame and then develop them in the same tank.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2011 17:34
|
|
|
I know this comes up all the time, but for cheap b&w, 100 & 400, is Arista Premium (Tri-x) worth the $0.60/roll premium over Legacy Pro?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2011 18:18
|
|
|
^^^^I think it's worth it unless you like the heavier grain of the Legacy stuff.penneydude posted:I've had good luck developing Tri-X 400 with Diafine as well. There's nothing like being able to shoot half a roll on the streets of Paris in broad daylight and the other half at 3200+ in Notre Dame and then develop them in the same tank. I use Arista Premium 400 (Tri-X) and my exposure/development is ASA 320 in 1:1 XTol for 7:45. I tested it that way for one of my body/lens combos, but it seems to work for everything I shoot it through. Good shadow detail and very fine grain.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2011 20:19
|
|
|
I forgot how much I love Tri-X in Diafine. Just a quick negative scan, still need a few things before I'm set up to wet print. Edit: stupid attachments 
8th-snype fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Jul 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2011 20:41
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:I forgot how much I love Tri-X in Diafine. Just a quick negative scan, still need a few things before I'm set up to wet print. I really need to get some more Diafine, I love Acros in HC110, but I really loved tri-x in Diafine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2011 21:38
|
|
|
I've been using Tri X 400 at its rated ASA, as well as pushed 2 stops in D76 1:1, and have been pleased with the results. Just to throw another idea out there. Also according to two artists at the St Joe art festival film is dead, so why are we even talking about this?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2011 21:41
|
|
|
Ferris Bueller posted:Also according to two artists at the St Joe art festival film is dead, so why are we even talking about this? Necrophilia.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2011 21:43
|
|
|
Marman1209 posted:When you say you metered for light and shadow are you using a spot or incident meter? I don't think that works quite as well without a spot meter. Incident meter. I have had luck averaging in the past, but maybe I was doing something wrong. I want a spot meter but I can't afford one at the moment. My only alternative is to haul around my dslr (not fun!). Marman1209 posted:A dark forest floor metered correctly with a grey card/incident meter should be something like 1-2 stops below "zone 5". You set your exposure 2 stops above as an average of the light and dark incident meter reading and it's more like zone 2 or 1. While this may be true, logic says I should be able to rely on my meter to give me the correct exposure reading. Maybe I shouldn't have averaged anything out. In the shot I posted it looks like I metered for the light and not at all for the shadows, so it's possible I hosed something up. Ciro-Flex posted:My Silverfast scans look like this when I'm using the wrong film profile. So that could be a clue if you're doing your own scanning. I had them professionally drum scanned. Some of the other Portra 800 shots came out fine, so I'm guessing I just overexposed it. It seems like several other shots have this characteristic, so I may be overexposing just in general. Often, I can fix it in Photoshop but I don't want to rely on graphics software as a crutch. I guess I just need to shoot more and experiment. I may take a roll or two and do some bracketing to see where that gets me. 8th-samurai posted:I forgot how much I love Tri-X in Diafine. Just a quick negative scan, still need a few things before I'm set up to wet print. This looks a little underexposed but otherwise very nice!
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2011 23:28
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:
Scans reallys need the black and white points set in post whether they are drum scans or done at the drugstore. Import your "overexposed" photos into PS and just set the levels. Case in point my above shot. It looks slightly underexposed to you because I never set a white point just the black on so there is no actual true white in that image.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2011 00:28
|
|
|
spf3million posted:I know this comes up all the time, but for cheap b&w, 100 & 400, is Arista Premium (Tri-x) worth the $0.60/roll premium over Legacy Pro? Assuming you mean LP400 vs AP400. That's really up to you but I lean to yes. Tri-X is a classic and there are lots of good developing recipes out for it. LP400 is Neopan 400. I like it but not quite as much as Tri-X, it's a touch grainier (in Rodinal vs HC-110 for Tri-X) and it doesn't have the insane pushability of Tri-X. LP100 is totally different (T-grain) and is my favorite 100 speed film. The grain is so fine that you can get away with using dilute Rodinal to boost acutance (edge sharpness) without any real penalty. It has no reciprocity failure to 1000 seconds and is probably the cheapest high-quality (not Chinese or Foma) film out there. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 02:30 on Jul 13, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2011 01:50
|
|
|
That's so weird. Any previous examples I've seen of the Legacy Pro stuff had heavy grain. Never would have guessed it was a tabular grained stock.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2011 02:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 12:39 |
|
|
Mannequin posted:
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2011 07:20
|
|
