|
I realize that this might be the wrong thread to ask, but I figure it's related to film... I am looking at purchasing a film scanner for my developed films. Do people have any recommendations for which scanner/s I should be looking at?
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2011 10:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 06:20 |
|
|
Man_alive posted:I realize that this might be the wrong thread to ask, but I figure it's related to film... How about you try reading the thread ... just pick any few pages and you'll be sure to find your question answered
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2011 12:39
|
|
|
Man_alive posted:I realize that this might be the wrong thread to ask, but I figure it's related to film... It seems to me the most commonly suggested home scanners depending on your price range are the Epson V500, V600 and V700.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2011 13:20
|
|
|
Man_alive posted:I realize that this might be the wrong thread to ask, but I figure it's related to film... I've been using the Canoscan 9000f, http://bit.ly/n3zqsB, and it's been good so far. With any flatbed scanner, it's a constant war on dust getting on the glass, and it's not too fast if scanning at decent resolution, but it comes with holders for 35mm, slide and 120 negatives, which is nice. Minor color correction is sometimes needed in LR, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2011 23:11
|
|
|
Wait, how does the Canoscan compare to the V700? It costs less hundreds of dollars.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2011 23:42
|
|
|
There's a whole scanning thread that is dedicated to this. Maybe this could be put in the OP?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2011 23:44
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:There's a whole scanning thread that is dedicated to this. Maybe this could be put in the OP? Done.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2011 00:28
|
|
|
Just found this on the tumblr feed, even though its not specifically about film cameras, I thought a lot of people would appreciate it: http://vimeo.com/26251829
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2011 14:51
|
|
|
Spedman posted:Just found this on the tumblr feed, even though its not specifically about film cameras, I thought a lot of people would appreciate it:
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2011 18:14
|
|
|
So I need some help. I bought a lot of 35 old camera lenses off Craigslist for 100 bucks. After picking through them I kept four lenses, a power winder, and a few filters. My intentions were to use the four lenses for my Canon 60D (my day job is a videographer). The rest were utter moldy junk that I traded to the local camera store for two 4x5 film holders. I've identified two of the lenses I kept as Pentax-K but these other two are giving me abit of trouble. I've ebay and googled the lenses, but the results haven't matched what I've got. Which mounts are these? Kamero Auto F2.8 35MM   X-Fujinar T 135MM F2.8   The other two were a 50mm f2 and a 28mm f2. Sadly the 28mm doesn't fit the mount very well and only half of the aperture ticks seem to make any difference, but maybe that's normal on that lens. My grand hope was that I'd get a great set of primes for my video DSLR for really cheap. The 50mm certainly is light, looks great, and has a much better focus ring than my plastic-fantastic nifty fifty, so I won't feel tooooo bad if I can't get these other two lenses working. EDIT: In retrospect, this might have been the wrong thread. But as these were for film cameras, I figure you folks would be able to identify these two mounts easier. The Affair fucked around with this message at 21:56 on Jul 16, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2011 21:00
|
|
|
I could've grabbed a Super Takumar 50mm f/1.4 in M42 mount at the Salvation Army yesterday for $30, but I didn't have the money with me and now the sale is gone  also they had a Mamiya/Sekor 528tl and a Flexaret Automat TLR; I passed them up because one was bad and one was expensive
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2011 01:28
|
|
|
The Affair posted:Which mounts are these?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2011 05:12
|
|
|
The Affair posted:I've identified two of the lenses I kept as Pentax-K but these other two are giving me abit of trouble. I've ebay and googled the lenses, but the results haven't matched what I've got. Which mounts are these? I might be interested in purchasing that lens if it's otherwise in good shape, and your price is reasonable. Put it in the Buy/Sell/Trade thread if that's your plan, and don't consider this first dibs because this isn't the sell thread. e;f;b edit: ok, I said "erroneously" but that's really just me being a pedantic rear end. Only a few hard-core Minolta fanboys care enough to push up their glasses and sneer while saying "ess-arr". \/\/\/ ouch, I have been served. Well done, sirrah! ExecuDork fucked around with this message at 05:29 on Jul 17, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2011 05:15
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Minolta SR mount - sometimes erroneously refered to as Minolta MD or MC mount.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2011 05:27
|
|
|
Thanks everyone for figuring this out. Looks like I'll need a glass adapter for it to work on my 60D, and that defeats the purpose. I could use my metric ton of FD glass instead if I wanted that.ExecuDork posted:I might be interested in purchasing that lens if it's otherwise in good shape, and your price is reasonable. Put it in the Buy/Sell/Trade thread if that's your plan, and don't consider this first dibs because this isn't the sell thread. Would you be interested in the Kamero lens for $30 shipped? (Provided you are in the lower 48 that is.) It has some random dust, but no mold or serious looking dings. EDIT: Or! If anyone has an old Pentax or Nikon or some other mount that will glass-less-ly fit an EOS mount with adapter that's a nice but cheap-o offbrand 24, 28, or 35mm prime, I'd trade you. The Affair fucked around with this message at 07:21 on Jul 17, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2011 06:28
|
|
|
I think that 135 is a Fuji X-mount, another dead system with a short flange distance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2011 06:49
|
|
|
That second row of aperture settings and the aperture control arm make it look like F mount.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2011 00:27
|
|
|
The Affair posted:Thanks everyone for figuring this out. Looks like I'll need a glass adapter for it to work on my 60D, and that defeats the purpose. I could use my metric ton of FD glass instead if I wanted that. Short version: Canada, $40 shipped is my counter-offer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2011 00:38
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:That second row of aperture settings and the aperture control arm make it look like F mount. Isn't the aperture arm in the wrong place for it to be F mount?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2011 01:17
|
|
|
Got my first Paterson system tank... it's huge 
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2011 19:12
|
|
|
The Affair posted:X-Fujinar T 135MM F2.8 X Mount.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2011 19:13
|
|
|
I'm confused. The side of my bottle of HC-110 says to make Dilution "B", use 1 part developer to 7 parts water. But everything else I've seen on the internet (including this thread) says to mix 1:31. Any ideas why the bottle would say differently? As far as I know I'm not using the European concentrate, I ordered from Freestylephoto. edit-- oh, it looks like 1:7 is for making stock solution, while 1:31 is for making working solution - I guess it makes sense now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2011 19:40
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:Got my first Paterson system tank... it's huge  
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2011 19:45
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:I'm confused. The side of my bottle of HC-110 says to make Dilution "B", use 1 part developer to 7 parts water. Yeah, but unless you're going to be using all that developer somewhat quickly, it will behoove you to mix from syrup, not stock. If you don't have one, get a syringe (look for a cheap plastic 'oral/topical' one) to measure it with.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2011 20:17
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Yeah, but unless you're going to be using all that developer somewhat quickly, it will behoove you to mix from syrup, not stock. If you don't have one, get a syringe (look for a cheap plastic 'oral/topical' one) to measure it with. Yep, that's what I'm planning on doing. I also assume that it's safe to use the agitator-spinny rod in the Paterson tank to agitate instead of inversion? Putting the tupperware-style cap on that thing is a pain in the rear end.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2011 20:19
|
|
|
Want to thank you guys again for the advice so far. My OM-1 with the 50mm f/1.4 has been a blast. Should have some decent stuff to show off soon. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2011 20:23
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:Yep, that's what I'm planning on doing. I also assume that it's safe to use the agitator-spinny rod in the Paterson tank to agitate instead of inversion? Putting the tupperware-style cap on that thing is a pain in the rear end. You're going to have to do your own tests to see what works for agitation. There are a lot of opinions out there about the effects of various strategies. Personally, I pick my tank up by the up and swish it around in a circle since it likes to leak if I invert it. e: Yeah I use inversion for my washing as well. 365 Nog Hogger fucked around with this message at 20:41 on Jul 18, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2011 20:25
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:You're going to have to do your own tests to see what works for agitation. There are a lot of opinions out there about the effects of various strategies. Personally, I pick my tank up by the up and swish it around in a circle since it likes to leak if I invert it. I'm satisfied with the results I get from "spinning rod" agitation. Originally I did inversion agitation, but stopped doing that since mine leaks through the lid too... (I still use inversion for Ilford-style washing, since that's just water.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2011 20:39
|
|
|
The terminologies of "stock" solution and "working" solution confuse me. One roll of film requires 300ml of solution. This means that with HC-110 Dilution B 1:7, I mix 38ml of developer syrup straight from the bottle with 262ml of tap water. This gets mixed in a graduated cylinder then poured in the tank. Am I doing it right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2011 22:11
|
|
|
Ciro-Flex posted:The terminologies of "stock" solution and "working" solution confuse me. One roll of film requires 300ml of solution. This means that with HC-110 Dilution B 1:7, I mix 38ml of developer syrup straight from the bottle with 262ml of tap water. This gets mixed in a graduated cylinder then poured in the tank. In the case of HC-110, "stock" solution refers to a dilution of the syrup which is too strong to use for developing film as-is, and "working" solution is a dilution of the stock solution suitable for developing film in. If you want to make working-strength dilution B directly from syrup, the ratio is 1+31. I.e. for 320 ml solution you would use 10 ml syrup and 310 ml water. (Based on this page.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2011 22:26
|
|
|
Ciro-Flex posted:The terminologies of "stock" solution and "working" solution confuse me. One roll of film requires 300ml of solution. This means that with HC-110 Dilution B 1:7, I mix 38ml of developer syrup straight from the bottle with 262ml of tap water. This gets mixed in a graduated cylinder then poured in the tank. No. With HC110 you make either a working solution from syrup or a working solution from "stock" solution. The 1:7 ratio (or dilution B) of working solution is from stock solution NOT syrup. Stock solution is the 8oz bottle of the syrup diluted to 64oz total - which coincidentally is also 1:7. To make working (dilution B) solution from syrup: dilute syrup with water 1:31 To make working (dilution B) solution from stock solution: dilute stock solution with water 1:7 In your example to make at least 300ml of total you need either 10ml syrup with 300ml water (I rounded up to make the syrup easier to measure) OR 38ml stock with 262ml water (again rounded up slightly)
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2011 22:29
|
|
|
What developers do you guys like using for Ilford normal-grain films?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2011 23:59
|
|
|
For all Ilford films I use the following combo: ID11 1:3 75F 15 to 17mins (this will depend on the shooting conditions low contrast will be 17mins) 1 agitation to start per minute I usually presoak for 2 minutes with filtered water at 75F as well, and always if it's 120 film. This gives me really nice fine grain and beautiful dense negatives. They look a little too dense sometimes, but printing or scanning really shows lots and lots of fine detail. Don't need to change anything if you are using different speed films. I have done 50, 100 and 400 speed films, all together and they have come out superb. You can use D76 instead of ID11 and they are basically the same developer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2011 00:07
|
|
|
So what would be the result of using a higher concentration of developer like I've been doing? Higher contrast? I've actually kind of liked the effect that has been produced by my (improper) development method but I'm going to start doing it the right way from now on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2011 02:42
|
|
|
Ciro-Flex posted:So what would be the result of using a higher concentration of developer like I've been doing? Higher contrast? I've actually kind of liked the effect that has been produced by my (improper) development method but I'm going to start doing it the right way from now on. Yup higher contrast. Though it will blow out the highlights a bit and you will lose some shadow detail. When I was learning all of this I did the same thing you did, misread the confusing instructions and used way too much developer. Thing is my negatives from there aren't so bad, in fact I got some good prints from them. The issue manifests itself more if you are using longer development times. Dilution B is still only about 7 to 8 mins, which isn't long enough to really screw up something like Tri-X which has so much latitude anyway. However at dilution F you are using way too much developer for 15 mins, then you get pretty messed up negatives with so much contrast and no highlight or shadow detail at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2011 03:24
|
|
|
Well I guess that would explain why my test roll of Tri-X 400 pushed to 1600 turned out like this: Although they still looked pretty neat when scanned 
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2011 03:53
|
|
|
What kind of effect would I get from trying something like Rodinal or Microphen on Pan F or FP4?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2011 06:28
|
|
|
Rodinal would be a nice developer, but depends on your subject and what look you want. It's a very sharp and fine grain developer. A friend uses it 1:100 stand developed for an hour, gets really nice negatives, similar to the ID11 routine I have been using. Though he uses it on everything, including TriX. Microphen is good for a 1 stop speed boost without noticeably increasing grain.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2011 19:44
|
|
|
Well I did it, I sprung for a Fuji Klasse S ... now to hope it turns up before my holiday next week.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2011 22:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 06:20 |
|
|
Just for an example, this is some 120 Fuji Acros, souped in some Rodinal (R09) 1:125 stand developed for 1hr. Out the back by mr_student, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2011 22:23
|
|