|
TMax P3200 has one hell of a grain. Dark Castle @ King's Barcade 07/18/11 by iantuten, on Flickr Developed in HC-110 1+31 for 10.5 minutes. Neat.
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 05:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 02:27 |
|
|
how about Diafine and Pyrocat and Perceptol? Auuugh so many choices
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 08:19
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:how about Diafine and Pyrocat and Perceptol? Auuugh so many choices Haven't tried the first two, but someone here (Manny? Reichstag?) said that they got very large mushy grain with Diafine and they didn't like the results especially for scanning. On the other hand I think I've seen scanned pictures from them before that looked fine, and split-bath development is pretty cool. Another option here would be split-D76 or split-D19 if you feel like mixing your own developer. There's a half dozen or so slightly different Pyrocat variants, but all of them are essentially a fine-grain developer with a staining action. As it develops, a stain forms in the highlights along with the silver. The stain fills in the grain to make it finer, and it's colored to reduce contrast in the highlights. That pulls the highlights back a bit and gives you a touch more tonal range (proponents claim 1-2 stops). It's primarily a wet-printing thing, and it doesn't give you the highest effective speed in the world. Pyrocat HD and Acros is a very popular combination. Perceptol is a grain-suppressing developer, similar to the old Microdol-X from Kodak (Arista Mic-X). I've tried one roll of Acros in it 1:3 (1-shot) and I didn't like it that much. No grain, but I think I gave up some sharpness. Needs further experimentation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 15:25
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:TMax P3200 has one hell of a grain. Wow, awesome shot. I agree about the P3200. I just got a roll of it back (I really need to start developing myself). I love the grain though, most shots it really added some texture and depth to photos that would have been quite 2-dimensional without it:  49160026  49160031 Mine was a roll that expired back in 2004(?) I believe, so that might explain how much more extreme my grain was than yours.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 02:05
|
|
|
I realized I could scan my prints without a film scanner, so I did. Sandpipin' by atomicthumbs, on Flickr  High and Dry by atomicthumbs, on Flickr  Magnetron by atomicthumbs, on Flickr top two are pan f+ in xtol, bottom is hp5+ in D76 all of them are from my mamiya 645 atomicthumbs fucked around with this message at 05:15 on Jul 21, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 04:25
|
|
|
Got an Agat 18K, Chaika-2 and Elikon 535 coming in the mail. I figure the Agat and Chaika will be good for street photography and the Elikon should be good for general loving around.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 06:56
|
|
|
 Morning Light by atomicthumbs, on Flickr pan f is so good
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 07:48
|
|
|
A little while back mysticp sent some free expired (2005?) rolls of Portra 100T to the first few lucky goons who spoke up - luckily I was one of them and here are the worthwhile results from my roll: http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannister/sets/72157627255877020/
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 19:17
|
|
|
Cannister posted:A little while back mysticp sent some free expired (2005?) rolls of Portra 100T to the first few lucky goons who spoke up - luckily I was one of them and here are the worthwhile results from my roll:
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 20:17
|
|
|
Cannister posted:A little while back mysticp sent some free expired (2005?) rolls of Portra 100T to the first few lucky goons who spoke up - luckily I was one of them and here are the worthwhile results from my roll:
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 20:40
|
|
|
I've been waiting till I'm going somewhere with Tungsten lighting. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 20:57
|
|
|
I just uploaded 2 more from that roll: 
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 21:05
|
|
|
Cannister posted:
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 22:58
|
|
|
Cannister posted:A little while back mysticp sent some free expired (2005?) rolls of Portra 100T to the first few lucky goons who spoke up - luckily I was one of them and here are the worthwhile results from my roll: Love these! Thanks for sharing  Some film porn! Ready for my trip to Tuscany almost, just waiting for the Portra 160 35mm to arrive! 
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 23:43
|
|
|
mysticp posted:Love these! Thanks for sharing Whoa. Let me know if you don't have enough room for some of those rolls. I'll uh... I'll hold on to 'em for ya.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 23:56
|
|
|
The first Costco just opened up in Sydney. What is their developing/printing like? Cause its pretty cheap but I don't know what to expect.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2011 06:47
|
|
|
Fists Up posted:The first Costco just opened up in Sydney. It's like any minilab; it depends on who is behind the counter. My local one will develop a roll for $1.50 without prints.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2011 07:37
|
|
|
How do you guy decide on your develop times? I read on digitaltruth the develop time for my film/developer was 7 minutes at 400 (the film speed) or 14 minutes at 800. I had two rolls so did one for 7 minutes and one for 9 minutes and I liked the results more from the 9 minute develop time, it seem to have better contrast, the 7 minute develop seemed a bit flat. Is it just a case of experimenting? I worry about ruining a roll by over developing it. Also does anyone want to guess what film this is: http://www.flickr.com/photos/81054124@N00/2212066983/in/pool-52240504976@N01/ i really like the colours.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2011 20:31
|
|
|
unixbeard posted:How do you guy decide on your develop times? I read on digitaltruth the develop time for my film/developer was 7 minutes at 400 (the film speed) or 14 minutes at 800. I had two rolls so did one for 7 minutes and one for 9 minutes and I liked the results more from the 9 minute develop time, it seem to have better contrast, the 7 minute develop seemed a bit flat. Is it just a case of experimenting? I worry about ruining a roll by over developing it. What do you mean when you say the 7 minute negs looked flat? A properly exposed and developed negative tends to look comparitively flat. That's what makes it usable. How did they print? Still too flat then?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2011 22:15
|
|
|
This hot weather sucks, all my premixed chemistry is sitting around at 95F. Probably not good for my paper stock either. I've been lazy and have about eight rolls of BW that still need to be developed and scanned, and another 10-15 of color laying around the apartment... oof.
Dr. Cogwerks fucked around with this message at 04:03 on Jul 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2011 04:00
|
|
is go
|
Just finished developing a roll of 35mm Kodak TMax 400, in Ilford Ilfosol. While I was loading the film onto the reel, near the end of the 36 exposures, part of the film just past the ratchet mechanism buckled and came out of the tracks. The only way I could get it back in was to forcefully pull back on the free end of the film, which was still attached to the spool. It buckled a second time, I think in the same place, and I repeated the yank. If it matters, I was loading the reel the same way I usually do: left hand loosely holding the film spool, right hand moving the halves of the reel against each other gripping the spokes on the outside (this makes my hand tired, but seems to generally prevent the tightly-rolled film coming off the spool all at once). All of this seems to have damaged a few frames, I think the frame that was most involved in the buckling is a write-off - large white patches show where I think my fingers were pushing on it trying to get it back in the reel - and there are creases running through a few more near the end. Fortunately, the second half of that roll was unimportant throw-away playing-around shots, and the first half appears to be OK. Has anybody else run into similar problems? Any ideas on how to prevent this from happening again?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2011 05:52
|
|
|
Dr. Cogwerks posted:This hot weather sucks, all my premixed chemistry is sitting around at 95F. Probably not good for my paper stock either. I've been lazy and have about eight rolls of BW that still need to be developed and scanned, and another 10-15 of color laying around the apartment... oof. Film should be in the refrigerator! 
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2011 11:15
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Has anybody else run into similar problems? Any ideas on how to prevent this from happening again? I got this occasionally when I used plastic reels. I assume everything was totally dry? Even the smallest drop of water can cause problems. The best way for this to never happen is to toss the plastic and use Hewes stainless steel reels. So easy to load and I have never had a film buckle or do anything but load quickly and easily. Hewes reels aren't cheap though, but they are the best.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2011 16:26
|
|
|
unixbeard posted:How do you guy decide on your develop times? I read on digitaltruth the develop time for my film/developer was 7 minutes at 400 (the film speed) or 14 minutes at 800. I had two rolls so did one for 7 minutes and one for 9 minutes and I liked the results more from the 9 minute develop time, it seem to have better contrast, the 7 minute develop seemed a bit flat. Is it just a case of experimenting? I worry about ruining a roll by over developing it. You are explaining the way to find out your best development times. Different films rate differently with different developers and also how you shot the scene, regardless of what iso you had your meter set to. Digital truth is just a guide to get you close to where you want to be. The only way to nail your own times is to test and practice and look at what your negatives turn out like. A rule of thumb I use when I think negatives might be under or over developed is to look at the manufacturers writing on the edges. If it I can see through it then it's underdeveloped, if I can't but the edges are not sharp then it is overdeveloped.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2011 16:33
|
|
|
mysticp posted:I assume everything was totally dry? Even the smallest drop of water can cause problems. I bought some Jet-dry today, because I've been told it works as well as the more expensive photo-flo (pick your brand name and clever misspelling). Obviously, the directions on the bottle don't talk about washing negatives. Should I just squirt a few millilitres into the tank during the final rinse?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2011 16:47
|
|
|
Hewes are the only 35mm reels worth buying. They have a specific metal notch set on the inside of the reel that makes loading them really really easy. All the other SS reels I have used have clips and are a huge pain to load, you may as well use plastic. You can usually pick up them on ebay for less than the $25 each that adorama charge. They aren't cheap but they are worth every penny.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2011 16:57
|
|
|
About how much time should I be giving Ilford Rapid fixed to do its thing? Is ten minutes plenty?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2011 20:12
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:About how much time should I be giving Ilford Rapid fixed to do its thing? Is ten minutes plenty? 2-4 minutes should be enough for normal films. 6-10 minutes for T-Max and Delta films.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2011 20:20
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:About how much time should I be giving Ilford Rapid fixed to do its thing? Is ten minutes plenty? That should be plenty of time for a fresh solution. The clip test is the definitive way to tell, put the leader in fixer until it's cleared and fix your film for 2x that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2011 20:23
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Has anybody else run into similar problems? Any ideas on how to prevent this from happening again? I've had this happen before. I assume it's the Paterson-style reel with the little ball bearing? I do my loading in a changing bag and it can get kind of humid in there just from my arms. I've found that, if film is going to stick and buckle, it has a higher chance of happening the longer I've been in the bag. So I've been practicing working as quickly as possible. I've also been advised that adding Photo-Flo with the reels still in the tank is a terrible idea because the Photo-Flo will stick to them and gradually build up residue. Of course I've been happily ignoring this advice. I don't know if residue can cause sticking problems or not, but it seems that if it's is going to build up, it'll be in that little crevice with the ball bearing that's hard to get running water into. Edit: I wouldn't use Jet-Dry. You don't know what else is in there that might have been added to make it more attractive as a consumer item - dyes, fragrances, stuff like that. Photo-Flo is pure. fartzilla fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Jul 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2011 21:24
|
|
|
I shot and developed Tri-X for the first time yesterday, it's got a really cool REALLY fine grain HC-110 1+31 @ 5 min  Bottles by iantuten, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2011 23:23
|
|
|
mysticp posted:Hewes are the only 35mm reels worth buying. This is all you need to know about 35mm supplies. I have 10 Hewes reels, and I refuse to use anything else.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2011 03:55
|
|
|
Plastic reels rule, actually.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2011 04:03
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Plastic reels rule, actually. Every time I try to get 120 film onto a plastic reel, I feel one step closer to an early stroke.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2011 04:12
|
|
|
Still really pissed about how badly Ritz pops the histogram on negative scans, but otherwise the sharpness and clarity still beats my flatbed scanner: FH000031 by ksulli25, on Flickr Ciro-Flex fucked around with this message at 05:10 on Jul 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2011 05:03
|
|
|
How much of a difference would I get with a decent negative scanner versus having the lab put images on a CD? I've tried this a few times and it just seems like all they do is scan the prints themselves.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2011 19:09
|
|
|
DJExile posted:How much of a difference would I get with a decent negative scanner versus having the lab put images on a CD? I've tried this a few times and it just seems like all they do is scan the prints themselves. The only labs (even one hour labs) I've seen scan the negatives, not prints. Obviously the upside of having your own scanner is that you can have more control over colors/levels/curves/whatever. I compared my own scans with the local Ritz Camera scans and the difference was night and day.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2011 19:37
|
|
|
Be prepared, it takes a lot longer to scan a roll than you'd expect.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2011 19:40
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:The only labs (even one hour labs) I've seen scan the negatives, not prints. Obviously the upside of having your own scanner is that you can have more control over colors/levels/curves/whatever. I compared my own scans with the local Ritz Camera scans and the difference was night and day. spf3million posted:Be prepared, it takes a lot longer to scan a roll than you'd expect. Cool, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2011 20:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 02:27 |
|
|
QPZIL posted:Obviously the upside of having your own scanner is that you can have more control over colors/levels/curves/whatever. and not having to pay whenever you want something scanned
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2011 22:21
|
|