|
QPZIL posted:edit-- well maybe I'm wrong. I thought those 1-hour labs could only do C-41 processing.
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 18:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 16:33 |
|
|
How do you deal with overly curly film? Is there any miracle cure when your negatives like to curl up, making them way too hard to push into sleeves or place in the enlarger? I suspect it happens with old film that has been stored too warm... Also: Do your B/W development at home. Anything else is just wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 21:21
|
|
|
nielsm posted:How do you deal with overly curly film? Is there any miracle cure when your negatives like to curl up, making them way too hard to push into sleeves or place in the enlarger? I find that trying to get it into the binder page for fifteen minutes and then screaming at it works.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 21:35
|
|
|
nielsm posted:How do you deal with overly curly film? Is there any miracle cure when your negatives like to curl up, making them way too hard to push into sleeves or place in the enlarger? Curl across the negative or lengthwise? For curl across the negative I curl the negative sleeve too as I put in the negative. For lengthwise curl, once my negs are in strips to go into the sleeves, the curl isn't ever so severe I can't coax them into the sleeves. Occasionally I'll have the sleeves at the edge of a table so the un-sleeved portion of the negative strip can hang off while I thread in the beginning of the strip. For me, both types of curl seem to resolve themselves after a few days in a negative binder with a few pounds' worth of other negative sleeves pushing them flat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 22:12
|
|
|
Has Dwayne's gone out of style for film processing? They do B&W. But if you have any interest in shooting more B&W film in the foreseeable future it's probably cheaper to do it yourself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 22:21
|
|
|
Portra 160! FH000005 by ksulli25, on Flickr Nikon FM2 with 105mm f/2.5
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 01:30
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:Has Dwayne's gone out of style for film processing? They do B&W. But if you have any interest in shooting more B&W film in the foreseeable future it's probably cheaper to do it yourself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 02:07
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:But if you have any interest in shooting more B&W film in the foreseeable future it's About 10 years ago I dropped off a roll of C-41 B&W (it was Kodak, 400 I think, can't remember the name) at my grocery store; this was back when everywhere would happily accept a roll of film and send it down the street to the nearest minilab. Somebody in the lab saw "Black and White" but didn't see "Process C-41" and developed my roll of 35mm by hand; I don't know exactly how, but the film was supposed to give a sepia old-timey kind of look, and the prints came back as high-contrast glossies. The store wanted to charge me $28 for what should have cost about $6. I managed to argue it down to the regular price with a manager, but it did teach me the cost of having a "professional" develop film by hand. I wouldn't send a roll of B&W to a shop, if you can't/won't develop it yourself, tell us where you live and somebody reasonably near by will do it for you (send beer money).
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 05:27
|
|
|
I live in Rhode Island but yeah I want someone else to develop at least this roll as it was a memorable show. I will look into my own developing once I move out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 06:31
|
|
|
Photex posted:I live in Rhode Island but yeah I want someone else to develop at least this roll as it was a memorable show. I will look into my own developing once I move out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 09:53
|
|
|
You cut her foot and hand off 
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 18:35
|
|
|
pwn posted:Check your PMs. Replied 
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 18:50
|
|
|
Yeah the composition is a little cramped, but unfortunately by the time I backed up a little bit I wasn't getting the same smile as in this picture. Is it really distracting?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 18:50
|
|
|
Ciro-Flex posted:Yeah the composition is a little cramped, but unfortunately by the time I backed up a little bit I wasn't getting the same smile as in this picture. Is it really distracting? I don't think it's distracting at all, and wouldn't have noticed if it wasn't pointed out. I think sometimes we are too anal about cutting off parts of the body, especially considering her legs are slightly cut off, and her feet/legs aren't in focus anyway. It doesn't look like she's an amputee, and the focus of the photo is on her face and the books. I think if you would have zoomed out or stepped back a bit to get her entire body in frame, it would have actually taken away from the photo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 20:37
|
|
|
Is there a recommended source for light seals/kits? Finally got my XA test roll back and it looks like there's some light getting in (not surprising because the seals were pretty cruddy).ExecuDork posted:Develop your B&W at home. Do what I did, on the advice of this thread: find somebody selling off their darkroom starter kit (you don't need an enlarger or paper or a safelight or any of the other things needed for wet printing), make sure the chemicals are good (or buy new), do it at home. Easy. It's been on my to-do list for about 2 years, but I think it's finally near the top now because I want to try medium format and that would get way too expensive for dev + scans otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2011 00:12
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:Is there a recommended source for light seals/kits? Finally got my XA test roll back and it looks like there's some light getting in (not surprising because the seals were pretty cruddy). Try taking all the seals out first. Sometimes cameras seal better with no seals as opposed to partial crappy seals.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2011 00:40
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:Is there a recommended source for light seals/kits? Finally got my XA test roll back and it looks like there's some light getting in (not surprising because the seals were pretty cruddy). Interslice kits (on ebay) are great and dirt cheap.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2011 07:02
|
|
|
Thanks for the advice about rangefinders guys. I just got my first negs back and I'm really falling in love.Crossposting from the 35mm P&S thread, Just wonndering though, how the negative turned out in this one, and I'm a little clueless as to how it turned out very subtle with the midtones and highlights and saturation compared to the rest of the roll (Cheap Kodak Gold 200). Colour by trambopaline, on Flickr compared to say this  Lonely by trambopaline, on Flickr which was in similar lighting conditions? Excuse the possibly dumb question. I'm just trying to get a handle on film and trying to visualise how lighting turns out on film. Cheers!
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 09:37
|
|
|
The light isn't similar at all. The first one is overcast, the second one isn't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 15:13
|
|
|
Yeah, pay more attention to the edges of the shadows to determine lighting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 17:07
|
|
|
Alright, cheers. I must have just remembered wrong about the lighting. Now to throw a ton more rolls through this thing to get a better feel for film...
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 21:58
|
|
|
Quick question guys. I dropped my fully plastic lomo camera and film in the ocean. How do I save the film? Should I wet the film again with tab water to get the salty water and residue of, or would that make things worse? I'm ready to put the roll in a lightproof can with rice. But I want to know if I rinse the roll with water if it affects the chemicals in any way, or is the roll already doomed?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 00:43
|
|
|
Miike posted:Quick question guys. I dropped my fully plastic lomo camera and film in the ocean. How do I save the film? Should I wet the film again with tab water to get the salty water and residue of, or would that make things worse? I'm ready to put the roll in a lightproof can with rice. But I want to know if I rinse the roll with water if it affects the chemicals in any way, or is the roll already doomed? I googled 'presoak film water develop' and it looks like people presoak certain B&W films then adjust the development time to compensate for the added water. However, any salt residue can also change the chemical reactions. If your film is B&W, you could flush the film several times with cold tap water to try to dilute any salt then adjust the development time to compensate. YMMV.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 01:42
|
|
|
pseudonordic posted:I googled 'presoak film water develop' and it looks like people presoak certain B&W films then adjust the development time to compensate for the added water. However, any salt residue can also change the chemical reactions. If your film is B&W, you could flush the film several times with cold tap water to try to dilute any salt then adjust the development time to compensate. YMMV. Huh, I always presoak my film in 20C water. I didn't know it was something people only did with "certain B&W films".
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 02:35
|
|
|
 Cube #3 by atomicthumbs, on Flickr portra rules
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 05:12
|
|
|
 018_18 by Photex-Media, on Flickr Portra 800 does indeed rule, first time I shot on it and only the second time i've used my Maxxum 5.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 06:41
|
|
|
why were you shooting portra 800 in direct sunlight 
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 06:44
|
|
|
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/living/2011/08/18/natpkg.film.not.dead.yet.cnn?hpt=hp_abar Interesting little snippet on the film photography scene in NYC.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 07:13
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:Huh, I always presoak my film in 20C water. I didn't know it was something people only did with "certain B&W films". Ilford specifically disrecommends it with some of their films, e.g. FP4+. "A pre-rinse is not recommended as it can lead to uneven processing."
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 10:21
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Ilford specifically disrecommends it with some of their films, e.g. FP4+. "A pre-rinse is not recommended as it can lead to uneven processing." Ah, I mostly shoot Tri-X and have never had problems with an H2O presoak. I always heard that it loosens up the emulsion to PREVENT uneven processing. I'll keep that in mind for the future though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 13:29
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:Ah, I mostly shoot Tri-X and have never had problems with an H2O presoak. I always heard that it loosens up the emulsion to PREVENT uneven processing. I'll keep that in mind for the future though. I think Kodak's and Ilford's anti-halation layers are quite different. One of the advantages of a pre-soak with Kodak is supposed to be or completely washing away the anti-halation layer, IIRC.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 16:52
|
|
|
I pre-soak my Ilford stuff and the water usually comes out purple. I thought that was the anti-halation layer dissolving.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 21:19
|
|
|
I also pre-soak too, the water will usually be clear unless I'm shooting china lucky and then it's pretty much bright purple.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 21:41
|
|
|
I just got a Hasselblad recently and here are some of the early photos I shot on Tri-X 400 Convergence by alkanphel, on Flickr  Lost in Thought by alkanphel, on Flickr  Leaves, Picnic Terrace, Fort Canning by alkanphel, on Flickr  Granite Stairs & Alabaster Railings by alkanphel, on Flickr  Top Floor, Bras Brasah Complex by alkanphel, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 01:11
|
|
|
So I've been getting into film lately. I started catching the bug a few years ago after I got a Diana F+ from Urban Outfitters (yes, I know better now and at least I got it a little cheaper than what they're asking now). I've moved onto to a couple 35mm rangefinders (Zorki-4 and Kodak Retina IIa) and love them both. I was just given a Nikon N2000, which is the first SLR I've ever used. It's okay. I hate the shutter/film advance deal and not being able to shoot without batteries. Yesterday, though, I took out a Kodak Duaflex IV TLR for my attempt at some street stuff. Just tried to develop my own film for the first time tonight and completely hosed it. I did Diafine but didn't get nearly all the A solution out, but I didn't realize it until I went to pour the B in. Then I tried to pour all the B out knowing it wasn't coming out well (and of course, B is the *don't agitate!* solution). Still didn't get all of it out and didn't know how bad it was until I poured the fixer in... just terrible. One photo came out, the rest didn't. I had to share that with you Dorkroom.  I also have a question! There's a guy on CL saying he's got a Voigtlander Prominent with dynaron 1:4.5/100 and ultron 1:2/50 lenses and a working light meter for $500, but says in the listing to make an offer. This isn't somewhere where a lot of camera stuff moves well, so I'm thinking it might be possible to pick it up for a little less even. Is it worth it? I can't afford to spend that much on it for myself, but would any dorkroomers be interested in having me pick it up for them?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 05:26
|
|
|
Contaminating B with A isn't that bad, it's expected that some contamination will occur, as you aren't even supposed to rinse between stages, it's getting B into your A that will ruin it. Also, I've never heard of B being 'do not agitate,' and have always done the exact same agitation throughout my process (dev/wash/fix/dev).
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 05:51
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Contaminating B with A isn't that bad, it's expected that some contamination will occur, as you aren't even supposed to rinse between stages, it's getting B into your A that will ruin it. Also, I've never heard of B being 'do not agitate,' and have always done the exact same agitation throughout my process (dev/wash/fix/dev). Yeah I'm not too worried about contaminating the B with the A. The problem is that maybe a third of the B that should have gone in actually went in - that's how full it still was. As for the "do not agitate" part, I don't know, I got that off a tutorial somebody put together on RFF.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 13:53
|
|
|
Rollei 35 protip: make sure the rewind lever is fully down. Up is rewind, mine was at horizontal and I lost a whole day's pics because the counter was advancing but the film wasn't. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 21:45
|
|
|
Reasons to stay away from expired film: o It's probably fogged o It might have lost sensitivity o poo poo curls and is impossible to handle o The print on 120 backing paper can somehow leave marks in the picture I can handle fogged film, just print at a higher grade. I can handle lost sensitivity, just meter for 1/3 or 2/3 stop slower. I can handle the curlyness, as long as it's not too many rolls at a time. But circled numbers and weird dots showing up all over my pictures? NO CURE.  
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2011 01:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 16:33 |
|
|
Adds character(s)  For me, film comes in three flavours: 1. Full-price, new film. Avoid 2. Cheap film that's cheap because it's expired. Good 3. Free film sent to me because somebody didn't want it, often because it's expired. Best Paul MaudDib, I just re-read your post and realized a friend is using a Rollei 35 right now on vacation. How do I tactfully suggest to her to check that? She hasn't used the camera for many years, and decided to run a few rolls through it on this vacation based on my enthusiasm.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2011 01:59
|
|