|
atomicthumbs posted:http://www.landscapegb.com/2011/06/colour-film-comparison-pt-3/ 19 stops, really?
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2011 00:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 11:12 |
|
|
Issue semi-related to film development: I seem to have dropped my thermometer and bubbles have appeared in the fluid, making it hard to read exactly. Smacking it against a wall has removed two of the bubbles, but there's still three left. Does anyone have suggestions to fix it, or is it a lost cause? (Sucks to be me.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2011 01:04
|
|
|
Try getting it as hot as possible. e: http://www.novalynx.com/reference-rejoining.html http://forums.homesciencelab.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=212
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2011 01:21
|
|
|
I made a mistake with some film. I had been shooting Portra 400 and then it ran out so I used some Portra 160 VC since I was all out of 400 filmes. However, for my first seven shots I realize I had metered them at ISO400 not 160, so they are going to be 1.5 stops underexposed. I have not taken any shots since. Because this is a Hasselblad and I only get 12 shots per roll, should I: - shoot the remaining frames at the correct exposure at ISO 160 - shoot the remaining frames at the same exposure of IS400 and have the lab pull them? - chuck the whole roll and have better luck next time What are your thoughts. I'm tempted to just chuck the whole roll. If I just do the remaining 5 the lab will still charge it as a whole roll.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2011 04:07
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:I made a mistake with some film. I had been shooting Portra 400 and then it ran out so I used some Portra 160 VC since I was all out of 400 filmes. However, for my first seven shots I realize I had metered them at ISO400 not 160, so they are going to be 1.5 stops underexposed. Shoot the rest at 160 and develop it normally. You might be able to recover the 7 shots in LR.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2011 04:28
|
|
|
Shoot the rest at the correct iso. 1.5 stops isn't horrific. The underexposed shots will probably have a slightly odd color response, contrast, and be a bit grainy, but should otherwise be perfectly fine. I have a few shots taken on 160vc that weren't exposed correctly that I'll post later when I'm on my other comp.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2011 04:29
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:I made a mistake with some film. I had been shooting Portra 400 and then it ran out so I used some Portra 160 VC since I was all out of 400 filmes. However, for my first seven shots I realize I had metered them at ISO400 not 160, so they are going to be 1.5 stops underexposed. Why would you throw it away? 1.5 stops isn't that much, negative film can usually handle that just fine. You could probably get away with just shooting the remainder at 160 and don't tell them to pull it, unless it's something critical.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2011 04:29
|
|
is go
|
nielsm posted:Issue semi-related to film development: I seem to have dropped my thermometer and bubbles have appeared in the fluid, making it hard to read exactly. Smacking it against a wall has removed two of the bubbles, but there's still three left. Does anyone have suggestions to fix it, or is it a lost cause? (Sucks to be me.) atomicthumbs posted:http://www.landscapegb.com/2011/06/colour-film-comparison-pt-3/ http://www.twinlenslife.com/2010/12/in-bleak-midwinter-new-kodak-portra400.html I wanted to take some snaps of an event at work and I could only get decent shutter speeds at 1600, and even with steady hands, 1/30 on a 75mm lens is really pushing it so I hope they came out well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2011 04:50
|
|
|
This is what Portra 400 looked like for me rating it 2.5 stops under at night: And 2.5 under in the daytime  http://www.flickr.com/photos/crooked_style/6031735662/
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2011 07:53
|
|
|
Saint Fu posted:Try getting it as hot as possible. Heating worked perfectly, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2011 14:26
|
|
|
I found some camera at a garage sale for $5. The labeling says Kalimar RX-7. I can't find anything about that specific model online and it doesn't seem to match up specs-wise with any of the other Kalimar cameras I'm seeing. It has a non-removable 50mm 1.6f prime lens on it. You can adjust the aperture by twisting the base of the lens. Anyone know what the heck this thing is? I assume it takes 35mm film, I want to give it a try. I'll get a photo in a sec... ashgromnies fucked around with this message at 03:38 on Sep 19, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2011 03:35
|
|
|
Thanks for the advice guys, I'll keep going at 160 for the remaining shots!
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2011 04:49
|
|
|
ashgromnies posted:I found some camera at a garage sale for $5. It's probably the same as the Time Magazine camera (look that up, see if it looks similar), whose lens is actually f/6. Think of it as a toy camera for a lot less than what Urban Outfitters would charge.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2011 13:48
|
|
|
Here are a couple of shots at a brewery from the last of my Kodachrome 64:  Rest of the set here (120 is E100G)
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2011 15:43
|
|
|
I just got back from a 6 week trip to Europe finishing up an assignment and taking some personal time to shoot almost 40 rolls of tri-x. Here are a few results from the Rome portion of my trip, all scans from prints.     
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2011 17:31
|
|
|
Cross-postin' from SAD. The Wall by atomicthumbs, on Flickr looks better bigger This is stitched from three shots on Ektar 100. I used my Mamiya 645 with the 150mm f/2.8 lens at f/22. Ektar has really good resolution: this is a 100% crop of the family at the top of the hill on the right. atomicthumbs fucked around with this message at 03:08 on Sep 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2011 02:51
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:Cross-postin' from SAD.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2011 02:56
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:Cross-postin' from SAD. Thats pretty awesome. You should see this in the dictionary when you look up Golden Hour :p Do you have any tips for shooting panos with film?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2011 18:25
|
|
|
Stregone posted:Thats pretty awesome. You should see this in the dictionary when you look up Golden Hour :p I don't see why it would be any different than with digital; stop down, line up with levels, keep the exposure the same, and overlap when panning.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2011 20:20
|
|
|
Just bought a whole bunch of film with some friends. Now our fridges are really stocked full of film.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2011 01:52
|
|
|
Well, I did it. I took a Zorki 4 body and put it on Zorki-4K guts. So now I have a Zorki-4K with strap lugs. It wasn't that hard. I messed up a bit in that I broke the self-timer screw off so now there's no way to cock the timer lever, but I never use it anyway so it's not a big loss. Maybe some time in the future I'll do it again with another 4k. If anyone else is thinking of doing this, it's a matter of taking off the screws around the rim of the body, two screws on the front, removing the self-timer lever, loosening the mount ring (don't lose those brass shims!) and cracking off the front. The big trick is that the self-timer lever screw is reverse threaded, which is hosed up because it's normally threaded on the Zorki-4. You don't have to remove the self-timer starter button above the lever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2011 03:57
|
|
|
If I want to push a roll of fuji color iso400 to iso1600. Do I need to tell walgreens/cvs when they develop anything?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2011 05:16
|
|
|
I asked them to push at wallgreens once and I got a blank expression back. I convinced them i knew how to run their C-41 machine and got behind the counter. after a bunch of button mashing (making sure not to change settings) - i don't think some, if not most, drugstore machines have the ability to push... (a minute of button mashing made the guy a little suspicious and he eventually booted me from behind the counter  )
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2011 06:46
|
|
|
daspope posted:If I want to push a roll of fuji color iso400 to iso1600. Do I need to tell walgreens/cvs when they develop anything? Even a couple of the "pro" photo labs around town won't push color film, let alone a 1-hour place. I have to drive to a place 30 minutes away if I want to get pushed color film processed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2011 13:51
|
|
|
Thanks and oh well. I'll just shoot some expired Ilford B&W 400 and push it to 1600 then. I finally found a place in town that does good c41 at least. Last time I tried CVS and half of my images are green tinted and have scanner lines.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2011 14:49
|
|
|
If you can, try and push fresh film. Expired film has more fog which will interfere with your underexposed image.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2011 19:44
|
|
|
I, uh, got into an argument with the test roll I ran through my new P67 (It's awesome!!!), and ended up developing it in a pile inside my tank. Don't do that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 01:03
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:I, uh, got into an argument with the test roll I ran through my new P67 (It's awesome!!!), and ended up developing it in a pile inside my tank. Don't do that. Hahaha, I know that feeling. My bathroom/darkroom in Florida would get pretty hot in the summer, and 120 could be pretty tricky to load sometimes. Usually I just chuck it in the tank, close it, and come back in an hour or two when I've calmed down to start over.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 09:18
|
|
|
 Ammunition! A friend gave me this FREE last night. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA THE POWERRRRRRRR. (Although apparently it has all been sitting in her car trunk for ~5 years, so I expect some funky color shifts, but MAN OH MAN!
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 12:16
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:I, uh, got into an argument with the test roll I ran through my new P67 (It's awesome!!!), and ended up developing it in a pile inside my tank. Don't do that. Congrats on the new camera. These days, when I just want results (on film), the P67 is the first thing I reach for. If you have a chance, grab a P67 55/4. It's the best wide lens I've ever used. The 45/4 is great and really wide if that's your thing. The 75/4.5 is slow but very sharp The 150/2.8 is a simple double-gauss, cheap and good for portraits. There aren't many dogs in the lineup, and there are a lot of gems. Best part is, you can find some real bargains. If you aren't already using them, I highly suggest getting some of the wide-flange reels. They're helpful on 35mm but they're a must-have for 120. Also, try hitting the reels with a blowdryer before you load to make sure they're bone dry. The film will pick up any moisture that's there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 13:51
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:If you aren't already using them, I highly suggest getting some of the wide-flange reels. They're helpful on 35mm but they're a must-have for 120. Also, try hitting the reels with a blowdryer before you load to make sure they're bone dry. The film will pick up any moisture that's there. as someone who stores his reels in a sink, this seems like a super idea. thanks
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 19:34
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Congrats on the new camera. These days, when I just want results (on film), the P67 is the first thing I reach for. If you have a chance, grab a P67 55/4. It's the best wide lens I've ever used. The 45/4 is great and really wide if that's your thing. The 75/4.5 is slow but very sharp The 150/2.8 is a simple double-gauss, cheap and good for portraits. There aren't many dogs in the lineup, and there are a lot of gems. Best part is, you can find some real bargains. I use the Arista Premium wide-flanges already, but they're 4 years old now and wobbly, which I think was the cause of the initial problem. The subsequent hour of frustration was all humidity, and compounding problems (bent edges lead the bent middles etc). This is what most of the frames look like: http://www.flickr.com/photos/crooked_style/6171870116/ It came with the SMC (last generation) 165/2.8, which is great for portraits, but I'm definitely gonna need to pick up something wider. Also, it came with the TTL prism, and it seems to be perfectly accurate, which rules.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 20:04
|
|
|
Ugh I really want a Pentax 6x7... But I've not convinced myself I'd use it enough yet, or seen a good enough one for sale over here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 21:53
|
|
|
I managed to snatch a P67 for $300 with a 105 2.4, but due to mirror problems the seller backed on the deal and sent it for repairs. Sad. I'll be sticking with my yashica-mat for now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 22:04
|
|
|
l33tc4k30fd00m posted:Ugh I really want a Pentax 6x7... But I've not convinced myself I'd use it enough yet, or seen a good enough one for sale over here. Get a K1000 and figure out if you like it, it's EXACTLY like that. In general medium format has slower lenses, the focal lengths are longer so the (1/focal length) rule screws you a bit, and the P67 has an issue with mirror vibration. The negatives are great and produce much better results on consumer scanners than 35mm does (the details are larger). It's a bit of trouble, but it's worth it. Practice wide-aperture handheld shooting (get some 50 or 25 film or a 2-stop ND filter to make it a bit more realistic), you'll get low depth of field to simulate the larger format and it keeps the shutter speeds up. To be safe, if I'm just shooting around I keep it at 1/125 for the 105mm. You'll be fine at 1/60 if you lock your mirror up (this was either 1/60 or 1/125 with MLU on the 55/4), but to be safe I try to stay out of the range where mirror vibration could potentially occur. Other differences are you only get 10 shots per roll (20 on 220), it's super big and heavy, and the lenses are slow. If you can deal with a manual focus 35mm camera under those conditions you can do a P67. I feel like I'm making it sound horrible, it's not. In fact, it's my favorite camera. It's a great camera to shoot handheld with, and it's the biggest camera that follows the "35mm SLR" pattern of operation. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Sep 22, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 22:06
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Get a K1000 and figure out if you like it, it's EXACTLY like that. Practice wide-aperture handheld shooting (get some 50 or 25 film or a 2-stop ND filter to make it a bit more realistic), you'll get low depth of field to simulate the larger format and it keeps the shutter speeds up. To be safe, if I'm just shooting around I keep it at 1/125 for the 105mm. You'll be fine at 1/60 if you lock your mirror up (this was either 1/60 or 1/125 with MLU on the 55/4), but to be safe I try to stay out of the range where mirror vibration could potentially occur. Other differences are you only get 10 shots per roll (20 on 220), it's super big and heavy, and the lenses are slow. If you can deal with a manual focus 35mm camera under those conditions you can do a P67. Well I already shoot film with a FM2n and I don't have any problems handholding at 1/15th with either a 50mm or in very rare cases, a 105mm. So I don't think I'd have too many issues with the faster shutter speeds. Either I'll be shooting near wide open during the day (the depth of field is part of the appeal after all) or I'll be using a tripod at night. I also don't think the lower shot counts would be a problem, far from it, these days I have trouble finishing off a single roll of 135-36 quickly, so if anything it's an advantage and one of the weird reasons I liked the idea of playing with MF in the first place. It's just finding one in good condition in the UK seems pretty tough (I've been burnt enough to be very risk averse too)... I'm also supposed to be saving my money for a full frame Nikon... Ugh, photography. But out of all the MF cameras out there, the p67's really hit the right notes to me. Besides anything else, 6x7 is to 6x6 what 11 is to 10. l33tc4k30fd00m fucked around with this message at 00:03 on Sep 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 23:50
|
|
|
l33tc4k30fd00m posted:But out of all the MF cameras out there, the p67's really hit the right notes to me. Besides anything else, 6x7 is to 6x6 what 11 is to 10. If you don't like square format, 6x6 is just a 6x4.5 that you lose 25% of your shots on. 6x7 is a pretty exact fit to 8x10, and it's like 2x as big as 6x4.5. I just got a 6x4.5 folder and it seems kinda small in comparison. Slow handholding skills help with the 1/fl rule, but the P67 supposedly has a shutter vibration that makes shooting at like 1/2-1/30 a bad idea. I have a couple rolls from my vacation coming back where I shot stopped down at 1/4 a lot, we'll see if it really is an issue or not. I think part of it is people not locking the mirror up. That does make a difference, the mirror is very poorly damped. You just get used to flicking the MLU then hitting the shutter. I can do it in like 1/4-1/2 second, it's not a big deal. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 01:49 on Sep 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2011 01:46
|
|
|
6x6 is neither better nor worse than the other formats. It is different. It requires a different composition mindset. It's one of those things that you have to get used to. Part of the problem is that we as photographers are trained to look for things with longer aspect ratios because that's all we know. Once you start working with square format more, you start looking for squares more naturally.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2011 02:22
|
|
|
Well what I mean is, 6x7 is more. 6x6 is the only format I've shot medium format film in anyway and I never really found it problematic or annoying in any way. But I guess 6x7 just sound nicer to have. I have heard of the vibration issues with the shutter, but I figure I'll be able to handle 1/60th if I can handle 1/15th with a 35mm. Of course I'm just guessing. Also when I was a complete beginniner I had my 450D with mirror lock up on for a few days, and it wasn't that bad, just pointless. So it sounds reasonable to use it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2011 02:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 11:12 |
|
|
I love my 6x6 cameras. I love everything about the square format. Sometimes I just feel like composing in rectangles though. I'm in the process of obtaining a Pentax 6x7 since 645 just wasn't doing it for me. I fully plan to carry my Hasselblad and the Pentax when out landscaping so that I have options.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2011 03:01
|
|
