|
I love the square so much I might just end up cropping to 6x6 on most of my P67 shots. Now hopefully there's a 6x7 carrier at the university darkroom...
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2011 03:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 17:19 |
|
|
I know we have a lot of P67 users in here, but why not consider an RB67? It doesn't have the same crazy focal-plane shutter vibration issues, there's interchangeable backs, and you can get kits for $300 (or less if you're patient).
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2011 03:15
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:I know we have a lot of P67 users in here, but why not consider an RB67? It doesn't have the same crazy focal-plane shutter vibration issues, there's interchangeable backs, and you can get kits for $300 (or less if you're patient). It's not really a camera for handholding. The RB looks great, but I have tried to use a system camera handheld and it did not go well. The Pentax is essentially the same as using a 35mm SLR.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2011 03:18
|
|
|
I finally saw an RB or RZ in person at a store a few weeks ago and it was about the size of a toaster, definitely looked like you'd need a pack donkey to carry it anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2011 03:27
|
|
|
Yeah I was looking at the RB67 for a good while and if I planned to do more studio work I'd likely go for one, however the giant SLR nature of the Pentax really sways me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2011 03:33
|
|
|
Well, call me crazy for walking around with my RZ then v v I keep the neck strap short and brace it against my chest when I shoot.After I got the RZ I considered getting a P67 instead - using one was my first exposure to medium format, in fact - but I love having interchangeable backs too much. I usually use the WLF and leave the prism finder at home, because that does save quite a bit of size and weight.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2011 04:06
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:I finally saw an RB or RZ in person at a store a few weeks ago and it was about the size of a toaster, definitely looked like you'd need a pack donkey to carry it anywhere. In other news, the lab I'm working at has a 503cx *and* and 2.8 rolleiflex, and they're just sitting unused in a closed (were used for samples photography). I'm going to steal the poo poo out of them on my off days.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2011 12:24
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted: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. Be sure to budget for a good chiropractor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2011 17:07
|
|
|
l33tc4k30fd00m posted:Yeah I was looking at the RB67 for a good while and if I planned to do more studio work I'd likely go for one, however the giant SLR nature of the Pentax really sways me. This is what pushed me to buy my Kiev-60.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2011 07:29
|
|
|
Wal Mart doesn't do develop-only for 35mm anymore, but nobody told me this so I had to pay for a bunch of prints I don't want  There was apparently no problem only developing 120, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2011 02:49
|
|
|
My Walmart has cranked their rates for develop-only C-41 120. This roll was $3.22, it used to be $1.88. At that price, I might as well use my local lab. On the other hand, a roll of E-6 220 was also $3.22. Strangely, a roll of 136-36 E-6 was $6 last year, so it's half the price to develop twice as much film if it's 220 
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2011 03:06
|
|
|
In my last batch of 120 sent out at Wal-Mart, 4 rolls were $3.22 and another was .90. I have no idea how they managed that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2011 04:02
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:It's not really a camera for handholding. The RB looks great, but I have tried to use a system camera handheld and it did not go well. The Pentax is essentially the same as using a 35mm SLR. How about a Hasselblad? They're lightweight and the prices are not bad at all in the BGN range from KEH. The 80mm Planar lens is really spectacular. It weighs less than my D3 with an 85mm lens. The Hasselblad fits beautifully in the hand, not to mention, has a much better platform for viewing. The Pentax viewfinder is like 90% or something. Ick. Major downside to the Hasselblad: you're limited in growing the lenses because they're so drat expensive, but overall it's really fun!
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2011 04:12
|
|
|
Did my own B&W for the first time in 9 years. Feels good man. Pan F Plus in HC-110 Dilution F. Underdeveloped a little, so the negs are somewhat flat, but it's easier to deal with in a scanner than in an enlarger.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2011 05:13
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Did my own B&W for the first time in 9 years. Feels good man. That looks great! I'm still a little nervous about doing my own b&w developing and have it done with the rest of my film. The main problem I have is dealing with temperatures since my apartment is almost always too hot.  
Mannequin fucked around with this message at 05:43 on Sep 25, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2011 05:36
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:That looks great! I'm still a little nervous about doing my own b&w developing and have it done with the rest of my film. The main problem I have is dealing with temperatures since my apartment is almost always too hot. Thanks. Temperatures are actually pretty easy to adjust for unless your apartment is way above 80 degrees. What I do is I fill a metal bowl with water and wait for the whole thing to come to room temperature. Then I use the water to mix my developer. That way the developer temperature won't change over the course of development and you'll know exactly how much to compensate. Other temps don't matter so much.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2011 17:02
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:My Walmart has cranked their rates for develop-only C-41 120. This roll was $3.22, it used to be $1.88. At that price, I might as well use my local lab. Also, for developing 120 at home, does the paper dissolve or do you have to peel it off while loading it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2011 19:25
|
|
|
The paper DOES NOT dissolve, you have to separate it fully from the film. Last time I developed a roll of 120, I thought I had the paper and film apart, but they stuck together as I was fumbling with the reel, and I ended up loading almost the entire roll onto the reel before I realized, took everything apart, and more thoroughly got rid of the paper. There's a big risk of accidentally damaging the film while fumbling in the dark with long curly things. I've had no problems with a bit of tape left on the end of the film though, I guess the adhesive / paper don't interact with the developer in any significant way. \/\/\/ That is true. The fact the film and paper have been intimately coiled together for months (years?) means they object to being separated and try to hang on to each other despite my clumsy efforts in a blacked-out bathroom. ExecuDork fucked around with this message at 21:59 on Sep 25, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2011 19:28
|
|
|
You don't have to peel the paper off; it's not attached to the film except for the tape at the end.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2011 21:46
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:How about a Hasselblad? They're lightweight and the prices are not bad at all in the BGN range from KEH. Even a BGN 500c is three times what I paid for this P67 kit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2011 23:16
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Even a BGN 500c is three times what I paid for this P67 kit. Understood, but the prices are still pretty reasonable for what you are getting. Build quality with the 'blads is especially nice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2011 23:23
|
|
|
Yeah I think I'd look at one of those refurbished Kiev 88's before a Hasselblad. I can't justify the extra cost no matter how lovely they are.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2011 00:04
|
|
|
But the P67 lenses actually get into Hasselblad territory of resolving power, so why not? :V
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2011 00:10
|
|
|
I picked up a black 500C/M kit on eBay for $400. The body was BGN and had a few minor marks on the front element, but still, I basically stole that poo poo  Kiev's a really good deal if you get one that works properly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2011 00:43
|
|
|
Last Thanksgiving I found myself in a dire situation where I had run out of all high-speed film at a dark indoor party with no flash. So I shot two rolls of Arista Premium 100 pushed to 800. Thinking the pictures would be complete poo poo, I never got around to developing them until today. After pushing in HC-110, I was pleasantly surprised. The negatives were almost clear but nothing a little +100 contrast in Photoshop couldn't fix   itled-30654 by ksulli25, on Flickr  itled-30655 by ksulli25, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2011 05:15
|
|
|
I'm still really new to film and basically know nothing about it, and I went to pick some up from my local camera store for my 35mm. They were out of Portra 400, which is what I wanted, and I asked the guy about some Ektachrome that was there. He didn't recommend it because it was slide film, which I now realise is also called colour reversal film (?), and so didn't work with C-41 processing. I then later realised that another camera store really close to me does E-6 processing, so I think I could have used the Ektachrome. I guess my question is that I always had it in my head that slide film is for medium and large format cameras...not sure why I thought that, but Ektachrome does come in 35mm rolls right? And I can just process it E-6? Does anyone have any experience with it? What would you recommend it for? I ended up getting some Fuji Pro 400H, and I thought it worked really well for the portraits I was doing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2011 20:22
|
|
|
Usually slide film is called E-6 film or slide film. I'm not a huge film buff but I've never heard it called color reversal film but a quick google confirms that people do call it this. Normal C-41 color is called color negative film, however, so don't get that mixed up. The new Portra 400 seems to be sold out frequently whenever I try to buy it in brick and mortar stores. Online seems to be the way to go. Slide film definitely comes in 35mm format. I think all types of side film currently produced are available in 35mm. Yes you can process it as E-6. That's what it's designed for. If you want to be a cool hipster, you can develop them as C-41 as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2011 20:33
|
|
|
CarrotFlowers posted:I'm still really new to film and basically know nothing about it, and I went to pick some up from my local camera store for my 35mm. They were out of Portra 400, which is what I wanted, and I asked the guy about some Ektachrome that was there. He didn't recommend it because it was slide film, which I now realise is also called colour reversal film (?), and so didn't work with C-41 processing. I then later realised that another camera store really close to me does E-6 processing, so I think I could have used the Ektachrome. Yep, it's called color reversal film because when you develop it, instead of getting a "negative" image, you get a "positive" image. It's called slide film because it's used for making projector slides - you remember those old things from the 70s that you put the little slides into and project it up on the wall? But yep, you can develop it either C-41 or E-6 depending on the look you want. If you want gorgeous colors and amazing pictures, go with E-6. If you want funky, artsy colors and ... well, still amazing pictures, go with C-41.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2011 20:36
|
|
|
Awesome, thanks guys!
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2011 20:47
|
|
|
Be wary, though: slide film is a lot less tolerant of exposure error than negative film. If you're not careful, you'll blow out the light areas.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2011 23:31
|
|
|
I bought a 5 pack of E100G and erred on the side of overexposure than underexposure. Underexposed slide film is just really hard to bring back from the brink, and it looks quite ugly. Then again, overexposed too far and then you're stuck. But I'm hoping it will pay off, I should get it back later next week and will find out. I also shot a roll of Velvia 100 in the city yesterday. I am really pretty curious how that will come out, I know it's not typically used for shots with people in them but this guy shoots a lot of Velvia and it looks pretty good. I also bumped into a minor celebrity and took his portrait with his girlfriend. Since I know Velvia is quite saturated I tried to pick people and backgrounds with brighter colors in them. We'll see how it goes! Hopefully not too terribly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2011 23:41
|
|
|
CarrotFlowers posted:Does anyone have any experience with it? What would you recommend it for?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2011 01:26
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:Be wary, though: slide film is a lot less tolerant of exposure error than negative film. If you're not careful, you'll blow out the light areas. That's a great tip, thanks. I've been working on my exposures, and I think I'm getting better, but I might practice a bit more before I pick some up. For some reason, I tend to get much better exposures with film than I do with my digital...it always seems to be off, even though I think I'm metering the same way. I'm pretty excited to try some out, so thanks everyone. I'm also considering picking up some Velvia or similar just to see what it will do. I wish I had more saturated film when I was out in the mountains with the fall colours the other day, but eh...always next time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2011 06:48
|
|
|
CarrotFlowers posted:I'm still really new to film and basically know nothing about it, and I went to pick some up from my local camera store for my 35mm. They were out of Portra 400, which is what I wanted, and I asked the guy about some Ektachrome that was there. He didn't recommend it because it was slide film, which I now realise is also called colour reversal film (?), and so didn't work with C-41 processing. I then later realised that another camera store really close to me does E-6 processing, so I think I could have used the Ektachrome. Home processing is interesting too. Processing E-6 isn't too different from c-41 processing, you have to be pretty careful about the temperature. Also, it's recommended to do all of them in a big batch...I haven't had much luck with using C-41 or E-6 chemicals even a few days after they were first mixed up. Slide film is incredibly beautiful. Quite a few of the most historic color photos from the 20th century were taken on slide film.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2011 16:43
|
|
|
Sushi in Yiddish posted:Home processing is interesting too. Processing E-6 isn't too different from c-41 processing, you have to be pretty careful about the temperature. I know I should start developing my own, and everyone saying how easy/awesome it is really tempts me, but we're in a pretty small apartment right now and I'm just not sure if we have the room. I know it doesn't take up a ton of space, but I literally can't think of anywhere I could do it. Our bathroom just has a small pedestal type sink, so no counter of any kind. Not to mention that all of our doors are frosted glass, so there's no room that is dark enough to do it in, except in the dead of night with all the other lights in the apartment turned off. I could do a changing bag, I guess, but we'll see...my boyfriend also hates the fact that I'll be working with somewhat toxic chemicals, so it'll take a bit of convincing. I'm thinking I'll put developing supplies on my Christmas list this year, and just make due with the space I have. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2011 17:06
|
|
|
Don't try to do C-41 or E-6 process right out of the gate. It'll take too much equipment and the temperature tolerances are too tight. It's not cheaper unless you shoot a LOT of film so you can use all of the chemicals up. I've read you can freeze the chemicals to keep them fresh longer, though. B+W chemicals aren't too bad. Don't drink them, wash your hands afterwards and you'll be fine. Don't put fixer down the drain, and preferably you shouldn't put any of them into a septic field. I do one-shot developing to avoid replenishment and expiration issues. You could get a changing bag to load the reels in, it's just a lightproof bag you put the film, bottle opener, reels, and tank in so you can do your thing in daylight. I'd like to read more about home C-41 or E-6 processing, if anyone here does it. I've got a set of Color By Beseler paper drums intended for RA4 and a motor base, I'm hoping I could use it to develop 4x5 or 8x10 sheet film. At 4oz of chemistry per run (assuming that's enough volume), I could process 128 sheets of 4x5 per gallon, at like $0.60 per sheet (from the Arista gallon kit). Seems like it would be cheaper to buy the chemicals individually from B&H than to order a kit, but it doesn't look like they will ship some of the chemicals. I'd need to make a tempering bath and I'd definitely be curious if anyone here has made one. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 18:33 on Sep 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2011 18:30
|
|
|
a word on pushing: I've pushed velvia 50 to 100 and the results were...awful. i was shooting CA coastal hills and all the green went to grey.  looking at other places online, i think other people have had better luck. i'm sure others may have their impressions
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2011 18:30
|
|
|
Anybody out there have any good RC paper suggestions. Looking for rich blacks and the brighter the whites the better. Cost isn't a huge issue, but the cheaper the suggestions are probably what I will go for.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2011 19:07
|
|
|
I got a free case of rapid e-6 chemistry, no idea how old it is... once I finish scrubbing out some whisky bottles to store the working solution in, I'll see if the stuff is still viable or not. edit: goddamn, this color developer and blix sure do look soupy and toxic, almost blood-like. Dr. Cogwerks fucked around with this message at 22:11 on Sep 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2011 20:27
|
|
is go
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 17:19 |
|
|
Sushi in Yiddish posted:Slide film is incredibly beautiful. Quite a few of the most historic color photos from the 20th century were taken on slide film. CarrotFlowers posted:my boyfriend also hates the fact that I'll be working with somewhat toxic chemicals, so it'll take a bit of convincing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2011 20:52
|
|