|
Lord Rupert posted: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. Oriental Seagull is good for that style.
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2011 22:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 16:02 |
|
|
test shot of an old wall on my new (to me) Nikon N90 + Portra 400
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2011 23:13
|
|
|
Dr. Cogwerks posted:edit: goddamn, this color developer and blix sure do look soupy and toxic, almost blood-like. Blix is a horrible staining liquid, if you get it on a counter top it a mark will stay there for a few weeks, luckily I never got it on my clothes. I'll see if I can find a short guide to home colour processing I posted a little while ago. edit: found it http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2864270&pagenumber=153&perpage=40#post389907786
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 00:31
|
|
|
I like how this one turned out even though it's run-of-the-mill composition: Shot with Provia 100f (which I can't seem to find anymore these days), I like the pastel look to it. It was shot almost wide open because I was low on light, I think stopped down with a tripod would have helped it quite a bit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 01:00
|
|
|
Lord Rupert posted: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. RC is for making contact sheets. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 01:16
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:Shot with Provia 100f (which I can't seem to find anymore these days), I like the pastel look to it. It was shot almost wide open because I was low on light, I think stopped down with a tripod would have helped it quite a bit. If you're willing to give them your money, the Lomography shop seems to have it in stock. I just talked to a lady at Freestyle who said Fuji's been giving them the run-around on when there'll be more available...
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 01:19
|
|
|
This is good to know, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 01:35
|
|
|
I have some 120 slide film (E-6) that I can't get processed anywhere locally. Can anyone recommend a lab I can ship my film to? Is Dwayne's still the go-to for shipping to a lab?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 01:59
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:I have some 120 slide film (E-6) that I can't get processed anywhere locally. Can anyone recommend a lab I can ship my film to? Is Dwayne's still the go-to for shipping to a lab? I've used Samy's in Santa Barbara (they have the cheapest prices around for 4x5, their 120 pricing is also decent) and never had any issues.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 02:07
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:I like how this one turned out even though it's run-of-the-mill composition: I think that the centeredness (or nearly centeredness) of this works really well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 03:27
|
|
|
hey guys--i posted this before, but it was chalked up to poor processing at the film place, but it's occurred again at another place and only with some shots on some film. Any insights as to what could be causing this? It lines up with the holes on the film if you look at the negatives.  (both untouched) I thought it might be caused by me changing the lens (perhaps there was light leaking through) but it happened in two shots where i definitely didn't change the lens in between.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 04:56
|
|
|
Check your camera back - definitely looks like some light leaks. What camera are you using?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 05:03
|
|
|
It's a Canon AE-1 Program.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 05:21
|
|
|
Yeah it definitely looks like light leaking through the sprocket holes of the film. Try shooting a roll with the back taped up with some gaffer's tape or something to that effect.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 05:30
|
|
|
First E6 home development trip report: Old chemistry, date unknown. First two test rolls were random walkaround stuff on Ektachrome Professional 160T, tungsten-balanced but shot outdoors mostly. Came out with a weird cast, as expected, but more of a greenish yellow... I thought tungsten film was supposed to be super blue? I added about thirty seconds to the color development time for the second batch in case that was the problem. Two rolls from a friend's wedding, one on sorta old Elitechrome 200 and one on Ektachrome 100 EPP. Popped it open at the end and panicked at first... the elitechrome looked terrible, all bleached out and weird, looked like it had been sitting in direct sun for years and the emulsion reeked of acetone quite strongly. The EPP stuff from the same tank was fine though, colors looked pretty accurate and the development was alright. Working at 105F from the bathtub tap kinda sucks. Dr. Cogwerks fucked around with this message at 06:19 on Sep 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 06:15
|
|
is go
|
Could you create light-sensitive slides by doing only a partial fix or no fix at all after the color developer? The idea I had was a one-time-view photograph, distributed in a thick paper envelope. On exposure to light, the slide would immediately begin to fade, giving you a minute or so to enjoy it. There'd be no way to tell what you had before you opened the envelope, and you could only see it once. Is it a photographic masterpiece or goatse? Once you open it, the probability waveform is forever collapsed...
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 16:59
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Could you create light-sensitive slides by doing only a partial fix or no fix at all after the color developer? The idea I had was a one-time-view photograph, distributed in a thick paper envelope. On exposure to light, the slide would immediately begin to fade, giving you a minute or so to enjoy it. There'd be no way to tell what you had before you opened the envelope, and you could only see it once. Is it a photographic masterpiece or goatse? Once you open it, the probability waveform is forever collapsed...
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 22:42
|
|
|
Here are some scans from those bathtub-processed, drunkenly-shot wedding slides:   Ektachrome 100 EPP is quite nice, reminds me a lot of Ektar. Highlights are blown and the slides had a definite green cast, probably due to the unknown age of the kit or timing/temp error, but overall I'm fairly satisfied with the results. As for the Elitechrome roll from the same tank... welp.  
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2011 00:46
|
|
|
Dr. Cogwerks posted:As for the Elitechrome roll from the same tank... welp. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2011 03:14
|
|
|
 itled-30724 by Ciro-Flex, on Flickr  itled-30717 by Ciro-Flex, on Flickr  itled-30707 by Ciro-Flex, on Flickr Rest of the set 
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2011 04:59
|
|
|
Ciro-Flex posted:Rest of the set Brilliant.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2011 05:51
|
|
|
Dr. Cogwerks posted:As for the Elitechrome roll from the same tank... welp.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 08:57
|
|
|
Has anyone tried developing Ilford FP4+ in HC-110? For my first time I tried using dilution B with 9 mins but it gave me really dense negatives.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2011 01:18
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:Has anyone tried developing Ilford FP4+ in HC-110? For my first time I tried using dilution B with 9 mins but it gave me really dense negatives. I've had good luck with 15 minutes at dilution H, which is supposed to be double the time of B. Massive dev chart says 7-9 @ B, but it seems closer to 7 than 9 from my experiences.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2011 03:07
|
|
|
Sometimes I have issues with fully removing rapid fixer from my film. Would it work to use a 1:9 instead of 1:4 to make it easier to wash off?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2011 23:30
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:Sometimes I have issues with fully removing rapid fixer from my film. Would it work to use a 1:9 instead of 1:4 to make it easier to wash off? Lower dilutions might help but you should probably fix longer to be safe. I think 1:9 is still a standard dilution so Ilford probably has numbers in their datasheets. Are you using fixer remover/hypo clear? Without it you have to wash for a really, really long time because fixer isn't very water-soluble.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 00:29
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Are you using fixer remover/hypo clear? Without it you have to wash for a really, really long time because fixer isn't very water-soluble. Yeah, with hypo clear you can do a 5 minute running water wash. Without it you're looking at more like an hour for the same result.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 02:56
|
|
|
FasterThanLight posted:I've had good luck with 15 minutes at dilution H, which is supposed to be double the time of B. Massive dev chart says 7-9 @ B, but it seems closer to 7 than 9 from my experiences.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 09:50
|
|
|
Fbi2thegrave posted:hey guys--i posted this before, but it was chalked up to poor processing at the film place, but it's occurred again at another place and only with some shots on some film. Any insights as to what could be causing this? It lines up with the holes on the film if you look at the negatives. i had this problem when i first started shooting on my ae-1. you're definitely reeling in the film the wrong way when you're using the little crank arm thing. when you pop up the arm, there's a small arrow to indicate which way you should be spinning it. i have a canon ae-1 question. my camera's shutter button doesn't like to activate anymore. i've looked around a little online to find out what the problem is. i guess there's a little magnet in the button that can get stuck? i was wondering if anyone here had experience with this issue, 'cause it's rendered my lovely little camera unusable. would the battery life affect this as well? i think the battery is ok cause the light metering still works. help! edit: is there anyone from Vancouver, BC that knows where i could locally buy one of those DIY TLR kits? or a place to buy medium format cameras in general. i'm gonna head to the flea market for the first time to see if there's anything good MrMeowMeow fucked around with this message at 20:31 on Oct 2, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 20:20
|
|
|
MrMeowMeow posted:edit: is there anyone from Vancouver, BC that knows where i could locally buy one of those DIY TLR kits? Don't do it, man. I bought one from DealExtreme and it's really crappy. Take that money and go buy a Russian rangefinder or something that'll be more worth your while.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 20:45
|
|
|
Does anyone have any thoughts on the possible eastman Kodak bankruptcy? Is the film and chems division profitable (and could be spun off) or should i start stocking up on HC-110 and Tri-X?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 22:07
|
|
|
NihilismNow posted:Does anyone have any thoughts on the possible eastman Kodak bankruptcy? Is the film and chems division profitable (and could be spun off) or should i start stocking up on HC-110 and Tri-X? They won't go bankrupt, they own over $2billion worth of patents alone. Plus after the cash from that ran out their film business, especially if you include movie stock, would get bought by someone who would keep making the emulsions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 22:14
|
|
|
mysticp posted:They won't go bankrupt, they own over $2billion worth of patents alone. Plus after the cash from that ran out their film business, especially if you include movie stock, would get bought by someone who would keep making the emulsions. It doesn't matter that the patents are worth 2 billion, they could be "worth" a gazillion dollars and they still could go bankrupt. What matters is liquid assets and your ability to raise capital either through making money(they're not,) or finding some sort of investor to run your operation and pay your obligations. If they can't do this Ch11. Here's where the patents might matter if they could find a buyer for them, however I think those patents and movie business make them is a take over target or just a target to let die. If you look at their financials it doesn't paint a pretty picture, and right now there isn't a whole crap ton of money in the market looking to buy risky things like Kodak, so I really hope for the best for them, but it may be the worst. EDIT: Forgot to put this in with the original post. Kodak has already hired a law firm to plan their restructuring, according to Saturday's WSJ. Possibly sounds more and more of a will file. Ferris Bueller fucked around with this message at 11:35 on Oct 3, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 00:32
|
|
|
Went to the flea market and ended up finding a guy with a really really nice Kodak Retina IIIc (not sure if big C or little c). He's asking $280 for it though he said we could negotiate. It's in great condition, comes with a lens hood and leather case. After doing some googling and finding this: http://www.cameraquest.com/ret3c.htm I was a little bit hesitant in pursuing this camera. Anyone ever used one of these? He was also selling a nice Rolleiflex w/ built-in light meter. Wanted $550 for it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 00:53
|
|
|
MrMeowMeow posted:i had this problem when i first started shooting on my ae-1. you're definitely reeling in the film the wrong way when you're using the little crank arm thing. when you pop up the arm, there's a small arrow to indicate which way you should be spinning it. Actually, I have your problem too. I've heard sometimes it helps to put the shutter speed into B, sometimes it helps to flip the battery around and hit the shutter a few times. But anyway, I'm pretty sure i have been winding it the right way... I'm not sure I completely understand why that would cause the light leaks?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 08:31
|
|
|
i'm pretty sure i've narrowed down my problem to the battery being dead. i'll buy a new one soon. i'm gonna feel like an rear end in a top hat if that's been the problem the whole time here's example's of me winding my film the wrong way if you wanna see: http://i.imgur.com/1VGNj.jpg http://i.imgur.com/6rlIh.jpg i, too, thought i had a light leak. once i started winding the right way the problem went away. edit: yup, it was the battery. woops. MrMeowMeow fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Oct 5, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 08:51
|
|
|
Some recent shots taken while wandering around my brothers neighbourhood. It's some Rollei Retro 100, in some Ilford DDX 1:9, shot with a FED2. Drummond St by mr_student, on Flickr  Inside Lygon St by mr_student, on Flickr  Drummond St by mr_student, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2011 12:46
|
|
|
Crossposting from SAD, this was taken on Portra 400 but converted to b&w Mirror World by alkanphel, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2011 11:28
|
|
|
Any Kiwis who like transparency film, this guy has a bit of expired frozen stuff going cheap, with more available upon request.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2011 20:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 16:02 |
|
|
Humm. I found a roll of HP5+ 120 in a fridge I was getting ready to throw away, shot at an unknown ISO from a few years ago which apparently I just forgot to develop. What's the safest way to develop this in HC 110? Timed for ISO800? There's a good chance it's either 400 or 1600 since I either shot straight or pushed to 1600, I didn't really do in-between pushing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2011 22:41
|
|
