|
Reichstag posted:My grandfather's Nikon F is one of my favorite cameras, the weight makes slow shutter speeds easier to use, and the Nikkor-S 50 1.4 is easily my favorite lens. Beautiful. I really love the Nikon F's with the photomic finders, especially in black.
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 08:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 10:01 |
|
|
My mother just gave me 2 rolls of Kodachrome. I immediately shouted WHY COULDN'T YOU HAVE GIVEN THIS TO ME A YEAR AGO! Sucks so hard because I would absolutely kill to shoot and get these rolls developed. Is there anything I can do with these rolls or are they basically only good for sitting on a shelf at this point?
pootiebigwang fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Oct 25, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 00:15
|
|
|
At this point they are completely useless except as decoration. I have a roll at home I think I'm going to turn into an emergency stash container, a concept introduced to me by the owner of my hometown's photo lab as "perfect for a gram of weed or a rolled up hundred dollar bill."
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 00:37
|
|
|
Can't you develop them in B&W? I don't think they come out looking amazing, but I remember reading something about it. I actually shot a roll knowing I wouldn't be able to get it developed. It used to sit on my shelf (in a box in storage now), every time I looked at it I was reminded it had some sort of potential to be something, but I'd never know for sure.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 00:43
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Can't you develop them in B&W? I don't think they come out looking amazing, but I remember reading something about it. You can develop as B&W if you rub the back with a sponge soaked in sodium bicarbonate solution to get the rem-jet anti-halation layer off. After that you'll get a yellow negative from what I hear. It'll be really dense and really ultra too contrasty, but it'll be something. Actually it doesn't look too bad at all: http://www.flickr.com/photos/eyetwist/6145579855/in/pool-1608796@N23
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 00:58
|
|
|
I remember seeing a report of someone developing C-41 film in Xtol and partially activating one of the dyes or some such. I wonder if Xtol could also affect Kodachrome in interesting ways. (I know Kodachrome doesn't have dye couplers in the emulsion so it couldn't get exactly that effect.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 01:17
|
|
|
Why is the wait for a KEH shipment so much longer than any other shipment ...I know it takes the same amount of time, but it FEEEELS so long. I just want my F4 now 
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 01:48
|
|
|
So my usual way of scanning my film is renting a macro lens and shooting all my film. Now I found out that this place in the city offers two scanning stations, one for 35$/hr and one for 25$/hr. http://www.torontoimageworks.com/rentals.html My question is this, can I scan 3 rolls of 120 and 4 rolls of 135 in 2 hours? I ask because, if I can accomplish that, then instead of spending 60$ to rent a macro, I can spend 50-70$ to scan my film properly. I've never scanned film so I'm not sure how long it takes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 02:29
|
|
|
Scanning film on the Imacon for $35/hr isn't bad, provided you don't have to spend most of that time figuring out how to use it. You should ask them about scan-times for your preferred output resolution, but my gut instinct says it will be pretty close to or above 2 hours to scan 3 rolls of 120 at high-res.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 03:26
|
|
|
pootiebigwang posted:My mother just gave me 2 rolls of Kodachrome. I immediately shouted WHY COULDN'T YOU HAVE GIVEN THIS TO ME A YEAR AGO! Sucks so hard because I would absolutely kill to shoot and get these rolls developed. Is there anything I can do with these rolls or are they basically only good for sitting on a shelf at this point? Keep it. I have three rolls in my freezer in the hopes that some APUG nerd figures out a way to make the chemicals again (probably won't happen).
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 04:26
|
|
|
It probably will happen, eventually. I know several academic chemists, they're always coming up with foolish mini-projects in their labs that are somehow linked to their hobbies or just random challenges from colleagues. None of the chemists I know work with photochemistry or dye/emulsions, or have photography as hobbies, otherwise I'd be bugging them about this. I'll work it into conversations anyways, maybe they'll pass it on to their colleagues at the next conference.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 05:25
|
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:So my usual way of scanning my film is renting a macro lens and shooting all my film. Now I found out that this place in the city offers two scanning stations, one for 35$/hr and one for 25$/hr. http://www.torontoimageworks.com/rentals.html I think a flatbed like the Epson V500 would likely pay for itself really quickly in your situation, and you could splash out for time on the Imacon when you get two hours worth of really good stuff to scan. You probably don't need every single frame at max resolution/quality.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 10:12
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Scanning film on the Imacon for $35/hr isn't bad, provided you don't have to spend most of that time figuring out how to use it. You should ask them about scan-times for your preferred output resolution, but my gut instinct says it will be pretty close to or above 2 hours to scan 3 rolls of 120 at high-res. That makes sense, I'll drop by and ask them. I have never used that kind of scanner but I did read the manual :S Pompous Rhombus posted:I think a flatbed like the Epson V500 would likely pay for itself really quickly in your situation, and you could splash out for time on the Imacon when you get two hours worth of really good stuff to scan. You probably don't need every single frame at max resolution/quality. I think a v500 runs for around 150$ which is not bad at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 11:14
|
|
|
I got one of those Nishika cameras from the toy camera thread and I was wondering where the cheapest place to get the film developed and scanned in or around Oakland, CA. I'm probably going to get a scanner and start developing at home if I keep up with it, but I want to take it out for Halloween and it would be nice to be able to see my test shots first. I called Walgreen's, but the guy on the phone was saying 8 bucks. I don't think he was from the photo department, so I don't think he understood me when I said I didn't need prints at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 02:14
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:I got one of those Nishika cameras from the toy camera thread and I was wondering where the cheapest place to get the film developed and scanned in or around Oakland, CA. I'm probably going to get a scanner and start developing at home if I keep up with it, but I want to take it out for Halloween and it would be nice to be able to see my test shots first. I called Walgreen's, but the guy on the phone was saying 8 bucks. I don't think he was from the photo department, so I don't think he understood me when I said I didn't need prints at all. I've taken color film to Walgreens plenty of times and done develop only/no prints. It's like, $2.50, or so.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 05:34
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:It's like, $2.50, or so.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 11:37
|
|
|
My new baby. Also as you can possibly tell the lens is a bit dirty. What's the best way to clean this without damaging any coatings? Probably going to stick a bunch of expired velvia through it first. Laser Cow fucked around with this message at 12:41 on Oct 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 12:38
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:I've taken color film to Walgreens plenty of times and done develop only/no prints. It's like, $2.50, or so.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 13:13
|
|
|
Laser Cow posted:My new baby. Might be worth trying a lens pen. The Dorkroom tends to gush over those, though I've never used one personally. drat it Leicas are so pretty.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 13:20
|
|
|
If I want develop only, it's safe to use Walgreens or CVS or that kind of place? They don't screw up the film or develop it poorly?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 16:06
|
|
|
tijag posted:If I want develop only, it's safe to use Walgreens or CVS or that kind of place? They don't screw up the film or develop it poorly? It's done by minilab. They can still have old/screwed up chemicals or have crap in the rollers to scratch up your film.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 16:51
|
|
|
Laser Cow posted:My new baby. Lovely, my ususal method for lots of dirt like that is to use a blower to get rid of as much of the loose stuff as possible, then use a len pen's brush before using the cleaning tip to clean the glass. After that I often give the glass a quick buff with a very soft microfiber cloth. Either that or use wet optical wipes instead of the pen. Lens coatings are plenty robust though so it shouldn't be a big deal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 17:26
|
|
|
It came it came   KEH's "BGN" descriptor must stand for "bangin'", because that's all I've ever ordered from them and everything has been absolutely flawless.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 18:36
|
|
|
FasterThanLight posted:All of the Walgreens around here have bumped their prices up over $5 for process only, but CVS is still around $2. I think Target may still do $1 for next day processing, but I stopped going there after getting too many scratched negatives back (obviously, this depends a lot on the individual employees, so YMMV). I ended up taking the film to Walgreens, it was 5 for the developing and another 3.50 for scans. I'll try Target next time, there's one near where I live.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 21:34
|
|
|
Is it show off your new camera day? Got a Canon 7 today. I've wanted to get a second "oh crap I have the wrong film loaded" body for awhile, and I couldn't believe how cheap these Canon LTM bodies were. I'm pretty impressed so far - not quite as smooth and quiet as a Leica M, but the viewfinder is very comparable. I'd probably be perfectly happy with this if it had a bayonet mount. Also picked up the hotshoe accessory, which is apparently impossible to find, but KEH somehow had one for $39   DSC_0163.jpg by richardhkirkando, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 22:27
|
|
|
Got my first roll back, have some actually decent shots woo No way to scan anything right now, though. Having a blast with it so far, still need to figure out where to develop on campus, or at least somewhere that doesn't charge like $14 for developing+prints.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 02:22
|
|
|
Some news from the motion film president of Kodak reassuring people that they won't be shut down anytime soon, hopefully it means something positive for still film production: http://motion.kodak.com/motion/About/The_Storyboard/4294969168/index.htm
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 22:00
|
|
|
"And we will soon be introducing a new film! A new member of the VISION3 family of color negative films will be added to your film choices. " Vision 2 gave us the new Portra, maybe we'll get a new film in a year or so.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 23:04
|
|
|
Another big of good news, Ilford have seen a marked increase in demand for 120 and a small but significant increase for 35mm too, and are totally committed to producing film and paper in the long term. Have a listen to this very interesting interview with Steven Brierley from Ilfrod by the Film Wasters guys: http://filmwasters.com/podcast/
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2011 10:39
|
|
|
I met him on Wednesday as he came to the lab I work at in NYC, it being PDN week and all. Very cool guy, he is one of the owners of Ilford and they are very committed to film in the long term. They came to see us as they are looking to start a pilot education program in the NY area aimed at using master printers to teach a new generation of educators so that the art of darkroom printing doesn't die out. They already do a program similar in the UK but are looking at starting a nationwide US program next. It's pretty exciting stuff and just shows how a focused company that concentrates on a specialist part of a market can thrive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2011 16:14
|
|
|
I really dislike the new portra, but I like having a film that is faster than 100. 100 is just sometimes a little too slow in the later afternoons before I switch over to a 400 speed, so Portra 160 was always kind of nice. Are there any other in-between color films like this that I don't know about?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2011 18:06
|
|
|
I just ordered some rollei digibase CN200 to test out. No idea if what it's like though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2011 22:32
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:I just ordered some rollei digibase CN200 to test out. No idea if what it's like though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2011 23:43
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:I really dislike the new portra, but I like having a film that is faster than 100. 100 is just sometimes a little too slow in the later afternoons before I switch over to a 400 speed, so Portra 160 was always kind of nice. [quote="Mannequin"] You cam shoot the new ports at between 200 and 1600 and get developed without any push/pulling, and get usable negs. Fuji also do a colour negative called Pro 160S (I think that's it's new name), in both 120 and 35mm.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2011 23:44
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #20 posted:Is that the C41 film? The roll I shot had really ugly colors and ridiculous grain for an iso200 film, though I wouldn't rule out that the minilab's chemistry was screwy. Not something I'll use again. Like I said, I've never used it. But yeah, it's C41. I'll use it as my practice rolls then for learning C41 processing
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2011 01:21
|
|
|
Spedman posted:You cam shoot the new ports at between 200 and 1600 and get developed without any push/pulling, and get usable negs. Fuji also do a colour negative called Pro 160S (I think that's it's new name), in both 120 and 35mm. Wow, I didn't know that about Portra. That's interesting. I just dislike the new tones. I really liked VC but got into it just as they were pulling it. I guess it's time to scour ebay and craigslist. Thanks for reminding me about Fuji 160S. I somehow knew about it but it's one of those films that I never see in stores, and I haven't seen it online where I normally shop for film, but I will have to pick some up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2011 02:15
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:I really dislike the new portra, but I like having a film that is faster than 100. 100 is just sometimes a little too slow in the later afternoons before I switch over to a 400 speed, so Portra 160 was always kind of nice. 160 annoys the hell out of me. I want to work in full stops, thank you 
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2011 02:28
|
|
|
I love how film gear is basically free in photography dollars. Following my own advice from a bunch of pages back i bought a set of second hand equipment from someone that was quitting film. I got: Praktica MTL-3, Pentor 135mm F2.8, Pentor 28mm F3.5, Pentacon 50mm F1.8, Nissin flash, Nissin filter kit for flash, carrying case, 2x Teleconverter, link cable, bunch of filters, all original manuals and a book on praktica photography and a set of M42 extension tubes for €20. Basically everything you need to start for the price of 3 rolls of film (if you buy them at a brick&mortar store). edit: I just remember i bought 3 rolls of film this week and it was more than €20 NihilismNow fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Oct 30, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2011 19:22
|
|
|
Try out that 28mm f/3.5 wide open and near wide open - I'm curious how it'll perform. It's actually easier to design slow wide-angle lenses, you can focus more on correction than on speed. The SMC Pentax 28mm and 35mm f/3.5s are not known as speed demons, but I'd use them unless I knew I was shooting at f/2-f/3.5. I bet the 50/1.8 is good too, Pentacon actually made some pretty great stuff. The bodies I've handled were kinda crap though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2011 20:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 10:01 |
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Try out that 28mm f/3.5 wide open and near wide open - I'm curious how it'll perform. It's actually easier to design slow wide-angle lenses, you can focus more on correction than on speed. The SMC Pentax 28mm and 35mm f/3.5s are not known as speed demons, but I'd use them unless I knew I was shooting at f/2-f/3.5. I bet the 50/1.8 is good too, Pentacon actually made some pretty great stuff. The bodies I've handled were kinda crap though. I have so many lenses to try, other than those i also picked up a Meyer Orlitz lydith 30 F3.5 and a Helios 44/2 (58mm F2.0 Russian CZJ biotar copy) for a few euro's each.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2011 20:32
|
|