|
I seem to have ruined my darkroom thermometer after trying to measure 140F water for slide developing. Probably why my slides have been turning out really weird and wrong colors, water temp was probably off by 10-15 degrees. However I seem to be pretty accurate at sensing 68F water by touch, did a batch of sunny-16'd black and white after realizing that my thermometer was busted and it turned out just fine.
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 18:12
|
|
is go
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 15:54 |
|
|
Dr. Cogwerks posted:I seem to have ruined my darkroom thermometer after trying to measure 140F water for slide developing. Probably why my slides have been turning out really weird and wrong colors, water temp was probably off by 10-15 degrees. drat, guessing on exposure and guessing on temperature and still getting a good negative - THAT'S photography.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 19:26
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:drat, guessing on exposure and guessing on temperature and still getting a good negative - THAT'S photography. Even worse: it was from a bulk-loaded roll of original T-Max 400 (not TMYII), found in a bulk spooler at a thrift shop. No idea when it expired, but it looked like it had been there for quite awhile. I've found three bulk-spoolers at thrift shops for about five bucks each so far, and each one was still loaded with a decent amount of viable film.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 21:01
|
|
|
For some reason this shot really pissed me off, especially the caption on the right: https://500px.com/photo/1921880
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 00:19
|
|
|
██████████████♫LIKE!♫██████████████ ██████████♫My Favorites♫♫ ████████████ ►►►►►►►►►►GREAT:)
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 01:12
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Click the first thumbnail, and click the "histogram" button (looks like a graph). Drag the white and black points so they totally enclose the histogram. Repeat for every thumbnail. Click the folder icon to set save options, and set TIF instead of JPG. Click scan. Come back in 10 minutes and repeat for the next set of negatives. Thank you for the walkthrough. One question, does the above about adjusting the histogram apply to color c41? When I try, not only do the images look flat, but the colors get mangled. I haven't had any luck putting the scanned image right in LR. Any tips?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 03:00
|
|
|
Gorilla King posted:Thank you for the walkthrough. One question, does the above about adjusting the histogram apply to color c41? When I try, not only do the images look flat, but the colors get mangled. I haven't had any luck putting the scanned image right in LR. Any tips? When you go into the histogram, use the white and black point eyedroppers, then slide the white and black points over to the very edge. That helps keep the white balance. It's OK if the scans look flat. Lightroom will recover them, and the shadows and highlights will retain good detail. The important thing is you got everything into the histogram, so nothing clips off. If you need to adjust the white balance, you should be able to do all this in Lightroom. I've been told this is wrong, but nevertheless, my technique is to adjust the R,G,B white/blackpoints directly in the histogram. Understand that when you change this point relative to the other sliders you change the white balance in the relative area. Thus, moving the blue white point too far right causes yellow highlights, and this can be corrected by moving the white point back in. I could theoretically be clipping some highlight information in a single color, but I'd rather have balanceable colors. I'm scanning some pictures from a canoe trip this summer. I used a polarizer (Marumi Super DHG) for the first time, and the pictures look a lot better. In particular, the highlights no longer go yellow. It takes the highlights out, which reduces the dynamic range the film needs to record. Scanning is literally 99% easier now. You lose 2 stops or so though. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 05:04 on Nov 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 04:59
|
|
|
I have a question, I think I'm not getting exposure compensation correct. I was out today shooting with tri-x 400, with my light meter (L-308, which I will be selling soon). I want to shoot the underside of a bridge, which is in shadow, and it's getting close to sunset. My meter says f/4 at 1/500 in the shadows, f/11 at 1/500 in the sunlight, so a 4 stop difference between light and shadow. So according to the books I've been reading; to maintain shadow detail, I should drop to f/4 at 1/1000, or -1 EV, right? I'm going by the Zone system, the meter says Zone V is f/4 at 1/500, so zone IV should be f/4 at 1/1000. I'm messing around with my digital camera to test this, shooting my black computer on my black desk with the same meter, and I'm getting better detail at 0 EV than -1 EV, where the histograms are bunched to the left. Are the -1 EV film frames going to be a sea of black on a blown-out sky? To be safe, I bracketed, but I'm probably just overthinking it, trying to make these calculations in my head. E: I think I get it now. The Meter wants to expose the black desk as gray, so I'm correct in dropping the exposure by -1 or -2 EV. I hope the film stuff comes out alright 
red19fire fucked around with this message at 05:34 on Nov 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 05:06
|
|
|
Spedman posted:For some reason this shot really pissed me off, especially the caption on the right: He should have set fire to that ugly rear end hat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 05:48
|
|
|
Just bought a few rolls of Agfapan 100 that expired in 1989 for 50 cents per roll. I'm really curious as to how these will develop. Considering people are getting decent images from instant film that expired in the mid 70's i'm fairly hopeful. I also got a few rolls of Ektacolor 160 that expired in 1996, is it worth developing these? The B&W rolls i can do myself but i forgot i have to have colour developed for me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2011 14:50
|
|
|
any thoughts on Ilford Delta 100 vs Tmax 100?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2011 16:33
|
|
|
NihilismNow posted:Just bought a few rolls of Agfapan 100 that expired in 1989 for 50 cents per roll. I'm really curious as to how these will develop. Considering people are getting decent images from instant film that expired in the mid 70's i'm fairly hopeful. They will be fine. They may be a bit fogged from age, if so, you can counter this by shooting at like EI50 and pulling development. You'll lose a bit of contrast, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2011 16:46
|
|
|
NihilismNow posted:Just bought a few rolls of Agfapan 100 that expired in 1989 for 50 cents per roll. I'm really curious as to how these will develop. Considering people are getting decent images from instant film that expired in the mid 70's i'm fairly hopeful. I've shot some Ektacolor of the same vintage and got some great results, but that'll all depend if the film has been in fridge or car glove box for the last 15 years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2011 07:06
|
|
|
Does anyone use a notebook to jot down what their exposure and taking conditions were? I was thinking about getting a moleskine or field notebook, but then I wondered if there were any purpose-built notebooks out there. There is one, but I think I could make one that's better organized and concise. Do you think that kind of thing would sell well if I were to go full-on entrepreneur?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 02:27
|
|
|
red19fire posted:Does anyone use a notebook to jot down what their exposure and taking conditions were? I was thinking about getting a moleskine or field notebook, but then I wondered if there were any purpose-built notebooks out there. There is one, but I think I could make one that's better organized and concise. I don't, although it's something I've thought about doing for large format in the past (I suppose I could with medium format too, but usually I'm moving a bit faster and wouldn't want to pause between each shot to do it). I'd say get the reporter-type Moleskine for that purpose; easier to write on without a surface. Now that I have a smartphone though, I'd be much more likely to use Evernote. I can whip my phone out, hit the "audio note" button on the widget that's on my home screen, quickly dictate whatever, hit "save", and it will save the file to the cloud (bonus: free timestamp and GPS coordinates). When I get home and have a little chunk of free time, I can then process the audio notes into a text file and save it. I do that now with little ideas/tasks that come up when I'm in the middle of something and don't want to stop whatever and write it out, it's replaced the little notebook or Hipster PDA I used to carry around for such purposes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 03:03
|
|
|
Provia 100F owns. Olympus OM-4Ti unequivocally owns. Automatic spot-metered long exposures are completely awesome. hustle by atomicthumbs, on Flickr  Ghostwatch 99 by atomicthumbs, on Flickr  Ghostwatch 100 by atomicthumbs, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2011 04:40
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Those look great! I have two Rapid Rectilinears I stole off Kodak folders. I really need to give them a shot sometime. Coming back to say this was right on; I mixed my wetting agent in distilled water (everything else in tap though) and didn't see water spots on my second roll. Looks like I do need to clean the rollers on my Ciro-flex though!  Debris and grafitto, Front Street Shipyard  Bollard on a work skiff
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2011 05:12
|
|
|
So a month or so ago I bought some expired film from the photography fair in Toronto for $5, thinking that I just scored a few rolls for cheap (they go for $1/roll for 35mm). I found out that it's a few hundred feet of uncut film ( bobmarleysghost fucked around with this message at 02:54 on Nov 17, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2011 02:03
|
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:So a month or so ago I bought some expired film from the photography fair in Toronto for $5, thinking that I just scored a few rolls for cheap (they go for $1/roll for 35mm). Tokyo camera style just posted an intro to bulk loading today.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2011 02:12
|
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:(Provia 400 NC) It's probably Portra if it says 400NC, Provia is a slide film in 100f and 400x designations.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2011 02:35
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:Tokyo camera style just posted an intro to bulk loading today. Aweeesome! Reichstag posted:It's probably Portra if it says 400NC, Provia is a slide film in 100f and 400x designations. Yes! My mistake, I was thinking about getting some Fuji film when I wrote that haha
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2011 02:54
|
|
|
Acros   Oak Cliff by RHITMrB, on Flickr  Oak Cliff by RHITMrB, on Flickr HC-110 Dilution E, 7 minutes at 20 degrees C.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2011 07:17
|
|
|
I like this very much, especially the stop signs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2011 11:55
|
|
|
Jellyko posted:
This is gorgeous.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2011 16:59
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Acros Try it in Rodinal 1:50 for 18m. It boosts the acutance even more, and the grain's so fine to start with that Rodinal doesn't hurt it at all. I love Acros.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2011 20:05
|
|
|
Hello Film friends! I've been shooting a frame or two of film at every shoot for the past six months and I've finally used up my roll. The film is C-41 Kodak Portra ISO 800 - would that be okay to get developed at a drug store or will I need to go to a professional place?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2011 20:54
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Hello Film friends! You don't HAVE to go to a professional place - drug stores can process C-41, but there's a slightly elevated chance of having it come back looking bad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2011 21:00
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Try it in Rodinal 1:50 for 18m. It boosts the acutance even more, and the grain's so fine to start with that Rodinal doesn't hurt it at all. I literally just did this half an hour ago, based on one of your posts, after deciding to never stand develop again (paradoxical overdevelopment!), and the negative looks fantastic. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2011 21:02
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:You don't HAVE to go to a professional place - drug stores can process C-41, but there's a slightly elevated chance of having it come back looking bad. hmmm, I might just see how much of the price difference is. A pro place lists c-41 development at around 8 bucks - does that seem like a decent price?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2011 21:07
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:hmmm, I might just see how much of the price difference is. A pro place lists c-41 development at around 8 bucks - does that seem like a decent price? Just for developing? The place I go in town, which is a "semi-professional" place, i.e. a dedicated photo place, but they use minilabs, charges me $2-3 for just developing the negatives. I guess location and stuff factor in as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2011 21:27
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:hmmm, I might just see how much of the price difference is. A pro place lists c-41 development at around 8 bucks - does that seem like a decent price? Considering you have 6 months worth of shoots on the roll I would think $8 to get a pro lab to do it is well worth the money.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2011 22:32
|
|
|
Jellyko posted:Coming back to say this was right on; I mixed my wetting agent in distilled water (everything else in tap though) and didn't see water spots on my second roll. Looks like I do need to clean the rollers on my Ciro-flex though! atomicthumbs posted:I literally just did this half an hour ago, based on one of your posts, after deciding to never stand develop again (paradoxical overdevelopment!), and the negative looks fantastic. Thanks!  Just kidding, glad it worked out for you. I absolutely love Acros, it's my standard 100 speed b+w film. It's also great for night exposures, since it has the best reciprocity failure of any film on the market. +0 exposure for 1-119 seconds, +1/2 for 120-1000 seconds. I have no idea how they did that. I have a couple rolls of FP4+ that I really need to try one of these days. What's a good developer for that? I have Rodinal, HC-110, XTOL, Microdol, and I should probably buy some D-76 anyway. One of these days I'm going to mix up a big batch of Pyrocat HD concentrate too. By the way, I wasn't implying you did anything wrong or anything, just suggesting one combo that worked great for me. I like this composition, and both look good in terms of development. I don't know if these are minilab scans, but your sky is white and I always find that really distracting. I find you can usually recover them in scan (pull the histogram to the edges of the exposure), but if not maybe you could try a yellow filter or decreasing your exposure a bit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2011 00:18
|
|
|
I got a good delivery yesterday. Now to figure out what to shoot with first.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2011 01:33
|
|
|
Cats.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2011 02:04
|
|
|
But I only have one 
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2011 02:06
|
|
|
Cat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2011 02:13
|
|
|
mysticp posted:Considering you have 6 months worth of shoots on the roll I would think $8 to get a pro lab to do it is well worth the money. Agreed, don't cheap out now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2011 02:44
|
|
|
I just had a brilliant idea. Can you enlarge slides onto slide dupe film? 8x10 slides from 35mm would own.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2011 04:07
|
|
|
Yes, you can. I've long toyed with the idea of making 8x10 slides of photos and presenting them as lightboxes (of course, illumination degrades slides pretty quickly).
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2011 04:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 15:54 |
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:I just had a brilliant idea. Can you enlarge slides onto slide dupe film? 8x10 slides from 35mm would own.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2011 04:41
|
|