|
How are you guys keeping your negatives safe? I'm not sure if I'm going to scan or wet-print my negatives in the future, but at this point in my life, I'm just concentrating on taking pictures. I've been processing 5-10 rolls of film a week through my schools darkroom for the past few years, and I don't think that's going to change any time soon. I've been keeping my negs in PrintFile sleeves in PrintFile boxed binders, but they've just been sitting on my shelf. I'm moving into a new house in two weeks, and I've been thinking about where to keep my negatives. It seems like a refrigerator would be the best possible environment that I could create. I'm not talking about my kitchen fridge, but a refrigerator just for film in my garage. It's low temp, low humidity, and free from temperature fluctuations. Why have I never heard of anyone doing this?
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 01:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 23:44 |
|
|
wanderlost posted:Why have I never heard of anyone doing this? Because developed film is chemically much more stable than undeveloped film. A constant-low-temperature, constant-low-humidity environment sounds like drastic overkill to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 05:26
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Because developed film is chemically much more stable than undeveloped film. A constant-low-temperature, constant-low-humidity environment sounds like drastic overkill to me. Pretty much this. Toss them in the fridge if you want, but they'll already outlast you if they've been properly fixed. Of greater concern is fire - negatives are far more susceptible to flames than to fading, so it might be prudent to get some kind of fire proof storage if you're really paranoid about your negs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 07:19
|
|
|
What are everyone's thoughts on some bargain basement priced rangefinders, like Canonets, Konica C35, etc. I kind of want a tiny film camera to throw in my pocket. They're going for like $40-ish on craigslist. Would I be better off just throwing my $40 in the trash or is there some hidden quality in these cheap cameras?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 07:30
|
|
|
My favorite rangefinder has been the Rollei 35s and can be found within that price range. If you are not familiar with the camera it is about as compact as a 35mm gets and the lens infact collapses into the body when not in use. They have very reasonable weight so it does feels substantial in your hand. The sonar lens is the best of the bunch and the quickest. Also as I understand it the Made in Singapore models were built of better quality. If you want to spring for it and feel sexy the all black are superb street cameras for blending and being less detectable though they often sell for a $100+ Sadly I no longer own mine but I do miss it dearly. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 07:58
|
|
|
My digibase C41 kit finally arrived  It leaked in shipping  Turns out they frequently do. Rollei are cutting corners and they choose to cut them on the bottle caps of all places  Note to anyone else who wants to get started with C41: think twice about shipping digibase kits from anywhere. Pickup or nothing is the safest option
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 09:04
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:What are everyone's thoughts on some bargain basement priced rangefinders, like Canonets, Konica C35, etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 09:23
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:What are everyone's thoughts on some bargain basement priced rangefinders, like Canonets, Konica C35, etc. I just picked up a Canonet for around $11 at a flea market (which needs batteries and some minor work, but otherwise seems okay), normally on eBay they go for $40-100, last I looked. As long as it has a decent lens, the IQ you'll get out of 35mm is better than most digital cameras, it's just that most people don't want to deal with the "inconvenience" of shooting film: buying film, only getting 36 shots per roll that you can't peek at while shooting, getting it developed, scanned, etc. The Rollei mentioned below is the only one of those that's really pocketable, if we're not talking about jacket pockets or JNCO's. The Olympus XA is another pocketable 35mm compact; the original XA is even a rangefinder, although I think they're of somewhat dubious reliability. The XA2 is scale focus, cheaper, and probably less prone to breaking, although you get an f/3.5 lens instead of f/2.8. FWIW, when they weren't busy breaking, I really liked my original XA's. Tigertron posted:My favorite rangefinder has been the Rollei 35s and can be found within that price range. If you are not familiar with the camera it is about as compact as a 35mm gets and the lens infact collapses into the body when not in use. They have very reasonable weight so it does feels substantial in your hand. Scale focus (guestimate), not a rangefinder! Captain Postal posted:My digibase C41 kit finally arrived I just bought a 1L C-41 kit at the store on Sunday! I need to grab a digital thermometer next time I'm at the pet store, and a bucket to put in my bathtub to use for temperature control, and I should be good to go!
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 09:56
|
|
|
The early Olympus Pens (Pen, Pen S, and Pen D series) are also pocketable as long as you don't wear really tight pants. Scale focus only, though depth of field is pretty large. Manual exposure for the earliest, some with uncoupled meters (the EEs have automatic exposure mostly with selenium meters except for the last ones which are CdS). Half-frame gives you small pictures, but 72 shots per roll--that's like a whole party or short road trip on one contact sheet! I found an original model Pen for $5 and I'm raring to go shoot with it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 17:11
|
|
|
How do you guys find the optics on these cheaper cameras? I mean of course it'll depend on how it was treated over the years, but I'm just trying to avoid some 35mm Holga-equivalent out of the box
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 19:18
|
|
|
They've pretty much all got really nice glass in them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 19:38
|
|
|
Thanks. For $40 I'll give one of these a try then 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 19:59
|
|
|
So I got a bottle of Rodinal. If I want to stand develop some Tri-X in it, do I literally just... put the film in a 1+100 solution and walk away for an hour? That seems like cheating to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 21:21
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:So I got a bottle of Rodinal. If I want to stand develop some Tri-X in it, do I literally just... put the film in a 1+100 solution and walk away for an hour? That seems like cheating to me. I agitate for 60 seconds at the beginning, then 30 seconds halfway though. If I'm pushing it a stop by doing it for 90 minutes, I'll agitate for another 30 after an hour.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 21:26
|
|
|
JaundiceDave posted:I agitate for 60 seconds at the beginning, then 30 seconds halfway though. If I'm pushing it a stop by doing it for 90 minutes, I'll agitate for another 30 after an hour. Wouldn't the developer be spent after the first 60 minutes? If I'm understanding correctly, I don't think that last 30 minutes is doing anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 21:39
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:Wouldn't the developer be spent after the first 60 minutes? If I'm understanding correctly, I don't think that last 30 minutes is doing anything. I don't think so, but I've never done any testing with identically shot rolls so I'm not 100% sure.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 21:50
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:I just picked up a Canonet for around $11 at a flea market There's a dude on my local craigslist selling one, but he wants $200 for it 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 21:54
|
|
|
I really like my Rollei 35S. When I manage to hold it still enough and I hit focus, the lens is wicked sharp. I haven't done wet prints but the scans have that "look" that suggests the resolution is way, way up there. I'd say it's one of the sharpest lenses in my arsenal. That said, it's kind of a pain to use. It's so light I have trouble holding it well (probably a personal problem). The shutter release is really stiff and may be contributing to the shake. The meter is laughable, if you know sunny 16 you're just as well off ignoring it. Good luck using flash, hope you're good at scale focus. Tiny package, terrible ergonomics, incredible optics. The XA, in comparison, isn't as good a lens. I do like the rangefinder, but it's not a whole lot of help beyond 1-2m. The sliding cover design is great. They are finicky as hell, but have better ergonomics. I love the feather-touch shutter release. Since we let the Rollei 35S onto the list and it's not a rangefinder, there's also the Minox series. Scale focus, aperture priority. I don't think anything else will really fit into a pocket. You could consider something like a Zeiss Ikonta, they are pretty compact too and you can get the cheaper ones for <$100. Triplet optics aren't as good as the above by any means, but the huge negative cancels it out. I've run the math and ignoring cropping, a 20lp/mm 6x6 negative delivers the same info as a 80lp/mm 35mm negative with less depth of field and grain. Non-pocket sized rangefinders include the Konica Auto series and the Yashica Lynx series. I love my Lynx for party photography. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Nov 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 22:09
|
|
|
Well I meant "pocket" as a rough guesstimate of what I'm looking for. I don't actually plan to carry it in my jeans or anything -- anything that would fit into a winter coat pocket would be fine, and I was ready to consider just getting a lens for my Pentax ME, but I think I'll try picking up one of these smaller rangefinders first. If I don't like them I can probably flip them on Craigs for the same price anyway. Agains though, thanks for all the suggestions. A lot of small cameras to consider, and the more I read the more I'm fascinated by what I could be picking up. Ideally I'll just find one on Craigslist, but it depends on what the selection will be like. I might have to venture out to the 'Bay or KEH. some kinda jackal fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Nov 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 22:24
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:How do you guys find the optics on these cheaper cameras? I mean of course it'll depend on how it was treated over the years, but I'm just trying to avoid some 35mm Holga-equivalent out of the box
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 23:13
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Agains though, thanks for all the suggestions. A lot of small cameras to consider, and the more I read the more I'm fascinated by what I could be picking up. Ideally I'll just find one on Craigslist, but it depends on what the selection will be like. I might have to venture out to the 'Bay or KEH. I'll be honest. You'll be disappointed with the rangefinders compared to your Pentax ME just because the Pentax ME (especially the ME Super) is just such a darn nice camera. It run so smoothly and the viewfinder is so bright and clear plus the electronics run on normal batteries and are at least a stop or two faster than your garden variety old compact rangefinder.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 23:49
|
|
|
I'm sort of prepared for a less impressive camera but I'm hoping the compact size, convenience, and inconspicuousness will make up for any negatives Also to be frank I've kind of wanted to try a rangefinder for a long time just to say I had
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 23:54
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:I'm sort of prepared for a less impressive camera but I'm hoping the compact size, convenience, and inconspicuousness will make up for any negatives Chiming in late here, but I've always liked shooting with my Minolta 7sII, its got a fantastic Rokkor 40mm f/1.7 lens on it and a pretty accurate meter, plus you can shoot in full manual as well. I really don't shoot enough with it. http://www.rokkorfiles.com/7SII.htm
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2011 00:43
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:I'm sort of prepared for a less impressive camera but I'm hoping the compact size, convenience, and inconspicuousness will make up for any negatives I too wanted a rangefinder and small carry around camera. I went with a Zorki 6 and collapsible 50mm front Fedka.com. Cost me a little over a hundred bucks but as long as you don't mind gambling ebay would be considerably cheaper.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2011 01:11
|
|
|
The thing with compact rangefinders is they're all more or less interchangeable. There's good ones and bad ones, but they pretty much all have the same range of shutter speeds and they're mostly 40-45mm f/1.7-f/2.8 lenses.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2011 01:24
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:I'm sort of prepared for a less impressive camera but I'm hoping the compact size, convenience, and inconspicuousness will make up for any negatives Rangefinders used to be inconspicuous back in the 70's but I think nowadays they get more looks than anything else short of a Graflex. If anything, a digital point and shoot is probably the most inconspicuous in that people are so jaded about them now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2011 02:10
|
|
|
Well I mean inconspicuous as opposed to my gripped Nikon D200 + 24-70 lens which is anything but 
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2011 02:24
|
|
|
HPL posted:Rangefinders used to be inconspicuous back in the 70's but I think nowadays they get more looks than anything else short of a Graflex. If anything, a digital point and shoot is probably the most inconspicuous in that people are so jaded about them now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2011 03:14
|
|
|
Do any of you guys shoot with a Canon P and Canon lenses? How is it? It looks nicer/is cheaper than an R2A and I can pretend it's a Leica for a little while...until the time comes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2011 04:02
|
|
|
Fiannaiocht posted:Do any of you guys shoot with a Canon P and Canon lenses? How is it? It looks nicer/is cheaper than an R2A and I can pretend it's a Leica for a little while...until the time comes. I briefly owned a Canon 7 (bought it to get the two lenses it came with), and have shot with a 100mm f/2 and a 50mm f/1.2. The 7 really was actually nicer than my R3a in several regards; viewfinder was better, build quality was excellent, etc. The R3a won out because of the better meter and aperture-priority shooting though, it was just more of a convenient camera to shoot with for me. The glass is also a great deal. It's more likely to work out of the box than the Russian stuff, but still comes in cheaper than its Leica or Cosina-Voigtlander counterpart. The downside of course is that with 50 year old lenses you're not getting modern coatings; both the 50mm f/1.2 and 100mm f/2 are prone to flare if you point them at anything bright, and while neither lens is a dog, I'd venture to say they're not as good wide-open as a modern lens would be. The Canon 50mm f/1.4 is often recommended as one of the best value-for-money Leica mount lenses (it's also not as bulky/heavy as the 1.2), looking at eBay prices it now goes for $200-350, which still isn't unreasonable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2011 04:35
|
|
|
my rangefinder will eat all of yours:
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2011 07:36
|
|
|
guidoanselmi posted:my rangefinder will eat all of yours: Thats why they call it the Texas Leica  The only downside of the GW690 is that it doesn't make a shotgun sound when you fire the shutter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2011 11:04
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:I just bought a 1L C-41 kit at the store on Sunday! I need to grab a digital thermometer next time I'm at the pet store, and a bucket to put in my bathtub to use for temperature control, and I should be good to go! My plan is to use a large-ish Styrofoam box ~30L for shipping food in as an insulated box to reduce heat loss. We'll see how it goes. If it works I may replace it with something more robust. What are you looking at for a thermometer? I was going to get a human one from the pharmacist as they are +-0.1C for $10. Fish tank ones seem to be pretty poor (if they are in the right range), food and generic use ones I find are all +-1C. Got any better ideas?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2011 12:05
|
|
|
How do you guys process your photos once you scan them? I'm trying to learn how to use Photoshop more effectively. Currently I'm just doing a curve layer, some dodging and burning sometimes, and very occasionally some contrast masking.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 04:37
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:How do you guys process your photos once you scan them? I'm trying to learn how to use Photoshop more effectively. Currently I'm just doing a curve layer, some dodging and burning sometimes, and very occasionally some contrast masking.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 07:28
|
|
|
I shot a roll of Tri-X at 1600 and then tried to stand develop it in 1+100 Rodinal for an hour. The blacks were blown out to hell and back  For all your Rodinal stand developing veterans, should I just not push film when doing this? I always heard of it as some magical process that will give you beautiful negatives, especially with Tri-X :\
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 14:08
|
|
|
God help me, I might get into developing my own B&W. The process doesn't seem that complicated, but I have a few questions: What am I looking to pay to get myself a good setup with all the pans/chemicals/wheels I need? How big an area do I need? I can't dedicate a room to it, but it sounds like I only need space for 2 or 3 of those little tub things and a little extra. I thought I'd heard someone say they just use their laundry room since there's no windows and did things on top of their washer and dryer. How wary do I have to be about these chemicals in terms of a ventilated room, burning the poo poo out of my fingers, etc? I guess I need at least one of the solutions to be at 20 degrees Celsius. Are there tricks to holding it exactly there or is general "room temperature" fine? After I get a roll developed, am I best off making my own prints then, or shipping the negatives somewhere? I appreciate the help 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 17:08
|
|
|
DJExile posted:God help me, I might get into developing my own B&W. The process doesn't seem that complicated, but I have a few questions: If you're just developing film, you only need a sink to pour chemicals into your tank and a closet to load film into your tank. Having a darkroom with tub things and ventilation is only necessary if you're planning on doing wet printing. I personally have my thermostat set to 20 degrees C anyway so I get the water in the ballpark out of the tap and then leave a tub of it out and it gets to room temperature after an hour or two. Getting the water temperature right is only going to be a major issue if you live someplace so warm that the cold water is warmer than 20 C.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 17:27
|
|
|
DJExile posted:God help me, I might get into developing my own B&W. The process doesn't seem that complicated, but I have a few questions: You're mixing up developing film and developing prints Developing film only requires total darkness for moving the film from the roll/canister onto the spiral and into the developing tank, which is then light-sealed. You can then do the rest in light. You can spool over the film either in a dark room/closet, or simply get a changing bag. Mixing the chemicals can be done in your bathroom or on your kitchen counter. As long as the ambient temperature at your place isn't far from 20 C, the chemicals will keep the temperature for long enough that it isn't an issue. (At my place, ambient temperature is around 22-25 C and tap water is around 15 C. It takes at least an hour for tap water left alone to heat up to 20 C.) However, a difference in starting temperature of just 2 C can mean you need to change development time by several minutes! You never need to stick your fingers in the chemistry (not when doing prints either), and when developing film, the chemistry will stay in capped bottles most of the time, so ventilation isn't a huge issue then. See the excellent post on page 1 of this thread (halfway down the page) for what you actually need to develop a roll of b/w film. And it will probably be prohibitively expensive to have a lab to b/w prints for you. Either make your own, or make do with scanning the negatives.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 17:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 23:44 |
|
|
DISCLAIMER: This is just for developing, not printing. You're thinking that development is a lot more complicated than it is (not to say it's not complicated in its own right, but it's not some Rube Goldberg-esque process with jigs and pulleys and wheels and machines and highly acidic chemicals that you have to wear a hazmat suit for)Here is what you basically need, using Freestylephoto.biz prices... Equipment (in order of using): - A bottle opener, to open film canisters (you may have one already, so): $0 - A pair of scissors (ditto): $0 - A developing tank - the Paterson single-reel universal tank is what I started with. Really easy to use: $30 - A really basic glass thermometer: $4 - A baby syringe from the local drugstore to measure volumes of less than 10ml: $2-3 - A graduated cylinder. 100ml is a good size because it's small enough to be accurate, and you'll mostly be working in 300-500ml volumes so it's not TOO small: $4 - A stopwatch. You can use your phone with an app or something: $0 - A sink. You have one, right? $0 - Chip clips from the grocery store + a clothes hanger that has the little clip things: $1 maybe TOTAL: $42 for equipment, give or take Chemicals: - Kodak HC-110 developer: $15, could last you a good 6-8 months depending on how much you shoot - Kodak Kodafix: $8, again, will last you up to 6 months depending on how much you shoot - Heico Perma Wash: $17, will last you upwards of 6 months because you barely use much of any per development - Kodak Photo Flo: $9, will last you 6-8 months if you measure it out each use TOTAL: $49 for chemicals, give or take So, in PhotoDollars(tm), it's really really cheap to get into developing. In fact, check Craigslist, there may be someone selling a darkroom setup (i.e. all the equipment you need) for next to nothing. Granted, what I posted is the bare minimum. There are lots of little things you will find that will make your life easier (step one: buy PrintFile brand negative sleeves) As for your other questions: - You don't need a big area. I literally use a corner of my bathroom that I put a minifridge in to hold film. It's a tiny area and I just work on top of a little shelf that's there. - The chemicals I've posted aren't a hazard in any way that I've seen. The only chemical I've come across that has bothered me in any way is Stop Bath, and I don't use that when I develop, only when I print. And gently caress you if you wear gloves when you develop. Developing is an organic process, you have to FEEL it... and the smell of fixer on your hands afterwards is the smell of success. - If you're a degree up or down from 20*, it's not a big deal. It's cold right now, so my water comes in at 20* or lower, and I just go with it. When it's warmer out and my pipes aren't as cold, I'll put my graduated cylinder in an ice bath and watch the thermometer until it reads 20 and then go to town. The only solution you need to get close to specific is the developer. The rest aren't as sensitive to temperature. - After you develop, it depends what you want to do with it! If you want to make wet prints, spend a couple hundred more bucks on the equipment and paper and chemicals required to do so Or, spend $150, buy an Epson V500/600/700 and scan your own negatives. Then get them printed online somewhere. There are also places you can send your negatives to to get printed, but it'll cost you an arm and a leg.Phew, hopefully this all makes some sense. What it boils down to - get a process in mind, but don't over-think it and psych yourself out! Have fun with it and experiment
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 17:43
|
|