|
ExecuDork posted:It's translucent gray - light comes through it if I hold it in front of a bulb, but fuzzy. Is there a way for film to not get fixed even in the presence of fresh, known-good fixer? Can you read the text on the edge of the film? If so how thin is it? Do a clip test on your fixer and see how long it takes to fix. Shoot another roll of the exact same scene but bracket the exposures. In the darkroom cut it into 3 sections and develop them separately at progressively longer times, say 11, 17, 23 mins. See how they come out.
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2011 06:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 19:50 |
|
|
ExecuDork posted:It's translucent gray - light comes through it if I hold it in front of a bulb, but fuzzy. Is there a way for film to not get fixed even in the presence of fresh, known-good fixer? Now it's sounding more like your film got exposed to light. Sorry 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2011 07:45
|
|
|
The text on the edges of the film is clear and legible. Is Delta 3200 very sensitive to IR? Actually, I just thought of something - I bought the film from overseas (Sweden), it might have gone through an X-ray machine when Canada Customs got it. D'oh! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2011 08:24
|
|
|
My only experience with Delta 3200 has also been some badly expired stuff. I did get images on it, but it was insanely fogged simply from being stored. Are you really sure you exposed it properly, and at what speed did you expose it? Is there any chance your meter fails at the speed you were exposing for?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2011 08:59
|
|
|
I have a feeling that X-rays would probably destroy Delta 3200, since you're not supposed to send film above either 400 or 800 (I forget) through them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2011 11:02
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:I have a feeling that X-rays would probably destroy Delta 3200, since you're not supposed to send film above either 400 or 800 (I forget) through them. Sure, but if the edge markings are still visible after development it wasn't completely fogged and a properly exposed image should still be visible through the high base density.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2011 12:50
|
|
|
I'm not 100% certain of the shutter speeds, it was the first roll through my new-to-me Pentax ME Super - I can't tell the difference between 1/125 and 1/250 from sound alone. But, there's NOTHING on this film - I can't count frames, it's a continuous strip of gray. The meter on my camera only goes up to 1600 ISO, so I shot that roll in manual, moving one stop faster from what the light meter recommended. If I was indoors and at f/4, and the light meter said 1/30, I'd shoot at 1/60, for example. The camera has some issues, it will always open the shutter for much longer (around 1/4, I think) the first time I use it after it's been sitting for a while, which in practice seems to be anything longer than about 10 minutes. The second shot will be (I think) correct, so I'm trying to get into the habit of cocking the lever before I shoot with this camera, rather than after as I usually do with my Minolta. Given all the variety of shooting I did with that roll - everything from 1/30 up to 1/500, plus the first-shot weirdness I'd expect to see at least a few rolls that were badly under- or over-exposed, but there's no indication of that. The X-ray explanation (combined with about a decade of storage) is making the most sense to me at the moment, but I wonder if anybody else has had similar experiences, or has had a roll go through an X-ray machine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2011 18:25
|
|
|
The Massive Dev List iPhone App sure makes semi-stand developing a lot easier.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 04:37
|
|
|
Just picked up some Rollei Pan 25 in 120. Anyone used this and have any advice?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 05:09
|
|
|
It's exactly the same as Efke 25 (or so Maco claim) which I've used a bit of. lovely cheap emulsion and an absolute bitch to feed onto a roll for dev. Although I've only used the 135.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 06:40
|
|
|
Nevermind
Trambopaline fucked around with this message at 12:01 on Dec 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 11:25
|
|
|
 Found this Cosina CS-1 in workplaces hazardous waste trash, i cannot wind(?) the camera. Tried to dismantle the camera but i cannot get the top part off. Don't know how the buttons come off. Tried to pull them off but i am scared to use too much force on them. Do someone know how the buttons come off?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 13:32
|
|
|
There's nothing quite like trying to force your way into something you found in the hazardous waste receptacle. Leave it to a pro before you destroy it. It's not easy to get in there and there's nothing user serviceable. The battery compartment should be on the bottom. What exactly are you trying to do?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 14:23
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:There's nothing quite like trying to force your way into something you found in the hazardous waste receptacle. Catch some kind of blood-borne disease, obviously.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 14:42
|
|
|
I've been super keen to try out some of the Kodak Aerochrome colour infrared film, it makes all those infrared colours a lovely magenta!   It makes dark skin look amazing, and white skin look a bit sickly. You can supposedly order it here (I'll let people know how my order goes): http://www.tarquinius.de/
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 06:28
|
|
|
That second photo is part of a pretty great series that was in GUP. Love GUP
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 07:25
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:There's nothing quite like trying to force your way into something you found in the hazardous waste receptacle. To find out why the film advance lever doesn't do anything. Axle is probably snapped or loosen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 09:25
|
|
|
Schofferhofer posted:That second photo is part of a pretty great series that was in GUP. Love GUP I first saw that work in the British Journal of Photography, then forgot about it for a while, all those shots from the Congo look spectacular.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 12:09
|
|
|
It's Richard Mosse. Infra.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 15:53
|
|
|
So, I scanned in some 35mm film on my V500 and had it printed at 8x10 at the local Ritz Camera. It looks like total poo poo. Is it's Ritz's fault? Is it the V500's fault? Can 35mm just not be blown up reasonably to 8x10? I want to say the resolution was around 2000x3000 on a 30mb TIFF file, so I didn't imagine it would look so blurry and pixely. Sigh.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 17:09
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:So, I scanned in some 35mm film on my V500 and had it printed at 8x10 at the local Ritz Camera. It looks like total poo poo. Is it's Ritz's fault? Is it the V500's fault? Can 35mm just not be blown up reasonably to 8x10? I want to say the resolution was around 2000x3000 on a 30mb TIFF file, so I didn't imagine it would look so blurry and pixely. How does the scan look at 100% on your monitor? If it's blurry and you can't see detail there at 2000x3000, something isn't right with the scan. Otherwise it's Ritz. I scan at 2400dpi on my V500 and end up with about 2250x3400 scans with plenty of detail, so it's not that the V500 isn't capable of it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 17:42
|
|
|
Reposting this here from the gear thread as I believe it goes to a film camera. Can anyone tell me about this lens, like what it's worth, what mount that is, etc.?   That gunk is from a pricing sticker.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2011 23:55
|
|
|
How do you guys maintain temperature for C-41 or E-6 developing? Lot's of things I find say to use an aquarium heater, but I can't find one that goes hotter than 98F? All I can find is this Nova company that makes two submersible heaters that go to 45C (so plenty hot), but they're in the UK and last I checked they use different plugs than the US so I'd then have to buy an adapter. All I can find at B&H for heaters look like they attach to my faucet?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2011 20:08
|
|
|
Water has a massive specific heat capacity compared to air. My plan (when I get around to actually processing C41) is to heat a large mass of water in an insulated foam box of the type used to pack fish/meat for restaurants. Lots of people just use a big sink or bath tub and don't bother about insulating the walls. Heat to about 39, start when it cools to 38.5 and it should take much longer than 3 min to cool to 37.5 (although I haven't tested that). But the general method for small quantities of film is just use a big mass of water and let physics do the rest
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2011 21:35
|
|
|
Could do a DIY Sous Vide cooker if you wanted as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2011 22:02
|
|
|
My 8x10 portra 400 arrived. gently caress is that expensive
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2011 22:11
|
|
|
JaundiceDave posted:My 8x10 portra 400 arrived. gently caress is that expensive Think of the negatives. Just think of the negatives.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2011 22:12
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:I just burned through this roll so I could try developing (didn't want to screw it up on shots I actually care about), but what would happen if I stored it without doing the fixer again on the bad spots?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2011 22:22
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:Think of the negatives. Just think of the negatives. I am, but joke's on me. Even with the best drum scanner in the world you can't scan at any more than around 2000 dpi because .tiffs are limited to 2.1 gigs in size.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2011 22:38
|
|
|
JaundiceDave posted:I am, but joke's on me. Even with the best drum scanner in the world you can't scan at any more than around 2000 dpi because .tiffs are limited to 2.1 gigs in size. Yeah but even 2000dpi is like 16000x20000 pixels O_O
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2011 22:49
|
|
|
JaundiceDave posted:I am, but joke's on me. Even with the best drum scanner in the world you can't scan at any more than around 2000 dpi because .tiffs are limited to 2.1 gigs in size. "Yeah, but the car's got a limiter that kicks in at 201mph..."
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2011 22:52
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:Yeah but even 2000dpi is like 16000x20000 pixels O_O Which is a lot, but nowhere near the information contained in a good sheet of 8x10. A frame of 35mm has approximately 20mp worth of information in it - scale that up to large format size and it's over a gigapixel. I realize that it sounds silly complaining about getting 300+ mp files, but it's annoying that you can't resolve full detail from such a great format digitally yet. Genderfluid fucked around with this message at 00:01 on Dec 15, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2011 23:58
|
|
|
JaundiceDave posted:Which is a lot, but nowhere near the information contained in a good sheet of 8x10. A frame of 35mm has approximately 20mp worth of information in it - scale that up to large format size and it's over a gigapixel. That's not really true though, it doesn't scale linearly. You have to also factor in that as you go up in projection size, the lenses you are using also resolve less fine detail, which is ok because the increase in neg size more than makes up for it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 00:26
|
|
|
So I have two different rolls of color film (Portra 400 and Ektar 100), is it ok to develop them together or should i do them separately? I know B&W films have different times for developing, but C-41 seems a lot more rigid with the development process.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 00:51
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:So I have two different rolls of color film (Portra 400 and Ektar 100), is it ok to develop them together or should i do them separately? I know B&W films have different times for developing, but C-41 seems a lot more rigid with the development process. C-41 is standardized, process them together. I like to put it this way: C-41 films are made to fit the process, B/W processes are made to fit the film.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 00:54
|
|
|
JaundiceDave posted:Which is a lot, but nowhere near the information contained in a good sheet of 8x10. A frame of 35mm has approximately 20mp worth of information in it - scale that up to large format size and it's over a gigapixel. You realize you will be able to contact print 8x10 right? I really wouldn't worry about the limitation of tiffs and bask in the glory of 8x10 negatives.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 01:13
|
|
|
ThePopeOfFun posted:Reposting this here from the gear thread as I believe it goes to a film camera. Looks like an M42 mount lens, which will fit lots of Pentax, Zeiss, and I think Voigtlander screwmount cameras. The lens itself is a Zeiss Tessar; a very classic four element lens. It should be very sharp in the center at all apertures, and sharp across the frame at smaller apertures. Probably worth $40-100 depending on condtion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 01:44
|
|
|
Ferris Bueller posted:You realize you will be able to contact print 8x10 right? I really wouldn't worry about the limitation of tiffs and bask in the glory of 8x10 negatives. Yea, I'm planning to just do c-prints for now, since I can use an 8x10 color enlarger fo' free but have to pay to use a drum scanner
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 02:47
|
|
|
Could the drum scanner take a higher resolution scan of a portion of the area of the 8x10 negative, something that will result in (I dunno) 6400 dpi and that 2.1gig max file size? Then do that enough times to cover the whole area, and stich the photos together in a different format?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 03:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 19:50 |
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Could the drum scanner take a higher resolution scan of a portion of the area of the 8x10 negative, something that will result in (I dunno) 6400 dpi and that 2.1gig max file size? Then do that enough times to cover the whole area, and stich the photos together in a different format? That's a good question, and I'll call and ask. Even though their drum scans are cheap for drum scans, they're still pricey as gently caress, and if they can do this I'm sure it'll at least double the price. http://www.nyu.edu/its/ams/prices/
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 03:10
|
|