|
JaundiceDave posted: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. God it must be so cool to have a competent lab around.
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 03:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 18:05 |
|
|
Shot Portra 400 at 3200 tonight, I hope my lab does push processing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 16:55
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:Shot Portra 400 at 3200 tonight, I hope my lab does push processing. What I've understood is that you do not need to push Portra 400. Underexpose by three stops (like you did), develop as normal, then print or scan some crazy-rear end negatives.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 17:02
|
|
|
nielsm posted:What I've understood is that you do not need to push Portra 400. Underexpose by three stops (like you did), develop as normal, then print or scan some crazy-rear end negatives. I posted this before, but - this was way underexposed, maybe two or three stops:  And this is what the negative looks like: 
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 17:13
|
|
|
Wait, can someone explain more about how to use portra400 outside its normal range? Underexpose instead of pushing, develop normally, get a hi def scan and just push the exposure in LR? Is that it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 17:54
|
|
|
That's interesting, let's see what happens when I get the negs back from the lab then.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 18:13
|
|
|
Elite Taco posted:Wait, can someone explain more about how to use portra400 outside its normal range? Shoot as required, develop normally, done. Per Kodak, Portra has a fudge factor of -2 to +3 stops. Processed C-41, in that range you'll get what Kodak describes (not entirely euphemistically) as "usable" negatives. You may like them, you may hate them, they may or may not suit the particular subject matter, but they'll be usable for printing or scanning.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 18:50
|
|
|
I had my last roll of portra processed at 400, and I exposed it at varying speeds from 200-3200 throughout the roll. All of the photos came out decently, although 3200 was pushing it a little.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 20:39
|
|
|
For the underexposed shots, are you just increasing exposure in post?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 20:57
|
|
|
Elite Taco posted:For the underexposed shots, are you just increasing exposure in post? In scanning and/or post, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 21:01
|
|
|
More info on Kodaks new moving picture film, points to there being a new low speed (64 or 25?) colour negative film in the works perhaps? http://motion.kodak.com/motion/About/The_Storyboard/4294969369/index.htm
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2011 22:07
|
|
|
http://www.landscapegb.com/2011/05/kodaks-new-portra-400-film/
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2011 02:11
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:http://www.landscapegb.com/2011/05/kodaks-new-portra-400-film/ I like portra because it gets me ISO 200 -> 1600 in the same canister. And I am lazy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2011 11:43
|
|
|
Dropped my first roll of film at cvs and the negatives came out too light, you can barely see individual frame lines. What went wrong? It was " Kodak 400 TMAX Professional ISO 400, 35mm, 36 Exposures, Black and White Film. The girl was obviously not trained properly so I really couldnt blame her.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2011 21:42
|
|
|
The problem is you can't put TMAX through C-41 chemistry. Be grateful it worked as well as it did. If you want to do that you need Ilford XP-2 (better) or Kodak BW400CN film.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2011 21:44
|
|
|
Ahh so cvs isnt capable of developing that? Makes sense. They gave me a roll of bw400cn for free so score i guess. Edit : Anyone use a Epson 4490 scanner before, have the chance to pick one up for 50$. It seems to have good reviews. ease fucked around with this message at 23:17 on Dec 17, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2011 22:00
|
|
|
It's OK, it is basically a last-gen Epson V500. I'm not sure if the 4490 has ICE, which can make scanning C-41 or slides a lot easier. The other thing is, if you ever think you even might start scanning medium format, you want an Epson V600/700/750. They have a much larger window so they scan many more negatives at once.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2011 00:27
|
|
|
Been a while since I posted anything. These are scans of some work prints I am in the process of enlarging  
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2011 03:32
|
|
|
That 2nd shot is brilliant. Would look fantastic printed fairly big. Nice work!
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2011 12:41
|
|
|
Stupid person film question: I accidentally screwed up and opened the back of my film camera before I had completely rewinded the film. Luckily, most of it was rewound and I think only the first five or so exposures were not rewound into the canister. Are the rest of the shots going to be ok because they were in the canister, or have I completely lost the whole roll? Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2011 00:03
|
|
|
Anything in the canister will be fine. Anything lying across the film gate and the first couple shots on the take-up spool will be toast though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2011 00:09
|
|
|
HookShot posted:Stupid person film question: I accidentally screwed up and opened the back of my film camera before I had completely rewinded the film. Luckily, most of it was rewound and I think only the first five or so exposures were not rewound into the canister. Are the rest of the shots going to be ok because they were in the canister, or have I completely lost the whole roll? Thanks! Those in the canister should be more than fine, even those still on the take up spool might be okay with a little bit of light leaking if the film was still wound tight. EDIT: Beaten!
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2011 00:10
|
|
|
Awesome, thanks guys! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2011 00:14
|
|
|
Well Im excited because I just found an old Polaroid 600 around the house and it appears to be in good working condition. Im just recently back in country and I was wandering around Urban Outfitters and saw they are selling these polaroids now for what seems like redonkulous prices but there is also film available (for also rather redonkulous prices) but Im excited enough to try and by 24 shots or something. So this 'impossible project' is the only go for polaroid film these days yeah?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2011 07:24
|
|
|
Polaroid 600 film? Yeah, that or expired eBay film. If you can find a camera that takes peel apart packfilm, Fuji makes FP-100c which will work better than the
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2011 08:02
|
|
|
So I've been developing with DD-X, but I'm almost out and would like to try other developers. Can I use the stop bath (ilfostop) I already have or do I need to match developer and stop bath manufacturers? Also, I know developer will go bad after a few months. Are stop bath and fixer subject to the same issue or are they good for a long time? Does fixer matter as much as developer or is it cool to just use whatever?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2011 03:11
|
|
|
Stop bath is a matter of preference and doesn't need to be matched up to developer (with no exceptions that I know of). Hell, you can use diluted vinegar for a stop bath if you want, or even just water. Though I assume that none of the simpler solutions are as effective at halting development immediately. You should be fine with whatever you have. I used water for the better part of a year and didn't have any problems. Then again I'm not a pro user or anything so if there was a problem I probably wouldn't have noticed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2011 03:24
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Stop bath is a matter of preference and doesn't need to be matched up to developer (with no exceptions that I know of). Hell, you can use diluted vinegar for a stop bath if you want, or even just water. Though I assume that none of the simpler solutions are as effective at halting development immediately. Cool, thanks. I've tried C-41 a couple times now and gotten pretty mixed results, so I decided to take a roll to a local lab and compare their results to mine ($4.04 for a roll of 120 seems pretty good). Anyway, I've been using a Yashica D which only has shutter speeds and aperture in full stop increments. When my light meter (iphone app, so who knows how accurate) tells me to use a shutter speed between two stops I just went with the faster one. I knew I'd get shots a bit underexposed, but it looks far worse than the <1 stop off it should be. I can fix it in photoshop and it ends up ok (except for some added noise). Anyway below is a straight from the scanner and after edits samples.   Should I be opting to overexpose a bit instead? I was using Portra 400 and metering for iso 400 if that matters. Also, I bought the camera off ebay so the shutter may not even be firing for the proper times. Typing this I think there might just be too many variables. Maybe I'll do a roll through a camera I'm sure has an accurate shutter and see how it goes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2011 06:33
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:Should I be opting to overexpose a bit instead? I was using Portra 400 and metering for iso 400 if that matters. Also, I bought the camera off ebay so the shutter may not even be firing for the proper times. Typing this I think there might just be too many variables. Maybe I'll do a roll through a camera I'm sure has an accurate shutter and see how it goes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2011 14:47
|
|
|
FasterThanLight posted:I would err toward overexposure on C-41, but <1 stop underexposure shouldn't be bad. Are you scanning those yourself? The before image looks a lot like mine do if I don't lock exposure/film base color in Vuescan. Yes, I scanned them myself. I didn't really change much other than the crop in vuescan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2011 15:16
|
|
|
Why is it that Vuescan and Silverfast give me really muddy and blurry scans, while EpsonScan gives me crystal clear super-sharp scans? I've been through every setting, even the in-program "sharpen" option. I don't know what I'm doing wrong, but I really like Vuescan for its ability to set the film base color. I have an Epson V500 for what it's worth.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2011 15:24
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:Why is it that Vuescan and Silverfast give me really muddy and blurry scans, while EpsonScan gives me crystal clear super-sharp scans? I've had the same issues here, the only film that I've been able to scan well in Viewscan was Kodachrome, otherwise it just seems more pain for what it's worth. The EpsonScan software makes batch scanning so much easier, especially doing it inside Photoshop. (V500 here too).
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2011 21:27
|
|
|
EpsonScan doesn't work on OS X 10.7 with the v600 so I'm hosed into using Vuescan. Guess I'll be buying a Canon next time I want a scanner.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2011 22:31
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:EpsonScan doesn't work on OS X 10.7 with the v600 so I'm hosed into using Vuescan. Really? I've been using the v500 with Lion and it hasn't skipped a beat, weird.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2011 23:02
|
|
|
Spedman posted:Really? I've been using the v500 with Lion and it hasn't skipped a beat, weird. I can't even download it from their website, just says install drives from the Apple update, but no Epsonscan software.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2011 23:11
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:I can't even download it from their website, just says install drives from the Apple update, but no Epsonscan software. I'm using version 3.7, here is a download link for 3.8, I think it should work: http://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/6656/epson-scan
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 00:21
|
|
|
I wonder if these work with the Perfection 3200. I'm not a fan of VueScan even though my problems were mostly things I was able to work around.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 00:24
|
|
|
Did some more scanning. Man, I love having access to an X5 The New Museum, NY by JaundiceDave, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 03:30
|
|
|
 Just finished developing my 3rd and 4th roll of Tri-X. This time, it went much smoother, in under an hour. Now for 2 rolls of 120. E: first roll of 120 done. Is there a way to keep them from bowing in the middle as it dries? E2: And done with #2. MF is so much faster to load than 35mm. Even on wet, plastic reels, it was relatively painless. Everything looks fantastic, too. And the first roll dried itself flat somehow. Question: how fast do you go through developer? I'm using TMax at 1+4, and I'm already more than halfway through a bottle after only ~8 35mm rolls. Should I dilute down to 1+9 to last longer? Can developer be reused, like fixer? red19fire fucked around with this message at 08:20 on Dec 21, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 05:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 18:05 |
|
|
red19fire posted:Question: how fast do you go through developer? I'm using TMax at 1+4, and I'm already more than halfway through a bottle after only ~8 35mm rolls. You're probably best off not diluting any further, but you can, to some degree, re-use developer. Here's what Kodak's document about T-Max developer says:  That table is based on mixing an entire bottle of concentrate up at once to make a gallon of working solution, so if you instead e.g. mix one quart at a time you would divide those numbers of rolls by four to get the adjustments. However if you want the best developer economy for small scale use, use a more concentrated one such as HC-110. Grab some Kodak documents here, you can learn all kinds of useful things from them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 13:55
|
|