|
I just found out KEH has an ebay store. This does not bode well for my pocketbook. http://stores.ebay.com/KEHOUTLET What I really like about the ebay store is they post large photos of the actual items. echobucket fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Jan 13, 2012 |
#
?
Jan 13, 2012 19:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 09:49 |
|
|
I'd really like to replace to the photomic finder on my F with the lighter unmetered prism, since I always use a handheld anyway. e: Holy poo poo a non-metered F prism goes for $126 on keh at bgn quality. I could almost buy an fm2n for that. :-/ 365 Nog Hogger fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Jan 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2012 19:48
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:I'd really like to replace to the photomic finder on my F with the lighter unmetered prism, since I always use a handheld anyway. Yeah. I would be replacing the FTN finder with the pentaprism in a heartbeat, but I could buy ANOTHER F + photomic finder setup for that price!
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2012 20:02
|
|
|
Fs are toys for collectors or retrofocus wideangle users. If you want a shooter, get a FM2n, they're just flat out better. I keep meaning to get one so I can play with my Nikon glass on film, I'm hoping it's as nice as a Pentax MX. Just scored a Takumar 200/3.5 for $20, but the tripod collar is loose. Unfortunately, on this lens the tripod collar also has the lens mount. I see a couple screw holes on a flange that goes under the focus grip, is there a simple way to get in there and screw it on or am I going to have to strip the whole thing?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2012 20:03
|
|
|
How much nicer is a Pentax MX than a K-1000? I have a really nice condition K-1000, just wondering what I'm missing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2012 20:08
|
|
|
How much nicer is an FM3a than an FM2n? Everybody creams over the FM3a but it's stupidly expensive (I feel like those two go hand-in-hand).
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2012 20:10
|
|
|
echobucket posted:How much nicer is a Pentax MX than a K-1000? I have a really nice condition K-1000, just wondering what I'm missing. DoF preview and a self timer are the big features you gain with an MX, and it's smaller than the k1000. It's also got the same viewfinder as an ME (i'm pretty sure it does at least), so that's going to be nicer than the k1000 too. 97% coverage versus 91% from a quick googling.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2012 20:17
|
|
|
echobucket posted:How much nicer is a Pentax MX than a K-1000? I have a really nice condition K-1000, just wondering what I'm missing. A lot. Seriously, you have no idea. The K1000 is like a 90% screen, and the plain one doesn't have a split prism. Ones without "Asahi" on them are Chinese produced and those are probably even worse. The MX is a full 100% screen with a much coarser microprism, and LED metering. Everything's bigger which makes it easier to focus, the microprism "pops" in and out of focus much more visibly, and split prisms are just easy mode. I always make a comparison to theaters - my K1000 is like sitting in the back of your local theater, the ME/MX are like an IMAX. The viewfinder is a lot more immersive, it fills your field of view. One of these days I'm going to get an MX too - possibly soon as my ME seems to have died. e: The K1000 is .88x, the ME is .95x, the MX is .97x. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 20:20 on Jan 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2012 20:17
|
|
|
Oh, what filtration do you guys use to shoot snow? I was planning to head out and shoot in the snowstorms we're getting at the moment. I tried a yellow filter+1.5 stops overexposure once and it made the snow very flat. I had to curve the hell out of it to get any texture at all. I'm theorizing that's because snow actually reflects blue, so I just cut out all the light that would have given me texture. Another possibility is the overexposure pushed it too far onto the shoulder of the exposure curve. On the other hand, it would be nice to get moodier skies too. Red filter? Circular polarizer? Less exposure? Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Jan 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2012 20:32
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:How much nicer is an FM3a than an FM2n? Everybody creams over the FM3a but it's stupidly expensive (I feel like those two go hand-in-hand). F3 for lyfe. It's just the best manual focus Nikon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2012 20:49
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:F3 for lyfe. Oh if we're expanding this to all film Nikons, F4 for life 
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2012 20:58
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Oh, what filtration do you guys use to shoot snow? I was planning to head out and shoot in the snowstorms we're getting at the moment. I tried a yellow filter+1.5 stops overexposure once and it made the snow very flat. I had to curve the hell out of it to get any texture at all. I'm theorizing that's because snow actually reflects blue, so I just cut out all the light that would have given me texture. Another possibility is the overexposure pushed it too far onto the shoulder of the exposure curve.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2012 21:04
|
|
|
East Lake posted:Could you post an example? It's snowing now here and I have some Ektar to use up. I mainly have used unfiltered slide film and it comes out nice and sharp/textured. Negative are a mixed bag, but I haven't really done much testing with it.  Harry The Wizard Fights in a Blizzard 3 by PaulMD, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2012 21:11
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:Oh if we're expanding this to all film Nikons, F4 for life Autofocus doesn't count then the F100, F5 and F6 are a factor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2012 21:11
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:pic  Anyway the blue light stuff you mentioned sounds right. I think snow also just doesn't handle grain/noise well at all since the details are so small it sorta turns into a muddy white substance. Snow in slides has always looked decent to me while color negs look decent to gross.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2012 21:25
|
|
|
I've found a roll of Velvia 50 that expired in 2005. Considering six years of room temperature storage, how it's likely to have held up?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2012 00:02
|
|
|
Pablo Bluth posted:I've found a roll of Velvia 50 that expired in 2005. Considering six years of room temperature storage, how it's likely to have held up? I've shot quite a bit of expired Velvia 100f (dragged across the world and back) without too much refrigeration, and its held up quite well. It might just be a little bit more blue/green than you expect.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2012 00:41
|
|
|
Pablo Bluth posted:I've found a roll of Velvia 50 that expired in 2005. Considering six years of room temperature storage, how it's likely to have held up? Try it! The results should be amusing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2012 00:43
|
|
|
Expired film is my favourite. It's even more of a surprise than my usual situation of "How long ago did I shoot this? 3 months? Huh, I wonder what I shot..." In related news, I have built up a supply of 12 rolls of C-41 film that I've shot over the last couple of months, and I plan to develop this tomorrow. I waited until I had 12 rolls ready to go because I have the 1L unicolor powders kit, and the instructions say "8 rolls" but you can get away with 12 if you don't let the solutions sit around for too long; doing it all in one day seems like "not too long". Any last-minute advice? I *think* I know what I'm doing...
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2012 00:50
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:Try it! The results should be amusing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2012 01:02
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Expired film is my favourite. It's even more of a surprise than my usual situation of "How long ago did I shoot this? 3 months? Huh, I wonder what I shot..." I found the best thing was to do everything in 15 second increments, e.g. pouring and decanting from your tank should take 15s, agitating every 15s etc (mind you I worked with a Tetenal kit).
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2012 01:28
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Expired film is my favourite. It's even more of a surprise than my usual situation of "How long ago did I shoot this? 3 months? Huh, I wonder what I shot..." Don't inhale  Please do a write-up, I've got a C-41 kit on my shelf and a bunch of rolls in my freezer I need to do something with.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2012 01:59
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:How much nicer is an FM3a than an FM2n? Everybody creams over the FM3a but it's stupidly expensive (I feel like those two go hand-in-hand). The FM3A is extremely nice, not having ever owned one but reading everything about it. I would love to get one but could never afford it. Get the FE2. It has virtually all the features of the FM3A. One of the features I like best of the FE2 is the auto-exposure (which is really an aperture priority type of thing, or Av setting), at night. If you have any sort of anxiety about metering at night, the FE2 will do it accurately for up to 2-3 minutes. That's pretty nice! You don't even get that with modern dslrs. The FE2 is a really great camera, and you can still find plenty of accessories for it like diopters and eye cups for the viewfinders, focusing screens, etc. It also is compatible with all AI, AI-S, and AF-D lenses. You can mount the newer G lenses but it will stop down to smallest aperture before taking the photo. Nikon lenses are abundant, and the AF-D lenses are great because they work with (most of) the digital Nikons if you own one, and the lenses are very good not to mention affordable. The FE2 handles really well, too, it feels comfortable in the hands. Having owned one, I'm a big fan of it and obviously somewhat biased. But the one thing I dislike is center-weighted metering, but this affects pretty much every 35mm camera of that generation. Center-weighted metering throws me for a loop sometimes and I will get under- or overexposed photos if I'm not careful. Actually, reading the book "Understanding Exposure", which I did for the first time last summer just for the hell of it, thinking I wouldn't really need it but was curious about it anyway, really helped explain how to properly meter for center-weighted metering. I had been used to matrix metering of the digital Nikons which does a pretty great job. Center-weighted can throw you off if you're not careful. I prefer FE2 over the FM2N because of the aperture priority feature. Otherwise that is another nice option.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2012 02:50
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Don't inhale I did a brief one a little while ago: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2864270&userid=161579&perpage=40&pagenumber=2#post389907786
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2012 04:35
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, where do you all get your film from? Like do you just go online and grab massive quantities of whatever you want to buy? Or are there camera stores nearby with an actual selection? I'm only asking because the [apparently] closest place to me (Berger Bros.)'s site lists under 35mm film a bunch of Polaroid stuff. I imagine they'd have a greater selection, but probably nothing like Adorama/B&H/whoever in NYC has. If you aren't in a big enough city, are you pretty much stuck with online? I mean, I imagine online the prices are better anyway, if you're going through that place that sells Arista or even maybe Amazon. But I figured I'd ask, now that I've magically fixed my old SLR.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2012 07:41
|
|
|
I usually try to buy at the local store here, they carry most of the "professional" films from Kodak, Ilford, and Fuji. Otherwise I'll order from B&H. The price is a little better online, but I like to support local business where I can.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2012 19:36
|
|
|
Got all my chemicals, my thermometer, clothespins, developer bottles, etc etc. Everything but bottles to mix the chemicals in. Is it ok to use empty 1 gallon water jugs (I've got a good supply of these), or is it worth while to pick up some bottles like this to store things in http://www.freestylephoto.biz/7893-Kalt-Air-Evac-Bottle-1-gallon?cat_id=1603
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2012 23:44
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Don't inhale Spedman posted:I did a brief one a little while ago: Write-up and damage-report to follow (assuming I survive).
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2012 23:57
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Is it ok to use empty 1 gallon water jugs (I've got a good supply of these), or is it worth while to pick up some bottles like this to store things in http://www.freestylephoto.biz/7893-Kalt-Air-Evac-Bottle-1-gallon?cat_id=1603 Pick up some bottles like those. Water/milk jugs are not designed to hold angry chemicals, and won't hold angry chemicals (for long). Delta Datatainers are another good option (and cheap).
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2012 02:55
|
|
|
Molten Llama posted:Pick up some bottles like those. Water/milk jugs are not designed to hold angry chemicals, and won't hold angry chemicals (for long). That's what I figured. I'm going to mix the photoflo and hc110 as I use it, but I'll order some bottles to hold the stuff long term, and to hold the mixed fixer solution longer term too. Looking at the msds I think the fixer will be ok in the water jug for a few days though, so I think I can try developing tonight. Got the film loaded onto the reel without trouble, so now for the fun part. e. I should really just bug my sister with these questions, she works in a photolab and I keep forgetting that. Dr. Despair fucked around with this message at 03:14 on Jan 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2012 03:11
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:I was feeling pretty lazy just now, and pondering putting this off for another week. Thanks for getting me off of my rear end and out of the house! No prob! My girlfriend had a spare digital thermometer laying around her place, so I've got that now. A friend of mine just upgraded his sous-vide setup and offered me the old one, if it's big enough for my developing tank I should be pretty well set. I could always use the bathtub, but that's a lot of water to waste. I've kept fixer in old milk jugs and didn't know it was a no-no, but I've since gotten chemical friendly jugs at the hardware store.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2012 03:24
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:No prob! My girlfriend had a spare digital thermometer laying around her place, so I've got that now. A friend of mine just upgraded his sous-vide setup and offered me the old one, if it's big enough for my developing tank I should be pretty well set. I could always use the bathtub, but that's a lot of water to waste. I looked at the MSDS for the kodak powdered fixer, and I don't think storing it in a milk jug will hurt it at all, apart from not keeping the chemicals good as long as an airless dark container will. Got some of those nice evac containers on the way (only a buck or two more than the delta containers from adorama), and letting my water and everything get to temp.  e. Also I'm technically using distilled water jugs, not milk jugs, so I'm not worried about contaminating the fixer with anything either. Dr. Despair fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Jan 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2012 03:38
|
|
|
I survived! Not actually a surprise, none of the chemicals for film developing (either B&W or C-41) are any nastier than the majority of lab chemicals I use on a daily basis. The Blix gave me a bit of a headache, but that probably had as much to do with my mild dehydration (yay weekends) as with any fumes. I didn't get through all of my film - I've still got 4 rolls of 120 to go. I should be able to finish those off Monday evening. I'm going to hold off the full write-up until those are finished, because a key question I have about this kit is regarding the deterioration in quality of the chemicals as they age and are used. But my haphazard photographic skills might mask any such chemical effects. There are only a handful of plastics routinely used in liquid containers: polyethylene (HDPE when "high density" and used for rigid materials), polypropylene (HDPE), polyvinylchloride (PVC), and Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS, what LEGO and black plumbing pipes are made of). All of them are massively resistant to nearly every water-based solution; things that dissolve in water tend not to degrade these stable plastics. There are exceptions, of course, but I wouldn't worry about old, clean food containers, especially if they're only holding developing chemicals for a few days. There'd be more effects on the chemicals (e.g. oxidation) than on the walls of the container.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2012 04:30
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:No prob! My girlfriend had a spare digital thermometer laying around her place, so I've got that now. A friend of mine just upgraded his sous-vide setup and offered me the old one, if it's big enough for my developing tank I should be pretty well set. I could always use the bathtub, but that's a lot of water to waste. I've been looking into the Rollei digibase C41 kits, you can mix up very small amounts (it comes with its own syringes), even down to enough to do a single 35mm roll. Plus it has instructions to do it from room temp all the way up to 42C. And people have also been pretty successful with room temp RA-4 processing too, another thing I want to try. Doing the full colour process at room temp would be pretty awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2012 06:03
|
|
|
Guys where can I get some reels with bigger flanges to make loading easier? Tried to buy some from Maco but they were out (and it resulted in a three week delay in my order). Not sure if I can afford to pay Freestyle's crazy shipping rates. Need to do 135 and 120 with them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2012 08:55
|
|
|
Schofferhofer posted:Guys where can I get some reels with bigger flanges to make loading easier? I couldn't find anything cheaper than freestyle either, but I gotta say that http://www.freestylephoto.biz/55043-Arista-Premium-Plastic-Developing-Reel were super easy to load 35mm onto. First try with no practice and it worked perfectly. e.  BW Developement Test 3 by MrDespair, on Flickr Developing worked, and the negatives look pretty good to me. I need to used blow the dust off and use a scanner to see for sure how well this turned out, taking a picture and using a lightroom preset to invert the picture didn't work for poo poo (the black streaks are glare from taking a picture, the black dot in the middle is dust though. Ack). Dr. Despair fucked around with this message at 09:46 on Jan 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2012 09:01
|
|
|
 Minolta X-700 Vivitar 28mm f/2.8 at f/8 Agfa Vista 100 at box speed Eastern Water Dragon at Wentworth Falls, NSW. a quickr pickr This poo poo cost me like $2 a roll and jeeeeez It's pretty nice at that price.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2012 00:32
|
|
|
So I shot a few happy snaps of a bride and groom at my friends wedding, including some properly exposed shots of the kiss from a balcony... Very cinematic. Problem is when I went outside I used sunny sixteens but I stupidly didn't factor in that they had their backs to the sun. Even though the the photographer placed them in front of a bright wall to fill them out I'm still pretty sure they'll be at least a couple of stops under. What would people suggest in this situation? Get the roll pushed up a stop (thereby pushing up the properly exposed shots)? Leave as is and try and recover in post? I'm not actually that stressed about it since I did my job (film the entire wedding), but I'd still like to see if I can save them portraits from looking poo poo. I shot on Portra 400, at f11, 1000/sec
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2012 01:22
|
|
|
XTimmy posted:What would people suggest in this situation? Get the roll pushed up a stop (thereby pushing up the properly exposed shots)? Leave as is and try and recover in post? I'm not actually that stressed about it since I did my job (film the entire wedding), but I'd still like to see if I can save them portraits from looking poo poo. I shot on Portra 400, at f11, 1000/sec Leave it as is, pushing c-41 film is not of much use and the new portra 400 has great underexposure latitude.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2012 01:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 09:49 |
|
|
I'd just leave it. Even if it's a couple stops under Portra 400 will get it. I've seen great results even at 1600. I'd guess it's better than the 'real' 800 and 1600 films.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2012 01:35
|
|