|
A few things I've picked up from the first roll I developed. 1. I need to put my 200mm and 2x teleconverter in a box because holy crap it's just not a very good combo. 2. I need to get better negative holders. 3. I need to let the negatives flatten out for a few days before scanning them in. 4. loving dust. I developed for 5 and half minutes in HC110 diluted to mixture B (at 73 degrees F), agitating every 30 seconds, then about a minute, minute and a half of washing it out with water (also at 73 degrees), then 7:30 of Fixer (probably around 77 degrees, agitating ever 30 seconds or so), then I used running water at around 75 degrees for 30 minutes, with a quick wash of hypo flow. Noit real sure if all the dust on the pictures is from the used negative holders I got from my sister, or just because I handled the film when it wasn't quite dry yet, or if it was just because my bathroom was dry and dusty. The weird streak down center of these shots is from the film touching the flatbed scanner I'm pretty sure. overall I think my times/mixes were ok, so I'm pretty happy, but I'm glad I just fired off a bunch of test shots instead of developing a roll that has stuff I care about on it first. Not sure what went on with the edge of this pic.  img013.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr Example of the dust and crap that I noticed on some shots.  img014.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr Curls   img027.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2012 03:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 18:31 |
|
|
I use my rocket blower on my negs (both sides) just before I lay them in my scanner, that gets rid of almost all the dust that's accumulated after developing (e.g. from less-than-clean neg holders), and I blow off the scanner's platen, too. Curly negs are held down with bits of scotch tape. It's fiddly and annoying but mostly solves the problem. I don't have negative holder, because my scanner came to me for cheap and out of the recycling box of somebody in the middle of moving, I was lucky to get a working power cord. EDIT: Rather than double-post, I'll ask my questions here. Hopefully people will see them. I am down to my last roll of 120 film, so it's time to buy more. I've also lost too many fights loading film onto the reel, and I remember a discussion about stainless reels that work better. Freestyle photo has better prices on film than ebay (somehow), and they also sell Hewes SS reels in both 120 and 135 sizes. Are those the good SS reels? Are they worth the price? ($20 for 135, $27 for 120) They also sell a set of SS reels and a SS tank (my tank kinda sucks) under their house "Arista" brand, has anybody used anything like that? They sell the reels individually, too, but I thought some SS reels are basically garbage. And does anybody have any recommendations for 120 B&W film for non-silly prices? I'm leaning towards the Arista Edu stuff because it's less than $3/roll, but I'm open to suggestions for better / weirder stuff. ExecuDork fucked around with this message at 06:04 on Jan 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2012 03:09
|
|
|
If you don't have one already, a graphics tablet (even something like a $50 Wacom Bamboo) makes spotting out dust/hairs lightyears less tedious. ExecuDork posted:And does anybody have any recommendations for 120 B&W film for non-silly prices? I'm leaning towards the Arista Edu stuff because it's less than $3/roll, but I'm open to suggestions for better / weirder stuff. I'm personally not a huge fan of the EDU (Fomapan). Fuji Acros 100 is negligibly more expensive per roll and a lot better, IMO. Similarly, you can't push Foma 400 for poo poo, something like Delta 400 or Tri-X is a lot more versatile.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2012 09:21
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:If you don't have one already, a graphics tablet (even something like a $50 Wacom Bamboo) makes spotting out dust/hairs lightyears less tedious. Sweet jesus yes it does. Also, using a mouse to spot scans makes my hand hurt.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2012 09:25
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:If you don't have one already, a graphics tablet (even something like a $50 Wacom Bamboo) makes spotting out dust/hairs lightyears less tedious.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2012 15:40
|
|
|
Thankfully, a tablet is something else I can borrow from my sister 
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2012 16:24
|
|
|
So I got my rolls scanned and I was presented with a bunch of hilariously underexposed photos. Like silhouettes of dark people in a greyish haze. Turns out I left the lens at f5.6 instead of f1.4  I'm going to try to salvage these in PS, but is it honestly a lost cause and a lesson learned? Miko fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Jan 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2012 21:24
|
|
|
Miko posted:So I got my rolls scanned and I was presented with a bunch of hilariously underexposed photos. Like silhouettes of dark people in a greyish haze. I'm assuming by "got my rolls scanned" you mean you got minilab scans? If so, yes, they're salvageable by rescanning them yourself. Minilab scans suck huge rear end. There's very good odds you can get something off the film if you put a little effort into it. Drag the white/black points to the edges fo the exposure, adjust the grey point as well as you can, and try to fix em in Photoshop. B+W actually usually turns out pretty good, even if you're way off. It never hurts to try. e: This roll was so clear I thought it was toast. I had to hold it up to a good light to even see the faint exposure of the lightning, and I had to manually override the auto-crop in Epson Scan because it was hopelessly confused. It's not great, but it wasn't a terribly long exposure either, maybe 30s at f/4 in pitch black except for a lightning storm. This is like one or two flashes of lightning, tops. Acros 4 Lyfe   e2: I wonder if I could get good results wet printing the right half of that. It's really, really thin, but I can just stop way down or use short exposures. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 22:27 on Jan 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2012 21:45
|
|
|
Hmm, yeah they were minilab scans so who the hell knows. I'm trying to make this as easy as possible for myself (film  ) so I don't know if I want to go get a scanner and developer and all that jazz.Also, what causes this? Is the camera body not sealed? It seems like a massive light leak. Or is it from processing? Help me, I'm a baby in this crazy world of film.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2012 22:26
|
|
|
Looks like a light leak. It may be a small one that only shows up when the film is sitting there for a while. If it always shows up in the same space, look there. Remember proper film orientation, emulsion toward the lens and writing/numbers upside down/pointed toward the bottom of the camera. You can buy cheap light seal kits on Ebay from Interslice, tape over the cracks, or get some black yarn and Pliobond and do it yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2012 22:31
|
|
|
I am going to tape the cracks as we speak. Thanks Paul for all the help!
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 00:43
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Fuji Acros 100 Paul MaudDib posted:Acros 4 Lyfe
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 05:54
|
|
|
I'll agree that Acros is tha shizzy. It's a deliciously rich film for an incredible price.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 05:59
|
|
|
With lots of photo labs being shut down across the country, are there lots of photo processing machines going for sale for pretty cheap? Has anyone ever considered just buying a machine? I also started wondering what would be involving in building a DIY machine for processing film....
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 06:04
|
|
|
Having just finished my dozen rolls of C-41 developing, I'd say if you can find an automatic processor for cheap you should be able to find the chemicals (the minilab selling the processor should have a couple of gallons kicking around). The process was clearly designed to be automated, it's really not that difficult beyond maintaining temperatures and keeping Blix out of the Developer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 06:07
|
|
|
echobucket posted:With lots of photo labs being shut down across the country, are there lots of photo processing machines going for sale for pretty cheap? Has anyone ever considered just buying a machine? All I ever here from my sister is "the machine broke again at work arghh ahaghag". Granted she works at a busy photo lab, but processing machines seem like they'd be really pricey to fix if you ever had trouble (and if you were processing enough film to make it worth while, you're probably processing enough to have trouble).
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 06:07
|
|
|
echobucket posted:With lots of photo labs being shut down across the country, are there lots of photo processing machines going for sale for pretty cheap? Has anyone ever considered just buying a machine? The problem with this is that actual professional lab processing machines need a lot of chemicals, and need a lot of film to go through it to maintain the solution at the right rate of replenishment. There are smaller automated film processing units, but you still need to be processing (more than a roll) film pretty much every day. e: Also what Mr. Despair said, they are complicated machines, most of them are old machines, they break and you have to hire a tech to fix it, if you can find one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 06:46
|
|
|
Imagine a high speed copy machine that's loaded with time, work, and temperature sensitive fluids.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 10:16
|
|
|
Miko posted:Hmm, yeah they were minilab scans so who the hell knows. I'm trying to make this as easy as possible for myself (film i get with with my zenit on a few shutter speeds. it's a slow/stuck shutter
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2012 06:09
|
|
|
If I'm shooting at night, how do I know how to calculate the exposure time? Basically I'm trying to master the intimate dance between ISO, f-stop, and the amount of light.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2012 06:51
|
|
|
Kodak files for chapter 11. http://www.theverge.com/2012/1/19/2717973/kodak-files-for-chapter-11-bankruptcy
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2012 07:04
|
|
|
echobucket posted:Kodak files for chapter 11. Oh man 
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2012 07:06
|
|
|
So when I read that Xtol "speeds up" the film by 1/3 a stop should I be metering for ISO 320 with, for example, HP5? I'm not really sure what this means.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2012 07:41
|
|
|
the posted:If I'm shooting at night, how do I know how to calculate the exposure time?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2012 07:49
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:Best to use a meter at night, since you can't really use Sunny-16 anymore. When I'm using ISO 3200 with f/2.8, my average shutter speed tends to be about 1/125. What's a good meter for a man on a broke-rear end budget?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2012 19:44
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:So when I read that Xtol "speeds up" the film by 1/3 a stop should I be metering for ISO 320 with, for example, HP5? I'm not really sure what this means. Lower ISOs are slower films, so for HP5+ you would meter at like ISO 500 or something. But that's pretty much within the margin of error anyway, so you could just use it at 400 like normal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2012 19:58
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Lower ISOs are slower films, so for HP5+ you would meter at like ISO 500 or something. But that's pretty much within the margin of error anyway, so you could just use it at 400 like normal. I'll just keep doing everything normally then, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2012 21:35
|
|
|
the posted:What's a good meter for a man on a broke-rear end budget? a phone with an app. You'll outgrow it soon, but hey, it's free and you're going to be carrying it with you anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2012 21:43
|
|
|
I actually have a real, old school one. But I have no idea how to use it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2012 22:59
|
|
|
the posted:I actually have a real, old school one. But I have no idea how to use it. What kind is it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2012 23:07
|
|
|
the posted:I actually have a real, old school one. But I have no idea how to use it. They're pretty easy to use if they still work. If it needs batteries, you're good (as long as you can find them). If it doesn't, it's got a selenium cell and you need to check it against another meter to see if it's still accurate. Most operate along a pretty similar principle: push a power button, turn the big dial until the needle is centered, then you use a calculator of some sort. Many are right on the big dial, in which case you turn a disc on the dial to the correct ISO, and then read the range of possible exposures off. It'll be like 1/125-f8 1/60-f/11 1/30-f/16 1/15-f/22 And any of those will be valid exposures.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2012 23:09
|
|
|
HPL posted:What kind is it? http://www.flickr.com/photos/basicframework/405323190/
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2012 23:11
|
|
|
Manuals here: http://www.butkus.org/chinon/flashes_meters/weston_exposure_meters/weston_exposure_meters.htm http://www.urmonas.net/manuals/westonII/westonII.html It doesn't seem to require a battery so it's possible the selenium cell may not be all it used to be.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2012 23:17
|
|
|
I took my SLR film camera that I bought for $40 off of craigslist for a test drive and I'm very happy with the results! I was worried because the mirror was just caked with dust, but I just used an alcohol swab patch and lens cleaning cloth after using a can of compressed to blow everything away. Guess it worked!   I'm putting a roll of B&W 400 film through it now to see if there's a discernible difference between B&W and color, but if there isn't I think I'll stick to color and just de-saturate during processing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2012 00:07
|
|
|
Not to poo poo on your parade but everything there is really soft. You either have a problem with your scanner or you need to get your shutter speed up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2012 00:37
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Not to poo poo on your parade but everything there is really soft. You either have a problem with your scanner or you need to get your shutter speed up. poo poo away to your heart's content! The biggest problem was from me being an idiot and using too low a shutter speed like you pointed out or just getting used to the manual focus. I kind of like the softness though. Just a personal preference I guess. Here are some better examples.   
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2012 01:16
|
|
|
/\/\/\ You're fine. $40 well spent! What batteries does a Canon AE-1 use? The same SR44 / LR44 as apparently every other 70's/80's SLR uses? Saturday I'll be going on a walk with someone who claims to have 2 AE-1's that she hasn't used for a while, it'd be fun to run a roll of film through one and I've got a pair of SR44 I haven't put into anything yet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2012 01:36
|
|
|
the posted:What's a good meter for a man on a broke-rear end budget?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2012 02:30
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:/\/\/\ You're fine. $40 well spent! The LR44s work in it, although mine requires a bit of tinfoil inside so that the contacts touch, don't know if that's a ae-1 problem or I'm just unlucky.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2012 02:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 18:31 |
|
|
LR44s worked in mine with no tinfoil.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2012 02:57
|
|
