|
Hi folks, I've been working on a photoblog of sorts and I'd welcome any criticism or positive feedback you people might have: http://www.excusemedoyoumindifitakeyourpicture.com/ I already have plans to change some fonts and colors around, but otherwise, what do you think of the presentation? Is the name and URL too ridiculous? The basic premise of the blog is that I approach interesting people I see on the street and ask if they wouldn't mind having their picture taken. I realized I have all these excellent film cameras and I like taking pictures of people more than any other subject, but none of my friends are very photogenic. But when you're in Chicago, there's an unlimited supply of people everywhere! I've done this off and on for about two years but I'm hoping that putting it all into a blog format will force me to take my camera out more regularly. I've met some really cool people this way. Most want to know about my camera, why I still shoot film, etc. In my mind I see this as kind of a social experiment--I'd like to encourage other people to pay more attention to their fellow man and so on. I'm a huge fan of The Sartorialist but this isn't a fashion blog. It's more of a "who would be interesting to talk to on the street" blog. Ciro-Flex fucked around with this message at 07:13 on Jan 24, 2012 |
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 07:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 23:20 |
|
|
Paging Mannequin, Mannequin to the thread... I like the blog. Simple, nice big pictures, no distractions. And your pictures are good, too!
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 06:56
|
|
|
I've seen very little online comparing different types of film and I was bored tonight so I decided to do that. I just set up my tripod and changed film backs to take the same shot with both. I tested Tri X and HP5 because I had a roll of each and their pretty similar films. Some notes:
   The Tri X seems to be a rougher on the shadows, which is cool if that's the look you're going for, but if you're scanning negatives and plan to do some digital adjustments you could probably accomplish the same thing with HP5. EDIT: Also, I just took pictures of random poo poo around my house so none of these photos are meant to be works of art. I didn't really look for or try to create difficult lighting conditions to see how they handled really bright highlights or anything like that, perhaps I should have. eggsovereasy fucked around with this message at 07:27 on Jan 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 07:25
|
|
|
RETRO!!! Under the Sea by Josh Conliffe, on Flickr  Why I shoot film by Josh Conliffe, on Flickr loving love this film and I've got tonnes more to shoot. And now I have 400 as well. Stand devved.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 11:01
|
|
|
How are people scanning there negatives? Getting very frustrated with my canoscan 8800f. I know I'm not great at this but I didn't miss the focus on every single loving shot by exactly the same amount every time for 9 rolls of film. Should probably get a professional scan done just to make sure it's not the camera.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 10:23
|
|
|
Laser Cow posted:How are people scanning there negatives? Getting very frustrated with my canoscan 8800f. I know I'm not great at this but I didn't miss the focus on every single loving shot by exactly the same amount every time for 9 rolls of film. What kind of camera? It's pretty difficult for SLRs to have focusing issues (unless the focusing screen or pressure plate is messed up), but rangefinders can get bumped out of alignment relatively easily.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 13:38
|
|
|
Laser Cow posted:How are people scanning there negatives? Getting very frustrated with my canoscan 8800f. I know I'm not great at this but I didn't miss the focus on every single loving shot by exactly the same amount every time for 9 rolls of film. Yeah, if you've got any C-41 negs take those to a photolab and get their basic scans to see what's up. I've heard a few negative things about the Canon scanners here and there, I went the Epson route. It may be that your negative carriers aren't properly shimmed to the scanner's register distance; in which case something like a Betterscanning holder could fix the problem.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 14:23
|
|
|
I bit the bullet and bought some betterscanning.com ANR glass holders. Figures the day after I order them I get sent back to the UAE for another 6 months. Doug, the betterscanning guy is really cool. He offered to give me slightly longer glass panels in case I wanted to break off the little clips on the 35mm film holder. I'm thinking it will be easier to scan with the emulsion side down instead of up as suggested by the Epson. It seems like the negs naturally curl away from the emulsion so this way the ANR glass will hold it flat. Any downside to scanning through the emulsion?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 15:11
|
|
|
FasterThanLight posted:What kind of camera? It's pretty difficult for SLRs to have focusing issues (unless the focusing screen or pressure plate is messed up), but rangefinders can get bumped out of alignment relatively easily. It's a Leica M6, and it's new to me with one previous owner. It was pretty much mint condition and these are the first films I've got back from it. I was willing to accept that the first few rolls and night time shots were a bit off but there are enough shots that I know I nailed not coming out. I don't even know how to go about getting it fixed. Pompous Rhombus posted:Yeah, if you've got any C-41 negs take those to a photolab and get their basic scans to see what's up. I know betterscanning do a 120 holder for the canon 8800f because the one that comes with is pretty abysmal but can I use the replacement for 135 as well? I had a look at some of the slide film I took with the magnifying glass at the lab when I picked it up and it looked sharp as hell to me but I don't trust my memory. I'll pick out a few shot and get them scanned. It's driving me nuts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 15:47
|
|
|
The 8800f has a fixed-focus lens, and, like all flatbeds, is soft at 100% regardless of if the film was at the correct height or now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 16:41
|
|
|
So I'll never get a sharp scan out of it? Sample images from peoples v700/750 seem a hell of a lot sharper.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 17:04
|
|
|
Yeah those have variable focus height lenses (which are higher resolving as well). It would be helpful if you posted a 100% crop and websize jpeg from one of these scans, to see if it is indeed just the quality of the scanner. e: Also, if your rangefinder is off alignment, then of course you are going to feel you 'know' you got those shots in focus, because the RF patch will align, but the lens will not be focused correctly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 17:07
|
|
|
Laser Cow posted:It's a Leica M6, and it's new to me with one previous owner. It was pretty much mint condition and these are the first films I've got back from it. I was willing to accept that the first few rolls and night time shots were a bit off but there are enough shots that I know I nailed not coming out. I don't even know how to go about getting it fixed. I'd shoot a roll at a focus test chart and have it scanned at a 1 hr minilab. If it looks ok, it's probably the scanner. If it looks off, it's your rangefinder. Send it to Sherry Krauter, she calibrated my rangefinder, meter and shutter for $150.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2012 17:36
|
|
|
Thanks for the help guys, I'll get a lab scan done as soon as I can, so probably next week but I'll post what I've got over the weekend. As I'm in Norway I'll have to find someone else to repair the camera if it comes to that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2012 09:35
|
|
|
I found a roll of used 120 C41 tucked away in my camera bag this morning. It had been in one of the pockets for 2 weeks. The bag was sitting next to a radiator in my apartment which, as it is, already gets pretty warm. I generally keep a window cracked so that I don't sweat like a dog. My heating is very bad. I wrapped it up and put it in the freezer right away. How hosed am I?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 01:02
|
|
|
2 weeks? I highly doubt you'll notice much difference to be honest. Only one way to find out though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 02:27
|
|
|
I think the roll will be fine, film is a lot tougher and tolerant to bad treatment than a lot of people give it credit for.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 02:55
|
|
|
What speed is the film? Anything less than about 1600 ISO wouldn't even notice two weeks at a-bit-warmer-than-room-temp, and even something fast probably wouldn't show too much. We're assuming here this isn't a roll of infrared-sensitive film.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 05:53
|
|
|
If film was really that sensitive to heat how did they get pictures of remote locations before digital was invented? If you are hiking through the amazon rainforest i doubt you have a cooler for your film with you. I haven't read anything about people in warmer climates having to rush their film to the store to have it developed before it expires. I could be wrong my guess a few weeks is nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 19:00
|
|
|
What do I gain or lose by diluting my developer (I've been using Xtol) more or less? I've been doing everything 1+1 but I've seen people say they use the stock solution, 1+2, or even 1+3.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 19:42
|
|
|
See http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/xtol/ for lots of information. The Covington page on HC-110 is my most used chemistry resource. e: I prefer my rodinal 1:25 or 1:50. 365 Nog Hogger fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Jan 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 19:50
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:What do I gain or lose by diluting my developer (I've been using Xtol) more or less? I've been doing everything 1+1 but I've seen people say they use the stock solution, 1+2, or even 1+3. Buy rodinal; dilute 1:100, enjoy life
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 19:50
|
|
|
Theoretically if your film is in a 100% perfectly light-free environment it shouldn't really matter what temperature you store it at, because all heat is doing is the exact same thing it does in any chemical reaction, which is to speed it up. The silver halide crystals in the emulsion won't be exposed without a catalyst, which in the case of a photosensitive reaction is light. If the rate of the reaction is 0, adding heat to speed it up won't have any effect unless you get it really, really hot. Unless there is something I'm missing, like sensitivity to other parts of the EM spectrum, or the fact that it's pretty drat hard to actually create a perfectly light-free environment in the first place. I still freeze my film anyway, but I don't think it's a big of a deal as having some kind of really dark container to put it in.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 19:55
|
|
|
Film is indeed reactive to other radiation than visible light, that's why it degrades over time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 19:56
|
|
|
JaundiceDave posted:Buy rodinal; dilute 1:100, enjoy life I haven't done a head-to-head comparison between 1:50 and 1:100, but I can't see any difference between 1:50 and 1:500. 1:100 does use less chemicals, but I'd rather get it done in 1/3 the time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 19:56
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:I haven't done a head-to-head comparison between 1:50 and 1:100, but I can't see any difference between 1:50 and 1:500. 1:100 does use less chemicals, but I'd rather get it done in 1/3 the time. You can stand-develop in 1:100... I haven't had great results with that though. Other people have.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 20:04
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:You can stand-develop in 1:100... I haven't had great results with that though. Other people have. Yea, I tried out stand development with 1:100 rodinal and now it's pretty much all I use unless I'm pulling film or pushing it >2 stops, which is pretty rare. It's almost magical in its convenience - the other day I did three rolls of 120, one delta 400 one fp4 125 one tmax 100 in the same tank and they all came out perfectly - and achieves great results with every film I've thrown at it. Again, it's not good if you're pulling film, or pushing for more than 2 stops, but other than those scenarios I've had nothing but good results.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 20:08
|
|
|
 Portra 100T test by Winston85, on Flickr Expired Portra 100t Also, testing out my new $20 flatbed scanner, Epson 3170.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 20:09
|
|
|
penneydude posted:Unless there is something I'm missing, like sensitivity to other parts of the EM spectrum, or the fact that it's pretty drat hard to actually create a perfectly light-free environment in the first place. I still freeze my film anyway, but I don't think it's a big of a deal as having some kind of really dark container to put it in. Some chemicals are not stable to begin with and degrade over time. Oxygen and heat tend to accelerate this breakdown. I don't know enough about film chemistry to know if that is the case with film. Mightaswell posted:
Nice, this makes me want to head out into the harbour and make some night shots as well. My B&W shots left me dissapointed, maybe i should also get some portra. NihilismNow fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Jan 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 20:15
|
|
|
penneydude posted:Theoretically if your film is in a 100% perfectly light-free environment it shouldn't really matter what temperature you store it at, because all heat is doing is the exact same thing it does in any chemical reaction, which is to speed it up. The silver halide crystals in the emulsion won't be exposed without a catalyst, which in the case of a photosensitive reaction is light. If the rate of the reaction is 0, adding heat to speed it up won't have any effect unless you get it really, really hot. I think you might have things a bit confused. The AgCl crystals don't need any catalysts to be exposed (form the latent image), rather they need something like a catalyst to be made visible. Additionally, latent image formation involves some physical changes (i.e. not involving chemical reactions) to the AgCl crystal (movement of electrons in the lattice). The rate of these physical changes is affected by heat and this explains the relationship between heat and degradation of the latent image. BTW, low temps have some other effects on film exposure. As temperature decreases the effect of reciprocity failure (due to long exposure) decreases as well. IIRC, if you cool your film with liquid nitrogen you can basically eliminate reciprocity failure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 22:33
|
|
|
Man, I forgot how expensive c-41 processing is. 13 rolls of 120, one roll of 220, and 10 sheets of 4x5 (all with contact sheets) came to $200.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 23:38
|
|
|
JaundiceDave posted:Man, I forgot how expensive c-41 processing is. 13 rolls of 120, one roll of 220, and 10 sheets of 4x5 (all with contact sheets) came to $200. Local place here does it $4.04 a roll (35mm or 120) which doesn't seem too bad. Never had 220 or sheet film done so don't know what they charge or if they do it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 23:48
|
|
|
jodys posted:BTW, low temps have some other effects on film exposure. As temperature decreases the effect of reciprocity failure (due to long exposure) decreases as well. IIRC, if you cool your film with liquid nitrogen you can basically eliminate reciprocity failure. So winter is really the perfect time for me to finish off that roll of Pan F at f/16 for some night shots, and freeze my fingers off!
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 00:03
|
|
|
JaundiceDave posted:Man, I forgot how expensive c-41 processing is. 13 rolls of 120, one roll of 220, and 10 sheets of 4x5 (all with contact sheets) came to $200. Why not DIY? http://www.freestylephoto.biz/66016-Rollei-Compard-Digibase-C-41-Maxi-Color-Processing-Kit-50-roll?cat_id=1001
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 00:10
|
|
|
Spedman posted:Why not DIY? I think the only way it's really worth it is if you have a bunch of 4x5. It's not going to be much of a savings unless you have a big stockpile of film to process. 4x5 is really expensive to process around here ($2.50 per sheet, and each sheet is about 1/3-1/4 the area of one roll of 135-36 which costs $3.75), and uses up the chemicals comparatively quickly. I've heard mixed reports on the need for precise temperature control. Some people say only the first couple steps are really temperature critical, other people say the entire thing is pretty temperature sensitive. To do it right, you really need at least a temperature-controlled bath and a motor roller if not a full blown Jobo setup. That's a lot of equipment you'll be stockpiling to try and save a few bucks on processing. I think it's worth it for 4x5 (1 batch is like 150 sheets or something?), maybe if you shoot a lot of 120, but not really for 35mm.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 01:37
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:You can stand-develop in 1:100... I haven't had great results with that though. Other people have. I'm one of the big proponents of this method here  Yeah, it's a great "oh poo poo" process for when you gently caress up exposure, or if you're mixing different types of film (risky). I don't see a difference in my Acros doing 1:50 for 18m, and doing it in 18m instead of 1h really increases my throughput. I just got a 3-reel tank, previously I was processing one roll of 120 at a time, which took forever. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 01:39
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:Expired Portra 100t  MF Portra T100 002 by Execudork, on Flickr Same film, same scanner (and same price paid for said scanner). Different camera, more foolish photographer. I remember thinking "I hope Portra does yellows well" when shooting that roll (entirely at the badlands around Drumheller, Alberta), forgetting the "T" part of the film's label.  Paul MaudDib posted:I think the only way it's really worth it is if you have a bunch of 4x5. I'll get around to writing up my experiences with powder-based c-41, but tonight I am too bagged and hung-over from the solvent chemistry I did all day. Fume hoods are good, but they don't pull 100% of the chloroform/hexane/toluene/methanol nasty I was handling - that had nothing to do with photography. \/\/\/ Yup. My old Ensign Pocket Folder, which lacks any sort of light seal beyond the bends in the metal when it's fitted together. ExecuDork fucked around with this message at 04:11 on Jan 31, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 03:48
|
|
|
Light leaks?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 03:53
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Film is indeed reactive to other radiation than visible light, that's why it degrades over time. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 05:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 23:20 |
|
|
GWBBQ posted:I found 3 rolls of Plus X Pan 125 in the basement today. I wonder if being 15 degrees cooler for 15 years balances out the gamma radiation from the radon If anything would survive, it would be 100/125 film. You never know. Shoot it at 64 or 40 and see what you get. e: I shot 8-years expired Acros 100 my first time. Worked great at normal ISO, 1:100 stand developed in Rodinal. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 05:53 on Jan 31, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 05:21
|
|