|
Mightaswell posted:interesting.... http://photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00IwNM That looks like the word on the street. Well, we've got mostly 5219 and a bit of 5213 and 5230, so we'll see. 5219 is sexy poo poo.
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 18:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 23:36 |
|
|
If you're using one-shot, I think you can just throw your film in the developer without removing remjet if it's alkaline. Should be pretty easy to 'brush off' afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 18:09
|
|
|
I got a 200' end of 5219 I bulk loaded a few test rolls of that I still need to get developed...apparently Cinelab in MA will do true ECN-2 processing of still lengths of the stuff (~6 feet) if you send them a few at a time. Last time I called them their 35mm machine was being repaired - I meant to call them back months ago but it I graduated and moved and it totally slipped my mind. Maybe I'll do that later today.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 18:31
|
|
|
penneydude posted:I got a 200' end of 5219 I bulk loaded a few test rolls of that I still need to get developed...apparently Cinelab in MA will do true ECN-2 processing of still lengths of the stuff (~6 feet) if you send them a few at a time. Last time I called them their 35mm machine was being repaired - I meant to call them back months ago but it I graduated and moved and it totally slipped my mind. Maybe I'll do that later today. Report back!
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 18:35
|
|
|
I used Cinelab in undergrad and I can only vouch strongly for them. Awesome dudes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 19:26
|
|
|
Well I just got off the phone with Cinelab, they do seem like awesome dudes. The gist of the conversation was basically this: They got fed up with trying to fix their old 35mm machine, so they bought a new super neato one and have it all wired up, they just need to build a darkroom for it, plumb it, and test it, which he said should take about 3 weeks. They have a feature film coming in with like 150k' of film next month, so it's pretty high priority for them to get it running. Cinelab apparently has a fairly good stream of people looking to get still-lengths of film processed and the guy said they're still dedicated to doing that, and will be updating their website next month with new pricing that will include bulk loaded ECN-2 processing, and also scanning with new 2k and 4k scanners they apparently also just bought. It sounded like they will do anywhere between 3' and 30' or so (and more, of course) of film with a minimum charge of $25, so it would be best to save up 5 or 6 36 exp. rolls and send them in all at once.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 19:49
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:No, probably not. As I recall, I shot landscapes and there wasn't snow on the ground, so it was probably April or May. I could look it up, but  
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 20:38
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:So this is what scans on our Epson Perfection 1680 (predecessor of the V750) look like Are you scanning that to JPG? It could be set for super high compression or something. Make sure you're exporting to TIF, and if that doesn't work give Vuescan a shot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 22:03
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:So this is what scans on our Epson Perfection 1680 (predecessor of the V750) look like But, it's also much cleaner than what I had - did you wash the negs in something? I remember I had some white crud streaked all over, glad to see that's not (apparently) causing trouble.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 01:26
|
|
|
Just got this in the mail today Haven't gotten a chance to go out and shoot with it yet, but it seems pretty awesome. Even came with a battery in it, though it's alkaline and I've read the meter will be off as the battery drains so I should probably pick up a silver one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 06:06
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:Even came with a battery in it, though it's alkaline and I've read the meter will be off as the battery drains so I should probably pick up a silver one. What kind of battery is it? Zinc might be better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 07:02
|
|
|
Good lens on that Yashica but I really didn't like the rangefinder patch in the viewfinder.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 07:12
|
|
|
NihilismNow posted:What kind of battery is it? Zinc might be better. A544, which I believe is the same as 4SR44, not sure about zinc. alkanphel posted:Good lens on that Yashica but I really didn't like the rangefinder patch in the viewfinder. I've not used a Leica or anything really nice like that, but the patch is way better than that in the Olympus XA or Yashica Electro 35 GSN that I have used. However, the viewfinder is a bit smaller than the GSN's and you can see the lens barrel in the viewfinder, which is a little weird.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 15:33
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Huh. Zooming all the way in on the imgur image makes my old car (I miss that car...) look appropriately 80's - the pixelation resembles loading screens from the games I played on a 386SX back in the early 90's.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2012 21:22
|
|
|
Someone sell me an Minolta Super-T with a 58mm/1.4 lens. Thanks in advance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2012 22:20
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:
I know this is a couple pages back but thanks for doing this. I have always felt like Tri-X was too hard. I have always liked T-Max but have heard from others here and elsewhere that it's not really a desirable film. So maybe my tastes are off. I definitely like the look of HP5 better than the Tri-X. I have shot with HP5 but still felt it was a bit harsh. I also have a whole bunch of Tri-X in 35mm which I bought up one day not knowing how much I was going to dislike the contrast. Now I guess I should just use it up. Anyway, thanks for posting this, it was an interesting comparison.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2012 22:05
|
|
|
Don't scratch your wet emulsions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2012 01:35
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:I know this is a couple pages back but thanks for doing this. I have always felt like Tri-X was too hard. I have always liked T-Max but have heard from others here and elsewhere that it's not really a desirable film. So maybe my tastes are off. I definitely like the look of HP5 better than the Tri-X. I have shot with HP5 but still felt it was a bit harsh. I also have a whole bunch of Tri-X in 35mm which I bought up one day not knowing how much I was going to dislike the contrast. Now I guess I should just use it up. Anyway, thanks for posting this, it was an interesting comparison. dukeku posted:Don't scratch your wet emulsions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2012 01:49
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:I know this is a couple pages back but thanks for doing this. I have always felt like Tri-X was too hard. I have always liked T-Max but have heard from others here and elsewhere that it's not really a desirable film. So maybe my tastes are off. I definitely like the look of HP5 better than the Tri-X. I have shot with HP5 but still felt it was a bit harsh. I also have a whole bunch of Tri-X in 35mm which I bought up one day not knowing how much I was going to dislike the contrast. Now I guess I should just use it up. Anyway, thanks for posting this, it was an interesting comparison. I agree, I tried so hard to like Tri-X since that seems to be everyone's favorite and Kodak is American and all  In the end I prefer HP5, but it can come out very contrasty too (like my recent post of assembly lines to SAD).I haven't tried T-Max, but I have used Delta 400 which seems similar. I think i've only seen you post color stuff, but if you try some B&W give it or Neopan, as alkanphel suggested, a try.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2012 06:03
|
|
|
dukeku posted:Don't scratch your wet emulsions. Maybe it's late, but the roads around here are so bad that I couldn't find the scratch you were talking about.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2012 08:00
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:I agree, I tried so hard to like Tri-X since that seems to be everyone's favorite and Kodak is American and all Have you tried messing around with your agitation method? Agitating too hard will overdo the highlights.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2012 16:31
|
|
|
HPL posted:Have you tried messing around with your agitation method? Agitating too hard will overdo the highlights. I haven't really fiddled with it, I do four inversions over 10 seconds to start and once every minute after that. Doesn't seem that would be too much?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2012 21:51
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:I haven't really fiddled with it, I do four inversions over 10 seconds to start and once every minute after that. Doesn't seem that would be too much? No. Quite similar to mine, actually.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2012 22:04
|
|
|
I meant I repeat the 4 inversions over 10 seconds every minute! Think 1 inversion every minute may be better? I'll give it a go next time I shoot some film.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2012 22:10
|
|
|
I generally do 5 seconds per minute. It shouldn't make a big difference, everything still works out even if you use super weak developer and agitate very little at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2012 22:25
|
|
|
Last time I went out there was a lot of cloud cover and very even lighting, so pretty low contrast. In a situation like this I would have benefited from increased agitation during development right? To bring out some more contrast.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2012 22:31
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:I meant I repeat the 4 inversions over 10 seconds every minute!
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2012 22:33
|
|
|
People who invert more than ten seconds a minute are communists and deserve harsh highlights. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2012 23:56
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Yeah that's a lot. Ilford says 4 times over 10 seconds every minute, Kodak says 5-7 inversion over 5 seconds every 30 seconds. I've been using HP5 so I just went with Ilford's method. I don't really know what I'm doing though. I just don't know what changing different variables tends to do. Less agitation brings in the highlights and more develops them more. Developing shorter will leave your shadows black and longer will bring out detail? So shortening dev time while adding more agitation should make it very contrasty? Reversing should do the opposite? What difference does temperature make?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 00:12
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:What difference does temperature make? This is pure speculation on my part, but higher temperature makes the developer more active, and agitation also effectively makes the developer do more action, so I think higher temperature is more or less equivalent to more agitation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 00:22
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:People who invert more than ten seconds a minute are communists and deserve harsh highlights. Decadent capitalist pig dogs making for to develop their high contrast films. The People's Film is low contrast, and only by the sweat of the People's brow does she produce a printable image. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 00:23
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:
the higher the temperature the higher grain you will get. at least with the developer i use. my friend used super hot water with some slow/medium speed film and it looked like it was 3200.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 00:36
|
|
|
isn't developer more active at higher temperatures? so if you're running it hotter you need to dev for a shorter period of time, otherwise it'll be overcooked.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 14:09
|
|
|
charel posted:isn't developer more active at higher temperatures? so if you're running it hotter you need to dev for a shorter period of time, otherwise it'll be overcooked.  edit-- DISCLAIMER: this is for HC-110, it may or may not apply to your developer of choice. Count Thrashula fucked around with this message at 14:27 on Feb 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 14:24
|
|
|
Picked this up in a charity shop today - came with two other lenses, a Minolta 50mm 1.7 and a Vivitar 70-210. The one on the camera is a Minolta rokkor 24-50.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 19:21
|
|
|
I got my first roll of E-6 back from the lab today  it looks so amazing! I can't wait to scan it later. It's some really expired Agfachrome 100.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 19:22
|
|
|
I had a chance to get some pictures from an anime convention. Can someone explain me what's happening with the 2nd picture?   Also, I am really impressed with my Yashica 230-AF. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 02:12
|
|
|
If I had to guess I would say it is bromide drag, possibly due to insufficient agitation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 02:22
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:If I had to guess I would say it is bromide drag, possibly due to insufficient agitation. So basically, next time I should take it to a real photolab, not Walgreens? I have one right around the block  Here are some more. Yashica 230-AF  Mamiya-Sekor 1000 DTL   
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 02:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 23:36 |
|
|
Ohhh, those are c-41. In that case that's not what it is. Possibly a very minor light leak then, only visible at slow shutter speeds, does it show up on any other frames? Also that bike photo is pretty badass.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 02:31
|
|