|
Bioshuffle posted:I think I really want to get some prints made, but to get this image, I had to touch it up quite a bit in processing as it's slightly overexposed when it's straight out of the camera. If I take this to a photo lab and request a print big enough for framing, will they do all the corrections to get the best image possible? I've been thinking about just going to Walgreens but I think it would be worth the five minutes extra drive to go to a photo lab for my prints. I'm even thinking about going to a photo lab to get my film developed and scanned because I am sick and tired of receiving JPEG images in the CD instead of TIFF. Why not give them your altered digital file? Don't they just scan your negative and print from that anyway?
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 23:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 16:26 |
|
|
Bioshuffle posted:If I take this to a photo lab and request a print big enough for framing, will they do all the corrections to get the best image possible?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 02:33
|
|
|
Yup, give the photolab (the good one, not the drugstore) a CD with your images on it. Make sure your photo looks the way you want it, and set it to nice big settings - 300dpi, as many pixels tall and wide as you can get. Why is slide film so goddam expensive? I'm seeing upwards of $10/roll for 36 exposures, 35mm. After developing ($10+ / roll) that's putting the price per shot at a bit more than 50 cents. I'm way too much of a trigger-happy spaz to get 50 cents of value out of every twitch of my finger. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 03:16
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:After developing ($10+ / roll) that's putting the price per shot at a bit more than 50 cents. Don't get in to large format 
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 03:37
|
|
|
I've got your large format right here  http://blog.makezine.com/2012/02/16/a-camera-large-enough-to-live-in/ Great googly moogly- can you imagine his chemical costs?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 23:50
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:Why not give them your altered digital file? Don't they just scan your negative and print from that anyway? Bioshuffle fucked around with this message at 00:49 on Feb 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2012 00:46
|
|
|
Bioshuffle posted:Is that what they really do? I was under the impression they'd do it the old school way, before they had scanners and such. Has the quality from digital printing caught up? I remember when digital prints looked like absolute junk but I guess things have changed a lot in the past years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2012 01:02
|
|
|
Bioshuffle posted:Is that what they really do? I was under the impression they'd do it the old school way, before they had scanners and such. Has the quality from digital printing caught up? I remember when digital prints looked like absolute junk but I guess things have changed a lot in the past years. Unless you're at a pro lab, prints are being made from scanned film. The major minilab equipment all ingests film, scans it, digitally adjusts crop/scale/color/tone/scratches/dust/grain, and then either exposes or prints onto paper. Once the quality got there and everyone realized it was teenage-employee-proof, it was all downhill. If you're at a pro lab, prints are probably being made from scanned film unless you're specifically paying for custom optical printing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2012 02:36
|
|
|
Molten Llama posted:Unless you're at a pro lab, prints are being made from scanned film. The major minilab equipment all ingests film, scans it, digitally adjusts crop/scale/color/tone/scratches/dust/grain, and then either exposes or prints onto paper. Once the quality got there and everyone realized it was teenage-employee-proof, it was all downhill.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2012 02:42
|
|
|
A lot of labs do optical prints of digital files. Mpix.com does, or at least give you that option. If you look at the type of paper they use (usually a logo on the back), you can tell.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2012 06:24
|
|
|
FasterThanLight posted:A lot of labs do optical prints of digital files. Mpix.com does, or at least give you that option. If you look at the type of paper they use (usually a logo on the back), you can tell.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2012 07:08
|
|
|
Demon_Corsair posted:You don't seem to be doing much better in here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2012 17:18
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:Yeah, an EOS 5 should be $50-60 on ebay in excellent condition, plus the nifty fifty on a film camera is a match made in heaven. I strongly advise against getting a used film Rebel because the control wheel on the back is worth a lot more than the $25 you save over a prosumer body. Also because the viewfinder on those cheap EOS models is really dim and has a small field of coverage. They used pentamirrors instead of pentaprisms on low end models. A early 90's EOS-5 still beats the last batch of consumer models (2003-2004) on all features but weight.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2012 19:51
|
|
|
My OM-1 is dying so I picked up a user OM-4 for pretty cheap. The multi-spot metering seems pretty neat if I can learn to use it properly. It was a really overcast day when I went to try it out.  
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2012 17:19
|
|
|
RustedChrome posted:My OM-1 is dying so I picked up a user OM-4 for pretty cheap. The multi-spot metering seems pretty neat if I can learn to use it properly. It was a really overcast day when I went to try it out. OM-4[Ti] buddies!  For that last photo, did you use a red filter, a polarizer or both? atomicthumbs fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Feb 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2012 19:20
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:OM-4[Ti] buddies! No filters actually. It was just a combination of heavy clouds, sunlight breaking through underneath at the right time and Kodak BW CN400 film.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2012 00:28
|
|
|
hybr1d posted:I've got your large format right here Just saw this linked, some photographic history from the turn of the previous century: The Mammoth Camera of George R. Lawrence quote:Three contact prints were made from the perfectly exposed plate and sent to Paris. They were intended for exhibition in the United States Government Building, the railway exhibit, and the photographic section. This was considered to be a singular honour because no other exhibit was accorded such wide display. However, the claim that the photograph was made from a single plate was immediately met with scepticism. No one in Paris had ever heard of a camera capable of making such large plates, they were nearly three times the size of the largest plates known. Even the affidavits provided by Lawrence and officials of the Chicago & Alton Railway were doubted. The French Consul in New York was dispatched to Chicago to verify the existence of the camera and to observe its mode of operation. His positive report seems to have satisfied doubts in the minds of the Exposition management and it cleared the way for displaying the photographs and ultimately awarding to Lawrence the 'Grand Prize of the World for Photographic Excellence'. quote:The Cramer Company of St Louis manufactured the 8 x 4½ ft glass plates using its isochromatic emulsion. These were reputed to have cost $1800 per dozen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2012 23:08
|
|
|
Adjusting for inflation from the year 1900, that works out to about $3878.09 per plate today. Also that camera cost about $139,000. Yikes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2012 23:23
|
|
is go
|
So, can someone give me the rundown on what I would need for a decent Rodinal setup, chemical-wise?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 22:28
|
|
|
whereismyshoe posted:So, can someone give me the rundown on what I would need for a decent Rodinal setup, chemical-wise? How do you mean? Like, a whole developing darkroom setup? If so, check page 1, except swap out HC-110 for Rodinal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 22:36
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:How do you mean? Like, a whole developing darkroom setup? If so, check page 1, except swap out HC-110 for Rodinal. Yeah, pretty much. I didn't know if certain fixers were incompatible with it or whatever, i've heard my photo teacher talk about that but he's a bit of a kook sometimes. Thanks! e: contributing, i've never shot tri-x before but after looking at some pictures taken with it i really want to. whereismyshoe fucked around with this message at 00:11 on Feb 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 22:48
|
|
|
Cross-posting from SAD, casual shots of my friends Bojan, Golden Mile Food Centre by alkanphel, on Flickr  Norhana, Starbucks, Paragon by alkanphel, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 00:59
|
|
|
I'm thinking of getting a Leica IIIg as my 'slow' 35mm. How weird is it to use a separate viewfinder/rangefinder? Do you feel more legit than those M users?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 17:23
|
|
|
Fiannaiocht posted:I'm thinking of getting a Leica IIIg as my 'slow' 35mm. How weird is it to use a separate viewfinder/rangefinder? Do you feel more legit than those M users? I wouldn't get a IIIg either get an M3 or get a M mount Bessa. Limiting yourself to screw mount lenses will be annoying.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 17:36
|
|
|
Or get another M-mount camera like a Kodak Hexar RF  Alkanphel Same lenses, cheaper body! Then again, if you have the money, you can't beat a Leica
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 17:39
|
|
|
mysticp posted:I wouldn't get a IIIg either get an M3 or get a M mount Bessa. Limiting yourself to screw mount lenses will be annoying. Disagree, there is a huge world of amazing ltm lenses out there, and they aren't absurdly expensive like M-mount lenses.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 20:03
|
|
|
Fiannaiocht posted:I'm thinking of getting a Leica IIIg as my 'slow' 35mm. How weird is it to use a separate viewfinder/rangefinder? Do you feel more legit than those M users? I have a III. You get used to the separate viewfinder. I've only used 50mm lenses on it, and it has framelines for that. I learned to compose in the rangefinder window and sometimes I forget to use the viewfinder. It definitely slows me down and makes me think before triggering the shutter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 20:25
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:Or get another M-mount camera like a Kodak Hexar RF  Great camera with tons of conveniences like auto advance, solid metering, burst mode. Only problem is that there's always a chance the battery runs out or the electronics inside will someday fail.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 00:56
|
|
|
RustedChrome posted:I have a III. You get used to the separate viewfinder. I've only used 50mm lenses on it, and it has framelines for that. I learned to compose in the rangefinder window and sometimes I forget to use the viewfinder. It definitely slows me down and makes me think before triggering the shutter. Plus having separate windows can also make for more accurate focusing because the rangefinder window is usually more zoomed in than the viewfinder window.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 19:06
|
|
|
Cross-posting from SAD, shot on Ektar 100 The Deep Blue by alkanphel, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2012 05:24
|
|
|
HPL posted:Plus having separate windows can also make for more accurate focusing because the rangefinder window is usually more zoomed in than the viewfinder window. Having shot a little with a IIIf, I'm not sure this is really all that accurate. The window is more zoomed in, granted, but the patch of almost any M is going to be as big as what you see in a III series. If M39 is the mount you want, a third party with a better viewfinder than a Leica III series makes a lot more sense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2012 06:44
|
|
|
Yeah, but a Leica III makes that cool "Edward Scissorhands" snipping sound when you take a shot. Or is that just mine?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2012 06:47
|
|
|
So i inherited an older Paterson reel and tank kit, and it smells vaguely (strangely) of crayons. the tank is in excellent condition and looks very clean visually, just smells funny. is there any safe way to clean these without risking using something that might harm my film in the future? vvv should have specified that i have washed & dried it like 5 times with regular soap and it's still funky whereismyshoe fucked around with this message at 23:28 on Feb 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2012 22:21
|
|
|
soap
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2012 22:36
|
|
|
I've been alternating shooting between a Nikon F3 and Yashica Electro CC. I like focusing with the rangefinder more than a split prism and like the quietness of it, but like the flexibility of the F3 more (the Yashica is aperture priority only and has a fixed lens). So I started looking at interchangeable lens rangefinders, I mostly use aperture priority, but would also like to be able to do manual exposures as I do that fairly often with the F3. Anyway, the only Leica M with aperture priority is the M7 which is too expensive. Evidently the CLE has it. Does anyone have experience with the CLE or Voigtlander Bessa R2A? As I understand it Minolta actually made the CLE I would expect significantly lower quality than with an M Leica. From what I've read on the Voigtlander it's well built, but has some plastic on the inside and won't have the longevity of a Leica. Either one gets me into an M mount system that has tons of great glass and the possibility of easily moving to an M7 later should my budget allow. Basically it's hard to separate fact from Leica-worship drivel sometimes. I fully understand a Bessa won't be as good as a Leica, but is it something most people are happy with or is it just crap? Also, any other suggestions on cameras I've not considered? Also is the Voigtlander 35mm f/1.4 Nokton lens good or should I just save some more and get a Summicron 35mm f/2?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2012 20:00
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:Basically it's hard to separate fact from Leica-worship drivel sometimes. I fully understand a Bessa won't be as good as a Leica, but is it something most people are happy with or is it just crap? Also, any other suggestions on cameras I've not considered? I don't own a Leica, but I've gone from a Yashicamat to a Rolleiflex. If it's anything like that, the build quality is much, much more solid. The Yashica is a very functional usable camera, the Rolleiflex is a work of art that you can put film through. The Leica will probably have a nicer rangefinder. However, since it's interchangeable-lens, the lens is really what matters. Looks like the Voigtlander 35/1.4 isn't that great wide open (which is the point of a fast lens). The 35/1.2, however, looks pretty decent wide open. Yeah, it's expensive as hell, but it's still cheaper than Leica glass. If you can find something of moderate speed/price now, it will probably perform well enough for now and you can always upgrade later. I have a couple slow SLR lenses that perform as well as their faster competitors anywhere in their range, at a fraction of the price. It's much easier to design good slow lenses at decent prices, and if you're not going to use that speed to focus (SLR) and it can't take sharp images it's kinda useless. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Feb 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2012 20:58
|
|
|
Everything I had read said Xtol and ID-11/D76 yielded the same results except Xtol gives finer grain. Well, I ran out of Xtol and they didn't have any at the local store so I bought a 1 liter package of ID-11 to use this weekend and try out as I've never used it and I'm getting much better results with it. Two rolls taken with different cameras and each spread out over a couple days so it wasn't just good light or whatever. Regardless, ID-11  Paul MaudDib posted:I don't own a Leica, but I've gone from a Yashicamat to a Rolleiflex. If it's anything like that, the build quality is much, much more solid. The Yashica is a very functional usable camera, the Rolleiflex is a work of art that you can put film through. The Leica will probably have a nicer rangefinder. However, since it's interchangeable-lens, the lens is really what matters. Yeah my concern is just that I'll hate it and just wish I'd just saved up more. On the other hand I have a hard to justifying Leica money for what is just my hobby and honestly I'm not that great at it. I'd feel like an imposter. I figure a Voigtlander is a good mid ground to get my feet wet with a more serious rangefinder than a Yashica, but not breaking the break. As long as it's not a piece of poo poo I think I'd be happy with it though. I was always happy with my midrange DSLR and never felt like I wanted a pro body (not that I'd pass on a free one). eggsovereasy fucked around with this message at 05:20 on Feb 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 05:17
|
|
|
The Cosina Voigtlander cameras are very well built, have extremely accurate focusing, and modern meters. There's next to nothing that a Leica does better in any quantifiable way. An M has a cloth shutter, so it sounds different though...
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 05:25
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:The Cosina Voigtlander cameras are very well built, have extremely accurate focusing, and modern meters. There's next to nothing that a Leica does better in any quantifiable way. An M has a cloth shutter, so it sounds different though...
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 07:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 16:26 |
|
|
I have an R2A, R3M and an M6. The main difference is in the feel of the film advance. It is buttery smooth and sold on the Leica. On the Bessa it feels fine but rougher. I'm selling the R2A along with a Nokton 35/1.2 if anyone is interested.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 07:33
|
|