|
eggsovereasy posted:I don't use slide film because no one processes it locally and I'm Nashville which is a decent sized city. If everything else fails, take it to a Wal-Mart, they send out processes they don't do in-house. Just mark "E-6 PROCESS ONLY" in the special instructions box. Depending on the breaks, it may cost between $2 and $6 and it will probably take 2-3 weeks, but it's still cheaper than mailers.
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 02:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 20:07 |
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:I don't use slide film because no one processes it locally and I'm Nashville which is a decent sized city. No one does black and white either, but it's easy to do at home. Plenty of places to do C-41 though. Yeah, you can, but that is far far too much work for the average person, and you cannot support a process like large-scale emulsion production/coating on a hobbyist market.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 02:37
|
|
|
While it's sad that Kodak is giving up on slide film completely... As people have said it's not a massive loss compared to the already gone Kodachrome. I will be very sorry when Velvia goes away though. It's by far my favourite E6 process film.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 02:42
|
|
|
dukeku posted:Not rumors: Oh that sucks! E100VS in autumn just always looked beautiful. I like Fujichrome but the E100 series from Kodak was really great. Time to invest!
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 03:01
|
|
|
 Got this in the mail today! So excited to play with it 
First Time Caller fucked around with this message at 03:33 on Mar 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 03:23
|
|
|
PushingKingston posted:You know, I don't think I'll miss the Ektachrome series. I could never find it and when I did my photos were lackluster at best. I shoot everything, although not very much B&W. The E100 series was, I think, really great. See here and here, or my stuff here. I just ordered some more rolls and I'm hoping it'll be enough to last me through the fall. I was just looking at this film yesterday and it was about $10 cheaper for a 5-pack. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 03:32
|
|
|
Frankly the niche that E6 film represented, sharpness and specific repeatable color rendition, has long been taken over by digital.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 03:43
|
|
|
I wouldn't even single it out to E6. Film as a whole has been taken over by digital.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 03:56
|
|
|
yeah because there isn't a 220 page thread about people still shooting film or anything
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 03:58
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:I wouldn't even single it out to E6. Film as a whole has been taken over by digital. Negative film still has a considerable latitude advantage over digital capture.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 04:03
|
|
|
I wonder how long until C41 is declared dead by all the major film makers (kodak and Fuji?)
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 04:04
|
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:I wonder how long until C41 is declared dead by all the major film makers (kodak and Fuji?) A long rear end time. There is still a huge market for 35mm disposable cameras especially outside of the first world.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 04:11
|
|
|
Yeah, however, with all of the technological leapfrogging going on that market is dwindling as well. E-6 35mm doesn't make a whole lot of sense compared to digital, but medium and large format chromes are breathtaking.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 04:28
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Yeah, however, with all of the technological leapfrogging going on that market is dwindling as well. i think i'm going to buy some 8x10 velvia. please kill me
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 04:41
|
|
|
Larger format slides do look cool but aren't the commercial go to like they used to be. I think gimmicky film like Velvia will be around longer than the more straight laced emulsions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 04:47
|
|
|
Have any of you had any luck pulling Tri-X to ISO200? I have a bunch of rolls right now and 400 just seems a tad too fast for daylight use on my older bodies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 05:01
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:Have any of you had any luck pulling Tri-X to ISO200? I have a bunch of rolls right now and 400 just seems a tad too fast for daylight use on my older bodies. i've never had a problem shooting 400 in daylight. unless your shutter speed only goes up to 125 or something
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 05:02
|
|
|
whereismyshoe posted:i've never had a problem shooting 400 in daylight. unless your shutter speed only goes up to 125 or something My OM-1 nominally goes up to 1000, but the higher speeds seem a bit suspicious. I generally try to stay around 125-250 which seems to give more predictable exposures.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 05:05
|
|
|
Pulling Tri-x looks good. Do it for the tonality.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 05:09
|
|
|
edit-- ^^^ welpAugmented Dickey posted:My OM-1 nominally goes up to 1000, but the higher speeds seem a bit suspicious. I generally try to stay around 125-250 which seems to give more predictable exposures. From what I've read, pulling Tri-X to 200 gives a really flat and gray image, but it can be good for compensating for really high-contrast situations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 05:11
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:edit-- ^^^ welp Yeah, don't pull in low contrast lighting situations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 05:15
|
|
|
i shot some film yesterday in my schools darkroom. handheld just using the safelight. i am pretty stoked how it came out, who else here has darkroom photos? photo in the dark room by OjaiYoda, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 10:55
|
|
|
OjaiYoda posted:i shot some film yesterday in my schools darkroom. handheld just using the safelight. i am pretty stoked how it came out, who else here has darkroom photos? ...does your school do darkroom stuff naked? I mean, granted, I like to do wet printing in just my underwear because it gets pretty hot in my bathroom, but nobody else is around at the time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 14:10
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Any recommendations on film or other supplies I could add to the order from Macodirect? If you haven't ordered yet you should check out their B&W film. Maco sells rebranded Agfa-Gevaert films that are still made for industrial and military applications under the Rollei brand. Really cheap too. €3 for a roll of IR 400 iso film. Rebranded Agfa Aviphotpan 200 (panchromatic) as "Superpan 200" also for about €3. Lots of unique films for low prices.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 18:27
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:...does your school do darkroom stuff naked?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 00:12
|
|
|
NihilismNow posted:If you haven't ordered yet you should check out their B&W film. Maco sells rebranded Agfa-Gevaert films that are still made for industrial and military applications under the Rollei brand. Really cheap too. €3 for a roll of IR 400 iso film. Rebranded Agfa Aviphotpan 200 (panchromatic) as "Superpan 200" also for about €3. Lots of unique films for low prices.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 01:39
|
|
|
I finally took the plunge and got everything to develop black and white film. I used Tri-X 400 developed in HC110 at 1+49 for 8 minutes, agitation first 30 seconds and 10 seconds every minute after. I think next time I'm going to agitate a bit more frequently as the negatives came out fairly flat. Here's a couple shots I liked. These were scanned by shooting them backlit with a GH2 + manual old macro lens with adapter, and then inverted and touched up in lightroom... I need to get a real scanner   
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2012 03:55
|
|
|
Flat negs are good. You can always add contrast later.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2012 03:57
|
|
|
Whoever sent me a roll of Portra 160t a few months back: I used it, and had what I thought were some pretty cool pictures, but I dropped my tlr and broke it. This is the only in-focus shot from the roll:
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2012 05:09
|
|
|
/\/\/\ Mysticp sent me a roll of 160t / 120, perhaps that was who sent you yours? Last night I developed a roll of Kodak Technical Pan 25 that was of unknown age, though I'm guessing around 20-25 years old based on the other film it came with from an ebay seller. I use Ilfosol 3, which doesn't have an entry for Tech Pan 25 on the Massive Dev Chart and I couldn't find any instructions with my google-fu, other than one mention in a year-old Flickr discussion thread that somebody had done it and had been disappointed at the high contrast. I went with 7:30, agitate 5 seconds every 30; how would I know if I over- or under-developed it? I'm pretty sure I overexposed most of the roll, through a combination of user error and the camera - my Minolta X-700 has a damaged aperture-sensor, it doesn't always follow the aperture ring on the lens when I open a lens wider than f/8. And the slowest ISO film its meter can be set for is ISO 50, so I shot one stop slower shutter or wider aperture than it told me to. And, yeah, user error, like I said.  Kodak Tech Pan 25 1 037 by Execudork, on Flickr I ran these through Lightroom, but mostly just made crop/rotate adjustments and minor tweaks to brightness/contrast/blacks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 04:41
|
|
|
I quite enjoy the sky in this one
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 18:22
|
|
|
Alright so I overcranked my film, snapping it right out of the roll and losing a month's worth if photos after opening it and finding the broken mess. Idiot tax.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 00:10
|
|
|
Miko posted:Alright so I overcranked my film, snapping it right out of the roll and losing a month's worth if photos after opening it and finding the broken mess. Did you know you overcranked it when it happened? If you hadn't opened it, you could have opened it under the bedcovers and stuffed the film back in the cannister to save it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 00:27
|
|
|
Miko posted:Alright so I overcranked my film, snapping it right out of the roll and losing a month's worth if photos after opening it and finding the broken mess. This happened while I was at a party once. I let my drunk friend use my camera and she over-wound it. I went into a dark bathroom, stuffed a towel under the doorcrack, and pulled the film out. Luckily I had a completely opaque film canister on me to keep the film in. When it came time to developing, I used a changing bag to transfer the film from the canister to the reel. Only a handful of pictures had light damage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 04:57
|
|
|
Crosspost from SAD   Tri-X through my OM-1. I think I'm finally figuring out how to properly use b&w filters.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 05:32
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 05:46
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:Crosspost from SAD These are terrific. I see lots of great pictures with Tri-X, but I just can't get anything good out of it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 05:49
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:Crosspost from SAD What kind of filters did you use on these photo's? This is the effect i'm going for (but not getting).
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 09:14
|
|
|
NihilismNow posted:What kind of filters did you use on these photo's? This is the effect i'm going for (but not getting). Probably a deep yellow or a light red filter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 21:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 20:07 |
|
|
Just deep yellow. I think the skies look extra dramatic due to the shots being underexposed a bit.eggsovereasy posted:These are terrific. Thanks! What developer are you using? I've had the best luck with HC-110 and 30-second agitation intervals. Bouillon Rube fucked around with this message at 04:43 on Mar 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2012 02:03
|
|