|
There's been a flurry of activity on the Kodachrome mailing list, apparently Kodak is considering a move to boutique manufacturing/coating. The idea is, as long as you will buy at least one master roll they will coat up whatever you want. Could be Kodachrome (although the chemicals are the problem), could be Tech Pan, could be EIR.
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2012 20:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 04:51 |
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:There's been a flurry of activity on the Kodachrome mailing list, apparently Kodak is considering a move to boutique manufacturing/coating. The idea is, as long as you will buy at least one master roll they will coat up whatever you want. Could be Kodachrome (although the chemicals are the problem), could be Tech Pan, could be EIR. How long is a master roll?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2012 20:21
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:How long is a master roll? 54 inches by a couple thousand feet. Sounds like the Tri-X master rolls were 5000 feet long, but Kodak may be willing to do a shorter roll, maybe like 1000ft or so. vvv Yup, that napkin math works out... 35000 rolls, 39 rolls across, times 5.375 ft per roll = 4823 feet. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Mar 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2012 20:25
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:How long is a master roll? http://www.apug.org/forums/viewpost.php?p=853028
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2012 20:25
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:I legitimately mourn the loss of ortho sheet film. Developing by inspection sounds pretty cool you can still develop by inspection. use a very green dim light, not because film isn't sensitive to green but because your eyes are very sensitive to it, so it takes very little for you to be able to see how far along it is. michael smith has a writeup on the technique here http://www.michaelandpaula.com/mp/devinsp.html
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2012 21:21
|
|
|
 House of Steel I by atomicthumbs, on Flickr  House of Steel II by atomicthumbs, on Flickr figures I'd find out how much I like Elite Chrome 100 and Agfa Vista after they're both discontinued
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2012 22:24
|
|
|
Sometimes life isn't fair. I was out hiking and finished a roll of Velvia under overcast sky. Since the sky was so dull, I had brought a roll of Arista EDU 400 with me and started loading that. As I finished loading it, I looked up and suddenly the sun was out, half an hour before sunset. Stupid weather.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2012 22:56
|
|
|
Hahaha. Film is infuriating sometimes. Also, magazines and leader-out rewinding are awesome.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2012 23:02
|
|
|
the only reasons i like having cameras with interchangeable backs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2012 00:40
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:The idea is, as long as you will buy at least one master roll they will coat up whatever you want. Could be Kodachrome (although the chemicals are the problem), could be Tech Pan, could be EIR. Kodak HIE 
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2012 17:41
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:could be EIR. Oh god yes please.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2012 18:14
|
|
|
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/nby/pho/2912022885.html am I correct in thinking that I need to buy this?  better photo of a different instance of the camera:  It's an Olympus O-Product. Olympus made 20,000 of them. It's an aluminum-bodied, autofocus camera from 1988.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2012 00:43
|
|
|
Why are you even asking? Why don't you have it in your possession already? Being an absent minded and generally clumsy kind of person, I messed up loading a roll of ISO 25 film in my Pentax ME Super, accidentally wound the leader back into the cartridge, and forgot to set the film speed on the camera until about frame 11 of a roll of Ilford Delta 100 36 exp. I guess I'm pulling this roll by two stops when I finish it. Shooting at 25 is goddam difficult, anything less than a nice sunny day is giving me shutter speeds around 1/30 at f/2.8. Anyway, I can't find any pushing or pulling guidelines for Delta 100 in Ilfosol 3 (the developer I have, supposedly designed for use with Delta). Pushing and pulling other Delta films in this developer are listed on the Massive Dev Chart, it looks like to pull it one stop I should reduce the developing time by about 1/3 (from 7.5 minutes), so for pulling two stops, I could develop for 3 1/3 minutes (1 stop = 2/3 of 7.5 = 5 minutes, 2 stops = 2/3 of 5 minutes = 3.33). Does this sound about right? I've never tried to push or pull film before.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2012 02:50
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Why are you even asking? Why don't you have it in your possession already? I've never done it, but I've read in many places that dev times under 5 minutes can give you pretty inconsistent results. Can you use the Ilfolsol 3 in a higher dilution maybe? Unless there's something in the 11 shots you really want, just start shooting it at 100 or 50 and finish up the roll. No sense in screwing up the last 25 exposures unless you want to experiment with it. I shot HP5 at 200 once and all I had was ID-11 and couldn't find times for that so I just guessed based on the % time difference with pushes with other developers and got good results so I think you're on the right track. eggsovereasy fucked around with this message at 03:00 on Mar 28, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2012 02:57
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:Olympus O-Product "There are functional gadgets and gadgets that look functional," he says. "My aim was the latter." - http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/jun2006/gb20060609_469758.htm
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2012 03:03
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:I've never done it, but I've read in many places that dev times under 5 minutes can give you pretty inconsistent results. Can you use the Ilfolsol 3 in a higher dilution maybe?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2012 05:00
|
|
|
Developed a roll of that panatomic-x tonight but forgot my binder in the darkroom..went with the tri-x time minus 1.5 minutes and it seemed to turn out pretty well. blew out some of the highlights but overall not bad for not knowing exactly how to develop it. although once i get my own hc-110 (it comes with a dev chart for that in the box) i'm sure results will be better. oh and i made an 11x14 print and it is GRAINLESS. holy poo poo 32 iso
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2012 04:22
|
|
|
I highly recommend you all invest in a bottle of Rodinal, even a small one. Rodinal 1:100 stand developed for 1 hour is a reliable developer for all "mystery rolls". Agitate for the first minute, then for 5s at 3m and 30m. Be sure to thump the tank to dislodge any bubbles, if they're there they will definitely show on your image. You absolutely must rinse your tanks and prewash heavily before this procedure, if any photoflo or soap remains it WILL bubble once you agitate and the stand developer procedure is not forgiving of bubbles. However, given that caveat it's a highly effective developer for pretty much anything from massive pushes to normal exposures. Probably not a good idea for pulls, use Pyrocat HD or something if you want lowered speed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2012 04:45
|
|
|
Rodinal is a lovely developer, especially with Agfa APX-100. Made the crispest, most three-dimensional looking negs I've ever seen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2012 06:09
|
|
is go
|
Speaking of Rodinal, I just scanned some 4x5 shots from the other day. Fomapan 100 stand developed in Adox Adonal 1+100 for 1hr. I do the stand development a little different to Paul MaudDib, 1 min constant inversions, banged a few times on the floor, then stand for 59min with no more agitation, I've never had a problem with bubbles or uneven development. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2012 13:08
|
|
|
Spedman posted:Speaking of Rodinal, I just scanned some 4x5 shots from the other day. Fomapan 100 stand developed in Adox Adonal 1+100 for 1hr. I do the stand development a little different to Paul MaudDib, 1 min constant inversions, banged a few times on the floor, then stand for 59min with no more agitation, I've never had a problem with bubbles or uneven development. Jesus, that is some awesome tonality and tonal range in those images. I guess I'll have to try this combination, too. I take it works with 35mm as well?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 02:24
|
|
|
VomitOnLino posted:Jesus, that is some awesome tonality and tonal range in those images. yea but 35mm is more likely to have bubbles because of the sprocket holes
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 02:58
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:I highly recommend you all invest in a bottle of Rodinal, even a small one. Rodinal 1:100 stand developed for 1 hour is a reliable developer for all "mystery rolls". Agitate for the first minute, then for 5s at 3m and 30m. Be sure to thump the tank to dislodge any bubbles, if they're there they will definitely show on your image. You absolutely must rinse your tanks and prewash heavily before this procedure, if any photoflo or soap remains it WILL bubble once you agitate and the stand developer procedure is not forgiving of bubbles. Hmm. I use a drop of photoflo in my pyrocat to get rid of air bells without any problems.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 03:23
|
|
|
notlodar posted:Hmm. I use a drop of photoflo in my pyrocat to get rid of air bells without any problems. Apparently this is actually a thing, it accelerates the developer. I get bubbles just from not washing thoroughly, I have no idea how your negatives aren't a solid mass of airbells 
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 04:20
|
|
|
JaundiceDave posted:yea but 35mm is more likely to have bubbles because of the sprocket holes Yeah that's what I was worried about. Ah. I guess I can try it with some expendable roll first and see how the results measure up. NotLodar: To be sure, you put in the photoflo *before* you pour in the developer? Of course I'm not that experienced, but that seems like it would affect development, no?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 04:41
|
|
|
whereismyshoe posted:Developed a roll of that panatomic-x tonight but forgot my binder in the darkroom..went with the tri-x time minus 1.5 minutes and it seemed to turn out pretty well. blew out some of the highlights but overall not bad for not knowing exactly how to develop it. although once i get my own hc-110 (it comes with a dev chart for that in the box) i'm sure results will be better. quoted for scan: 
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 05:17
|
|
|
Developed all of the film I've exposed over the last month on Tuesday night, scanned it all on Wednesday. I've got one shot I'm quite proud of:  Anchi #1 by Andy Keech edit: also first time scanning negs, first picture touched with The GIMP
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 09:13
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Apparently this is actually a thing, it accelerates the developer. I get bubbles just from not washing thoroughly, I have no idea how your negatives aren't a solid mass of airbells At my work when doing a very aggressive silicon wet etch using hot 40% w.t. KOH, a few drops of isopropanol is used as a surfactant to draw off the hydrogen bubbles created on the silicon surface. Would something as simple as that work when film processing, rather than adding photoflo which would (I assume) have a number of undesirable components?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 10:36
|
|
|
I don't know what effect it would have on the film or developer (nothing? find a way to test it, first) but Isopropanol has basically negative surface tension, it destroys it when in aqueous solution (as I'm sure you're aware). It would probably work well at avoiding bubbles when developing. You can get it at a drug store, as rubbing alcohol. Also, 40% KOH sounds like death. I get nervous around solutions with nearly-unmeasurably-high pH.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 01:52
|
|
|
Fully functional X700 with MC 58mm f/1.4 for $85 
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 04:26
|
|
|
 an interesting development. apparently an australian photographer did this at home. atomicthumbs fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Mar 31, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 07:39
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:Fully functional X700 with MC 58mm f/1.4 for $85 Got mine for free from my Dad. Still has plastic on it in a few places D: Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand I got another 10 rolls of Ektacolor for $10
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 15:30
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:
Where is this from? Is someone homebrewing the chemicals for K14 development!? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 23:49
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Also, 40% KOH sounds like death. I get nervous around solutions with nearly-unmeasurably-high pH. It's even worse at 80C when you get a little on you, turns your skin to soap. My favourite chemical to mix is Aqua Regia (kings piss), highly concentrated nitric and hydrochloric acid to etch noble metals, it produces chlorine gas, nitrous oxide and a lot of heat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 23:57
|
|
|
Spedman posted:It's even worse at 80C when you get a little on you, turns your skin to soap. My favourite chemical to mix is Aqua Regia (kings piss), highly concentrated nitric and hydrochloric acid to etch noble metals, it produces chlorine gas, nitrous oxide and a lot of heat. My favorite Aqua Regia story: quote:When Germany invaded Denmark in World War II, Hungarian chemist George de Hevesy dissolved the gold Nobel Prizes of German physicists Max von Laue (1914) and James Franck (1925) in aqua regia to prevent the Nazis from confiscating them. The German government had prohibited Germans from accepting or keeping any Nobel Prize after jailed peace activist Carl von Ossietzky had received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1935. De Hevesy placed the resulting solution on a shelf in his laboratory at the Niels Bohr Institute. It was subsequently ignored by the Nazis who thought the jar—one of perhaps hundreds on the shelving—contained common chemicals. After the war, de Hevesy returned to find the solution undisturbed and precipitated the gold out of the acid. The gold was returned to the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and the Nobel Foundation. They re-cast the medals and again presented them to Laue and France.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 00:57
|
|
|
I've just had an amazing day, part of the tale I've told in the wet-printing thread. Another part to it is that I might be getting my hands on 100 year old, black and white negatives taken by and of my great-grandparents and their family in Omaha, Nebraska before they emmigrated from America to Ireland (my family is backwards like that.) According to my aunt, the negatives are square and bigger than the 35mm negatives she's familiar with (I'm imagining something like 6x6 MF,) and they're extremely thick (i.e. dark) because she had to hold them up to a very bright light to make out anything on them, and they're not on a brownish negative like most people would be familiar with, but on black or grey plastic. The negatives would have to be pre-1912 because they're of America and my great-grandparents left America in 1912 (I think) and never went back. Wiki says they're probably the original celluloid, and that it's unstable. Can anyone tell me more about what these are likely to be? And what the best way of scanning and archiving them would be?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 01:30
|
|
|
Buceph posted:Wiki says they're probably the original celluloid, and that it's unstable. Can anyone tell me more about what these are likely to be? And what the best way of scanning and archiving them would be? The best way would be to take them to your local lab, and have them drum scanned before you dispose of them. Failing that, buy an Epson V500 or V700 and do it yourself. Maybe prescan them yourself and then take the best to get drum scanned if you have the money, but I would consider getting rid of them because they are quite flammable. I'm sure they're cool but it's like keeping a can of paint stripper in your attic, you're just asking for trouble. Try not to crack the emulsions, don't bend them if you can avoid it. They are probably 6x6 120 negatives, but may be 116 or some other oddball which may be hard to scan by yourself.  Under no circumstances should you put them in an enlarger, that cellulose is actually nitrocellulose, aka guncotton, and they degrade and produce an even more explosive gas. Do not enclose them in an area where the gas will build up, do not let them become warm or subject them to high humidity
Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 01:45 on Apr 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 01:40
|
|
|
Thanks for the warning. I wouldn't have tried to enlarge them without doing more research but it's good to get it straight out of my head. How would they have enlarged them back in the day if they can't be used with a normal enlarger? Did they have different equipment or did they just make contact prints?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 01:45
|
|
|
I believe contact prints were the norm pretty much until the rise of 35mm. Shouldn't it also be reasonably safe to make contact prints of the negatives then? Just keep the light source sufficiently far away so the heat is negligible. And wouldn't the lamp in the scanner also be a risk, or are those low-heat in general?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 01:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 04:51 |
|
|
Buceph posted:Thanks for the warning. I wouldn't have tried to enlarge them without doing more research but it's good to get it straight out of my head. Big negatives were a way of life back then. I have a huge folder that was designed to produce postcard-sized contact prints for your family christmas card or vacation postcards. You can get away with extremely modest lenses by today's standards because there's no enlargement. Even a meniscus does OK. As such you probably don't actually need drum scans, but I have no idea exactly what you've got or what it was shot by. I imagine labs did enlarge them, it probably wasn't too dangerous before they had a century of deterioration and were careful to let it cool before another exposure. The most common enlargement is of course projection, and lots of movie theaters burned down because you had inflammable material right in front of an intense heat source. All it took was a jam, sometimes not even that, and suddenly you had a sheet of explosive burning out of control. quote:The power of guncotton made it suitable for blasting. As a projectile driver, it has around six times the gas generation of an equal volume of black powder and produces less smoke and less heating. However, the sensitivity of the material during production led the British, Prussians and French to discontinue manufacture within a year. e: Measuring the dimensions of the negative would help. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 01:59 on Apr 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 01:53
|
|