|
Mightaswell posted:I have an OM 1.4 with an OM-1 attached that I would take offers on... I could trade you an ME Super with a 50mm 2.0 attached.
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 18:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 01:59 |
|
|
Molten Llama posted:Oh dear sweet Jesus, if you ever look at a jug of D-76 and think "When the hell did I mix that up?", just throw the whole drat thing away. that's one reason why i will always prefer one shot developers. rodinal 4ever
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 18:57
|
|
|
Yeah, I should be clearer: I knew it was no good to use. Year-old stock solution ain't gonna cut it. The problem was the smell. Eau de mass grave. Yick. And the three shades of dark orange ooze didn't help things either.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 19:21
|
|
|
Does anyone have trouble with 35mm Tri X curling very badly? Not like it's trying to curl back like it was in the cannister (well, no more than any other film), but curling around it's length. Like it's trying to make a 6 foot long burrito. My negative holder for my scanner can't keep it flat and I get newton rings from the scanner glass sometimes. Anyway, I've got it in negative sleeves under a heavy book to see if that helps. I'm giving it another shot as I only used it when I didn't know what I was doing (not that I'm pro at it now) and didn't like the results. Now, other than the newton rings, I'm I liking it. I really like the way HP5 prints, but I'm not overly impressed with my scans of it, Tri X seems to be scanning much better and I'll try a few prints from it later to see how that goes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 04:34
|
|
|
Yes my Tri-X always curls like that at first. Just flatten it out and it'll be fine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 04:45
|
|
|
I find putting Tri-X in sleeves just before it dries completely and putting something heaving on it helps much more than doing the same when it's dry.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 05:11
|
|
|
I usually roll it up backwards and stick it in a film cannister for a few hours. Its fine after that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 05:14
|
|
|
PushingKingston posted:I find putting Tri-X in sleeves just before it dries completely and putting something heaving on it helps much more than doing the same when it's dry. I find that it sticks a lot trying to get it in a sleeve when it's not dry and I'm afraid that I'll damage it  FasterThanLight posted:I usually roll it up backwards and stick it in a film cannister for a few hours. Its fine after that. I might give this a try next time I do it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 05:18
|
|
|
PushingKingston posted:I find putting Tri-X in sleeves just before it dries completely When I accidentally do that I end up with film stuck to the sleeve. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 05:24
|
|
|
FasterThanLight posted:I usually roll it up backwards and stick it in a film cannister for a few hours. Its fine after that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 05:29
|
|
|
All film spends 24 hours between my copies of Bystander: The History of Street Photography and New Topographics before being scanned. I also have a press made with balsa wood and 4 spring clamps for problem negatives.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 07:08
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:When I accidentally do that I end up with film stuck to the sleeve. Be patient and let 'em dry properly first! (I've learnt the hard way too). My way is to just let the full roll hang in a low dust area and dry with a peg on the end for a day or two, seems to help a lot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 13:09
|
|
|
I love Velvia. I'm not good at using it, yet, but I love it. Too bad it's so drat expensive (and processing costs!  ). Fuji Velvia 50 Late Winter-3 by Execudork, on Flickr  Fuji Velvia 50 Late Winter-15 by Execudork, on Flickr  Fuji Velvia Colour and Exposure-5 by Execudork, on Flickr  Fuji Velvia Colour and Exposure-6 by Execudork, on Flickr In related news, I have acquired a Tetenal E-6 kit, so I'm accumulating slide rolls to eventually develop all at once. Am I right in thinking that E-6 is similar to C-41 in that the film fits the process, unlike B&W where you have to adjust developing times to fit different film speeds? I've got (so far) ISO 50 and ISO 100 slide film, and I'll pick up a few more rolls in a month or two, does it matter what speed it is as far as my home processing is concerned? \/\/\/ Cool, thanks! ExecuDork fucked around with this message at 04:48 on Apr 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2012 03:40
|
|
|
You assume correctly, processing is uniform for all speeds.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2012 03:42
|
|
|
got my 8x10 portra back from the lab. these negatives are so pretty
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2012 04:05
|
|
|
So I got that Tri X scanned in, I'm happy with the results. I exposed it at 800 then looked at the documentation. Kodak says process normally for 800 and to do it for 3.5 minutes in HC-110(B). I thought this was way to short so I got on the internet to see about using dillution H or something. Evidently there is a lot of drama about this HC-110 and Tri X times. Anyway, a lot of people were saying they do Tri X in dilution B anywhere from 5 minutes to 6.5. I figured I'd do it for 7 minutes since I underexposed a stop just to give it a little bump and I think the results turned out well. Anyway, here are a couple examples.   Also, tried a roll of HP5 pushed to 1600. It comes out pretty drat grainy. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2012 04:21
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:Also, tried a roll of HP5 pushed to 1600. It comes out pretty drat grainy. Let me tell you about grain 
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2012 04:58
|
|
|
penneydude posted:Let me tell you about grain Wow, that is quite striking - it almost looks like pointillism, and also it looks completely unlike any kind of digital grain that I've seen, ever. Especially how it still manages to preserve some of the feeling depth around the fingers, very grainy digital pictures usually look "flat" to me. Or is this how it is processed? Also it was obviously pushed - what speed was that, which film? VomitOnLino fucked around with this message at 05:33 on Apr 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2012 05:30
|
|
|
grainchat 2012  
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2012 17:40
|
|
is go
|
Hell yeah! ^^^VomitOnLino posted:Wow, that is quite striking - it almost looks like pointillism, and also it looks completely unlike any kind of digital grain that I've seen, ever. Especially how it still manages to preserve some of the feeling depth around the fingers, very grainy digital pictures usually look "flat" to me. Or is this how it is processed? This was HP5+ @ 6400 in Diafine. I was kind of hitting the limits of my scanner too, so there might be some noise from that, but I think most of it is just the film being pissed off that it had to work so hard 
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2012 18:50
|
|
|
From the few samples here so far it looks like HP5+ generally gets more grainy than Tri-X when pushed. Or would it be more a difference in developer used?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2012 19:07
|
|
|
nielsm posted:From the few samples here so far it looks like HP5+ generally gets more grainy than Tri-X when pushed. Or would it be more a difference in developer used? Not sure, I used HC-110 for both the TX@800 and HP5@1600 photos I posted above. I've found that scans of HP5 seem to be more grainy than the prints I make from the same exposure, so that could make a difference here too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2012 19:11
|
|
|
My five dollar garage-sale Kodak Duaflex IV is proving to be probably the best networking investment I've ever made. Maybe it's haunted by a lucky old man ghost or something.  Walking around with this goofy thing hanging around my neck starts a LOT of conversations with older folks. "Oh man, I remember those from when I was a kid! People still shoot film? Wow!" It's prompted invitations to two solo gallery shows so far. Today, I was wandering around taking some shots around town, still had it on me when I went to a big hardware store on an errand. One of the employees asked me about it, then asked for my phone number - she offered a free unspecified 35mm enlarger and a bunch of old cameras, including an unspecified stereo camera. Her kids didn't want to use that stuff and she wants someone to use them still. At the checkout counter, an older gentleman stopped me to ask what I was shooting with and if I still developed my own film. He said he worked for Agfa for quite awhile, then asked if I'd be interested in buying an Epson scanner for $700, said he didn't need it anymore - he didn't say what model it was, but I'd guess the V700 or V750 at that price range. I said I couldn't afford that, he asked what I did for a living, I told him I'm an art teacher and told him about the kids' photo workshops I've been teaching... and he dropped the price to sixty dollars. Said he'll call me in two weeks when he's back in town along with a big box of other photo gear he wants to get rid of for free. A pair of pictures I've taken with the Duaflex awhile ago:  
Dr. Cogwerks fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Apr 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2012 01:36
|
|
|
im going to big sur for a few days alone tomorrow: gunna shoot the pan f on my zenit, fwiw
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2012 18:57
|
|
|
I too want a texas leica.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 12:26
|
|
|
get one. the 90 is maybe my favorite camera.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 14:49
|
|
|
This is sort of a cross-post from the long exposure thread... I'm planning to go out Friday night for the Lyrids meteor shower and try some absurdly long exposures. So long as I take reciprocity failure into account, doing this with B/W film should work just fine, yes? Any advice from someone who has tried this before?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2012 05:34
|
|
|
moonduck posted:This is sort of a cross-post from the long exposure thread... I don't see why it wouldn't work. I'm not into astro stuff though, so no personal experience beyond some night landscapes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2012 07:25
|
|
|
What is a good and cheap 35mm rangefinder. I was playing with a friends leica the other day and now I want a rangefinder to call my own. Sadly, there is no way in hell I can afford a leica, so I'm wondering what other good options are out there. Fully manual is fine and actually kind of preferred. I do a fair bit of pushing, and I ran into problems with cameras like the xa
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2012 18:50
|
|
|
Demon_Corsair posted:What is a good and cheap 35mm rangefinder. I was playing with a friends leica the other day and now I want a rangefinder to call my own. Sadly, there is no way in hell I can afford a leica, so I'm wondering what other good options are out there. I'm not sure what price is too much for you, but you can get a used Voigtlander Bessa + Voigtlander lens for about 1k though. Most of the cheap fixed lens Japanese compact rangefinders from the 70's are AE only, but the Canonet QL17 GIII can be operated full manual. From what I understand the meter gets turned off when you shout it on manual though, which seems silly. Anyway, you can get one for $150 or so.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2012 18:58
|
|
|
What qualifies as "cheap'? You can get a Contax G1 and a lens for under $400. That's about the best dollar/performance ratio out there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2012 19:27
|
|
|
A Zorki 4k with a Jupiter-8 should be good enough to start.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2012 19:31
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:I'm not sure what price is too much for you, but you can get a used Voigtlander Bessa + Voigtlander lens for about 1k though. If we're talking 1K, you could probably find an M2 and an old 50 Summicron for about that much too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2012 19:49
|
|
|
Minolta Hi-Matics should be like $50 and I think are all mechanical aside from the light meter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2012 20:27
|
|
|
Welp, you're not getting a G1 and a lens for $400 anymore. Looks like lens prices have risen substantially from when I got all mine a year and a half ago. I've heard the availability of Micro 4/3 adapters have increased the demand but prices are sky high right now. It was never a cheap system, but it's getting a lot closer to the boutique market prices that it was intended for. Still worth every penny, but definitely not a budget purchase.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2012 20:28
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:I'm not sure what price is too much for you, but you can get a used Voigtlander Bessa + Voigtlander lens for about 1k though. Hell, for $1k you could nearly get a Mamiya 7. My vote for "cheap manual RF" is the Yashica Lynx 14E. It fills many of the same roles as the XA but is a lot less temperamental. It's fully mechanical, no pads of death, Copal leaf shutter, and a fast f/1.4 lens. They used to be in the $60-100 range. Downsides: the lens is supposedly prone to flare in extreme conditions (it's single coated). The counters are often broken, the battery is in the top, and people often leave the battery in until goop gets all over the inside of the RF.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2012 20:50
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Hell, for $1k you could nearly get a Mamiya 7. Well, 1k is cheap compared to an M9 
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2012 20:55
|
|
|
Demon_Corsair posted:What is a good and cheap 35mm rangefinder. I was playing with a friends leica the other day and now I want a rangefinder to call my own. Sadly, there is no way in hell I can afford a leica, so I'm wondering what other good options are out there. Get a Zorki 6. Mine came with a collapsible 50mm for around a hundred bucks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2012 03:38
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Get a Zorki 6. Mine came with a collapsible 50mm for around a hundred bucks. Zorki 4Ks are a much more solid purchase because the design isn't as shaky.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2012 04:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 01:59 |
|
|
I've got a FED2 (a Leica II copy) with a "new" Jupiter 8-1, really enjoy shooting with that. Another good one is the Minolta Hi-Matic 7sii, got a Rokkor f/1.7 has a meter but can be used in fully mechanical mode if you don't have a battery. If you're interested in the Russian copies check out: http://fedka.com/catalog/ You're guaranteed to get a working model in good nick, but you pay a premium.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2012 04:40
|
|