|
squidflakes posted:Ok, I just developed my first batch of 4X5 and I got nothing. Literally nothing on the sheets. I tried putting in two back to back and I'm wondering if maybe I accidentally put them in facing because they were stuck together and were mostly still coated with grey. Watch this youtube video on how to load film. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikOI1XLBxqA Film isn't light safe until it has been fixed. If you're turning on the light during the development that might explain the lack of images
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 00:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 04:56 |
|
|
If they were blank that's developer gently caress up. Turning the lights on would result in black film.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 00:53
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:were mostly still coated with grey. Sounds like they didn't even get fixed then. (If it was "undeveloped emulsion" gray.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 00:53
|
|
|
Emulsion is really goddamn sticky when wet. If you thought the sheets were back-to-back, but were actually touching face-to-face, the wet emulsion surfaces would have basically glued the two sheets together and prevented the developer and fixer from getting in there to do anything useful.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 01:04
|
|
is go
|
Three of the sheets came out completely blank. Just shy of sunglasses dark, completely see-thru, with some very very faint swirls of a slightly darker tone, and one of the sheets had a square shape in the corner that was really dark. I've got a tank and holders just for 4X5, and it said they could be loaded back to back to get 12 sheets in the tank at a time, but I doubt I'll be doing that again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 01:58
|
|
|
It might be pretty wasteful in time and chemicals, but try doing just a single sheet next time, and if you get that right, do 6 at a time. When you get tired of that, try just two sheets back-to-back, and if you get that right try with a full 12.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 02:02
|
|
|
JaundiceDave posted:Watch this youtube video on how to load film. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikOI1XLBxqA Lower right corner? So, they grey side is the emulsion side?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 02:09
|
|
|
There's a shiny/plstic side and a smooth/matte side. The matte side is the emulsion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 02:12
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:There's a shiny/plstic side and a smooth/matte side. The matte side is the emulsion. Twenty sheets. I shot twenty sheets of 4X5 backwards. I... 
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 02:25
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:Twenty sheets. I shot twenty sheets of 4X5 backwards. I... That should still get you pictures, just underexposed and less sharp than they ought to. You shot through the anti-halation layer, simply. I just developed my first roll of Fuji Acros, is it supposed to dye both fixer and wetting agent pale red? I'm especially worrying about the wetting agent, whether I perhaps fixed too little. (From Kodak's films I remember the anti-halation layer mainly turning the developer red.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 02:34
|
|
|
nielsm posted:I just developed my first roll of Fuji Acros, is it supposed to dye both fixer and wetting agent pale red? I'm especially worrying about the wetting agent, whether I perhaps fixed too little. (From Kodak's films I remember the anti-halation layer mainly turning the developer red.) It's some sort of anti halation dye(I think,) that takes a bit to get out. You can wash it out of the film with some hypo and tons of agitation. Or just leave it under running water for a long time. One method leaves you with a slightly more guilty conscious. I pre wet the film when I develop and that seems to help so by the time I get to fixing most of the dye is already out and if it dyes the fix I cant tell, the film base however is still stained. Ferris Bueller fucked around with this message at 10:04 on Apr 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 10:02
|
|
|
I want to play around with some IR film (probably Efke IR 820 aura - http://www.macodirect.de/efke-aura-p-1794.html), and from what I understand I need a red filter. Most people recommend the Hoya R72, but its like $140. Can I get away with a dodgy chinese knockoff (as below), or is IR demanding quality-wise? http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/77mm-IR-...#ht_4188wt_1163
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 10:44
|
|
|
joelcamefalling posted:I want to play around with some IR film (probably Efke IR 820 aura - http://www.macodirect.de/efke-aura-p-1794.html), and from what I understand I need a red filter. Most people recommend the Hoya R72, but its like $140. Can I get away with a dodgy chinese knockoff (as below), or is IR demanding quality-wise? Actually if you really want to skate on the cheap side of things, go to a pro lab and see if they will give you a strip of unexposed, developed slide film. It'll be solid black and works OK as a cheap IR-pass filter. It won't pass any visible light though, so it will slow things right down.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 17:43
|
|
|
Post your film stash 
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 23:44
|
|
|
Want dat film stash.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 00:02
|
|
|
JaundiceDave posted:Post your film stash It belongs in the fridge.   
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 00:37
|
|
|
Huge stocks are not for me. Orange-capped canisters are old Pan F. Loose HP5 roll is the 72 exposure version. I don't know if any of my cameras can actually deal with that.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 00:49
|
|
|
 go frozen or go home e: right next to the fish fillets. yum whereismyshoe fucked around with this message at 01:36 on May 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 01:04
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:looks like your overdue a trip to the film lab.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 01:06
|
|
|
There're two rolls left in each of the boxes. Portra usually sits on a shelf near a heating vent   DSC00669 by patnumber8, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 01:29
|
|
|
ok, just moved stash to freezer. had been meaning to for a while.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 01:34
|
|
|
guidoanselmi posted:looks like your overdue a trip to the film lab. Only five of those exposed rolls are for the lab. I really need to figure out where I stashed my B&W gear during our last move and start working on that back log.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 01:56
|
|
|
Thanks for posting that, when I pulled my film out I realized 1/3 was missing, left sitting out in the garage... We had two bags of Reala, six boxes of Acros, seventy-five rolls of Provia, six boxes of Vericolor sheets, a scattering of 800z and Sensia, a whole galaxy of multi-colored Portras, 400NC, 400UC, 160NC, 160VC, 400 New... also two packs of 100C, two packs of 3000B, two bricks of Legacy Pro, twelve Propacks of Konica Color Professional 160, and two dozen FP4s. Not that we needed all that for this trip, but once you get locked into a serious film collection, the tendency is to push it as far as you can. The only thing that really worried me was the Konica. There is nothing more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of a Konica binge, and I knew we'd get into that rotten stuff pretty soon. Note: AdrenoChrome 100 not pictured due to legal concerns. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 03:43 on May 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 03:39
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Thanks for posting that, when I pulled my film out I realized 1/3 was missing, left sitting out in the garage... haha this is loving awesome
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 03:41
|
|
|
So I finally got some rolls of Ektar 100 developed. I had Walgreens do the CDs for me, just to see what the scans looked like. I also scanned them at home using my Epson 2480. I'm seeing drastic differences in what the photos look like. None of them look like what I would call "good" Here's a side by side comparison in lightroom. (Walgreens on the left, my scan on the right) Neither photo has been messed with at all at this point.  There's obviously more detail in the one I scanned, but the colors don't really look "right" to me in either one. What should I be doing to get better results? Do I need a better scanner?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 03:54
|
|
|
I've found that using Vuescan and locking the film base color usually produces fairly good colors. I'd say your scan looks fine except it's got a bit of a green cast. White balance off the sky highlight in the background, and then just play with the curves on the three channels (adjusting highlights/midpoints/shadows individually for the colors). Unfortunately it's kinda hard to get good consistent color in scans.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 03:59
|
|
|
I guess I should just treat my scan the same way I would treat a "RAW" file from my DSLR and post process it. This is what I came up with after messing about a bit.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 04:14
|
|
|
It must have been the film, because I ran two sheets through the tank today and got... Not the best work, but these are testers to get me practiced with developing.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 04:44
|
|
|
 The lady of the house wanted the kitchen fridge back, so I had to get a little bar fridge for the back room. Lots'o Neopan, Fomapan, Rollei Retro, Instax Wide with some RA-4 chems/paper, with bunches of random stuff.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 10:14
|
|
|
echobucket posted:I guess I should just treat my scan the same way I would treat a "RAW" file from my DSLR and post process it. This is what I came up with after messing about a bit. It still looks pretty saturated which looks like it's killing the tonality on this shot. It's worth noting that Ektar is a VERY low-latitude negative film, it has a tendency to lose tonality if shot more than a stop or so in either direction. It's one of the few negative films that I would say should be shot dead on at the box speed with no intentional variance.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 10:37
|
|
|
About half of my freezer is film.   Edit for list: 35mm: HP5+ Portra 400 Velvia 50 random Kodak/Fuji/rebranded consumer film 120: HP5+ Brick of Portra 400NC Brick of Portra 100T about 30 rolls of New Portra, both 400 and 160 Pro 400 MC Vericolor II VPL Tri-X Plus-X T-Max 100 Provia 100F Provia 400X 4x5: FP4+ HP5+ Acros Astia Provia Velvia NPL 160 Portra 160 Portra 400 Ektachrome Era 100 Instant: Polaroid Pogo Polaroid 669 FP-100C, FP-100C45 FP-3000B, FP-3000B45 MrBlandAverage fucked around with this message at 14:44 on May 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 14:19
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:It still looks pretty saturated which looks like it's killing the tonality on this shot. It's worth noting that Ektar is a VERY low-latitude negative film, it has a tendency to lose tonality if shot more than a stop or so in either direction. It's one of the few negative films that I would say should be shot dead on at the box speed with no intentional variance. Well, I was trying to get the flowers to look at closely as possible to the way they looked to me when I was there. I also processed the digital versions I shot on my D80 first, so I'm sure that's why I processed these to look similar.  Garvan Woodland Gardens 2012 by jdorseydesign, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 14:56
|
|
|
Crossposting from medium/large format thread. Wrapping up a project, Temples of Commerce. Description: quote:Our churches and temples have been replaced with idols of capitalism, worshipped in buildings that have supplanted the cathedrals of old as the centers of our civilization. Working at night with a large format camera and long exposures, I shot these buildings, these Temples of Commerce, trying to reveal their clinical design and their faux-religious aspirations in all their unnerving. disquieting grandeur.  55 Broad Street, NY by JaundiceDave, on Flickr  AT&T, Water Street, NY by JaundiceDave, on Flickr  AT&T, Water Street, NY by JaundiceDave, on Flickr  Off of Water Street, NY by JaundiceDave, on Flickr  Wall Street, NY by JaundiceDave, on Flickr  Wall Street, NY by JaundiceDave, on Flickr  Wall Street, NY by JaundiceDave, on Flickr  Munson Building, NY by JaundiceDave, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2012 02:18
|
|
|
first three are awesome. nice shots.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2012 04:24
|
|
|
I agree with guidoanselmi. This: JaundiceDave posted:
is probably the strongest of the bunch. I feel the highlights could maybe be raised just a tad though.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2012 04:47
|
|
|
 UPS finally showed up 
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 03:00
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:It still looks pretty saturated which looks like it's killing the tonality on this shot. It's worth noting that Ektar is a VERY low-latitude negative film, it has a tendency to lose tonality if shot more than a stop or so in either direction. It's one of the few negative films that I would say should be shot dead on at the box speed with no intentional variance.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 16:28
|
|
|
Speaking of Ektar... 0034_3.jpg by Winston85, on Flickr  0018_19.jpg by Winston85, on Flickr  0002_35.jpg by Winston85, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2012 20:18
|
|
|
We'll all be shooting Ektar in 10 years when slide film is a thing of the past 
GWBBQ fucked around with this message at 01:25 on May 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 01:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 04:56 |
|
|
GWBBQ posted:We'll all be shooting Ektar in 10 years when slide film is a thing of the past 10 years? Pretty optimistic thinking there!
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 01:56
|
|