|
Brag: got a changing bag so I don't have to duct tape my bathroom closed to unload film Beat: my forearms don't fit in the arm holes Variance: cut arm holes twice as big, used duct tape from above to reseal the bag 
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 10:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 09:30 |
|
|
8th-samurai posted:^^ That is exactly want those lines are. I get them frequently on a V600. Clean the glass on the top of the scanner, don't forget the glass in the lid.  Did exactly this and it fixed the problem, I'll make sure to clean the top glass every time I can from now on. Thanks guys!
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 14:48
|
|
|
Mest0r posted:
If you want to be super lazy you can just clean the part closest the to hinge. You know that notch on the film holders? That's the calibration area.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 16:55
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Not to be a dick and directly contradict pennydude, but I'm thinking it could be a scratch on the negative. Nah it's cool, I just said that because the far-right one looked a little too wide to be a scratch.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 17:49
|
|
|
So I was looking at the massive dev chart today and there are times for FP4 and Xtol at ISO 1000. I was under the impression that FP4 was only good for a 1 stop push. I really like FP4, but sometimes it would be nice to get a bit more speed out of it (1000 is a bit extreme, I'll just use Tri X if I need that much). Has anyone pushed FP4 to 500 or higher and have some samples they care to show? I imagine the contrast gets out of control pretty fast, but I'd like to see.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 23:05
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Point the dome at the light source, not the camera :-) The camera was not setup in position, it was resting on a bench 15 feet away. And whenever I've done this I've not been "aiming at the camera" so to speak, but trying to place the dome in the same light source as my subject. I still get inaccurate results! For instance, I turned my desk lamp on just now, rested the meter on its back pointing up towards the light and took a meter reading. It suggested at ISO 1600 and f/2.8 a shutter speed of 1/60. I then took out my gray card and swapped its place with the meter, and used my old analog to measure a reflective reading off the gray card. It suggested at ISO 1600 and f/2.8 a shutter speed of 1/500. 1/60 was so overblown that it was an unusable picture. 1/500 was virtually perfect. When I was looking through the viewfinder of my dslr with its matrix meter, (without any of the meters on the desk but the materials), it thought 1/500 was just a hare too bright and needed to come down a little - I think because there was some paper mixed up among the junk and it saw a bright source and wanted to overcompensate. It would have preferred 1/640 probably. Either way, 1/500 was nearly perfect. And this has been typical of my experiences using my handheld meters. I'm just not getting the right readings from the Sekonic, even when I follow the directions to-the-tee from the manufacturer's own website and manual. I wonder if there's something wrong with it or if it's me. I don't know. At this point, I just don't trust the drat thing. It's one thing if I'm shooting digital pictures and I can re-do it, but I mostly shoot film now and I can't afford any major exposure mistakes.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 00:32
|
|
|
When shutter speed matters you are dealing with ambient light, but it sounds like you might be using the meter in a flash metering mode.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 00:42
|
|
|
nielsm posted:When shutter speed matters you are dealing with ambient light, but it sounds like you might be using the meter in a flash metering mode. Yes, I am trying to measure ambient light. No, it is not in flash mode or spot-meter mode.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 01:14
|
|
|
Is your globe extended or retracted?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 03:00
|
|
|
Extended. But I've experimented with both and it doesn't make a difference.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 04:22
|
|
|
penneydude posted:Nah it's cool, I just said that because the far-right one looked a little too wide to be a scratch.  Yeah, it didn't really look like any scratch on my negs, but I couldn't think of any other possibilities. Dirt on the scanner glass!  I didn't even know there *was* a calibration area. 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 05:47
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:So I was looking at the massive dev chart today and there are times for FP4 and Xtol at ISO 1000. Honestly this just sounds like a bad idea. If you have Tri-X, use Tri-X at its normal ISO. You're giving up dynamic range/tonality and increasing contrast. There's no real advantage to doing it this way.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 05:52
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:
penneydude fucked around with this message at 06:31 on May 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 06:22
|
|
|
So I've got to admit, I've never shot film before, but I've been drat anxious to pick it up. I like to think I take my photography somewhat seriously, but I'll be damned if I'm going to drive myself into debt just to buy AF lenses and build a decent portfolio. Hell, I wish they never did away with manual aperture. I'm already more than happy working with what I've got, but I can't ignore how hot the film aesthetic gets me. I'm sick of noise reduction and clipping whites. tl;dr I was browsing through Craiglist and caught a guy selling a Leica R4 with a motor drive and hand grip for $150 OBO. I know I'm serious about developing a starved portfolio as is, and I'd love to have some film on it. Is this an "oh poo poo why don't you own it already" deal or should I pass on it? 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 10:04
|
|
|
$150 is a normal price for a R4 body. But are you sure you want to lock yourself into not cheap leica glass if money is at all a issue? R lenses are still at least a few hundred a piece. M42, Pentax-K, Canon FD and Nikon F are all much easier to find affordable lenses for.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 10:53
|
|
|
More importantly, how broke are you? Shooting film is hideously expensive. I am all for people buying film gear and shooting film but seriously don't waste the money on a Leica is you are only gonna shoot a couple of rolls and move back to digital. What system are you shooting now? You can probably find an old consumer 35mm body for it very cheap. Then once you have the infrastructure built up buy a good body or even better a medium format camera. What do I mean by infrastructure? We had an IRC discussion not long about the associated costs of being a film shooter. Film stock, development, scanning, scanning software that doesn't suck rear end, film holders that don't make you want to die, and negative storage. A scanner will pay for it's self after a few rolls and if you can't afford to buy one you can't afford to shoot film. I think all that ^^ stuff is gonna go in the OP.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 11:13
|
|
|
Where is this IRC channel? While i agree shooting film is more expensive than it initially seems you can keep the costs fairly low. Yes you need a lot of development gear but you can pick up a entire darkroom with all the tanks containers flasks etc you need for $50 (enlarger included), people can't wait to get rid of that "crap". If you buy the chemistry smart and stick to B&W you can get started with about $30 in chemistry. A lot of old scanners are cheap because Windows Vista/7 don't have driver support for them, you could pick one of those up for next to nothing.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 11:40
|
|
|
#creatives on irc.synirc.net. Yes, B&W is cheap to get into but color starts adding up. I budget up to $100 a month for film and dev costs (don't always hit that).
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 14:56
|
|
|
Yeah, I went back and started looking at R-glass last night. ...And about 3 seconds later went back to the previous idea of Nikon F-mount. Thanks for the heads up, just had to ask the forum, but I'll leave questions like that for IRC in the future. Honestly, I tend to budget a decent amount towards lens/gear rentals as a digital cinema student and figured this is the best way to sate an old craving for filmstock while feeling  rather than I've got a friend who's been shooting B/W on a Nikon FM10 for a while, I'm guessing it'd be a solid start for me too. I've got a 60D, Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, Canon EF-S 60mm Macro f/2.8, lovely 18-135 kit lens, and 50mm f/1.8 -- I've already budgeted some money aside to sell the body for a 7D and can't stand zooms shorter than telephoto, but this was a side project more for building a portfolio sans-lightroom. Thanks for the advice, any major brands to watch out for while hunting for darkroom gear @ 35mm?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 17:13
|
|
|
You have a Canon EF 50mm just get the best EOS film camera you are willing to buy. I think film Rebels are super cheap.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 17:37
|
|
|
Menorah on Fire posted:Thanks for the advice, any major brands to watch out for while hunting for darkroom gear @ 35mm? Beseler, Omega, Durst If you've already got all that eos glass, why not go for an eos film body? You could use all the same lenses you do for your digital. The be all end all is the eos-3, but they made a ton of bodies that use the EF mount. Just try to avoid the super cheap ones as they sometimes have a problem with the shutter sticking. whereismyshoe fucked around with this message at 17:59 on May 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 17:38
|
|
|
Truth be told, I'm super-gay for a manual aperture and relatively sick of AF lenses. I was considering the Samyang/Rokinon/Bower/God Knows What Else 35mm f/1.4 for video purposes alone -- the fluid iris version makes me lose my pants. And I figured that given the massive surplus of F-mount, it might not kill me to find an adapter to EOS if I fall madly in love with any lenses. Hell, I'm just trying to move away from auto-everything and get back to composing my shots more. I'm already used to spending too much time on a terrible lighting set-up for video, I don't mind spending a little longer framing my shots if they're going to come out better (and cost more on film anyway). e: If it's worth mentioning, I really want to be rid of everything I've got already safe for the 60mm macro. Zooms annoy the hell out of me and the Tamron & 18-135 are probably getting sold in the next month; the nifty fifty is my "I haven't picked you up in forever" lens, but I'm far from in love with it. e2: And thanks so much for the advice. Really. Never meant to derail the thread with OH GOD HOW DO I SHOT FILM 
Menorah on Fire fucked around with this message at 18:14 on May 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 18:08
|
|
|
Honestly, in my time i've found so much more canon FD-mount stuff than F mount nikon. The Canon AE-1 with the FD 50/1.8 is pretty much the gold standard for "i wanna shoot film" people and they're pretty abundant. search around KEH and pick what you like.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 18:11
|
|
|
Just buy a Pentax K1000 and an SMC 50 1.4 and be done with it 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 18:23
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:You have a Canon EF 50mm just get the best EOS film camera you are willing to buy. I think film Rebels are super cheap.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 18:25
|
|
|
Menorah on Fire posted:Truth be told, I'm super-gay for a manual aperture and relatively sick of AF lenses. I was considering the Samyang/Rokinon/Bower/God Knows What Else 35mm f/1.4 for video purposes alone -- the fluid iris version makes me lose my pants. Just make sure to buy something whose lenses are adaptable to your camera for video purposes.  I went through a slew of manual focus brands and bodies when I first hopped over to film from digital. I got a Canon AE-1 w/ a 55 F/1.2, 50 F/1.8, 28 F/2.8, and a Sears brand 70-210 F/4. Then I started looking around and I picked up a Pentax-Honeywell Spotmatic M42 mount w/ a Super Tak 50 1.4 and a 55 F/1.9. I tried a Minolta X-700 and bought in big. 28 F/2.8, 40 F/2, 58 F/1.4, and a 75-150 F/4. I used, loved and sold them all. I ended up getting a great deal on an EOS 3. I used it w/ my EF 50 F/1.4 and 430EX and never looked back. It gave me all the features I wanted, was compatible with my EF lenses and flashes. Sadly, I haven't used it since I sold my 1DII and 50 F/1.4 and went back to crop body and lenses.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 18:26
|
|
|
FYI Menorah on Fire, I got my 50mm Summicron for $100, 35mm Elmarit for $110 and 180mm Tele Elmar for $200. I bought my first R4 Body in 2004 for $200, but I got a second one in 2010 as a backup for $100. About the only thing I spent any real money on is my R8 body, which is my main SLR. Deals can be had on R glass and bodies, so don't be frightened away from a VERY good system.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 18:44
|
|
|
I hear the Nikon F3 being mentioned a lot more than the F4..any reason? from what i've gathered the F4 is pretty much an autofocus upgrade for the F3. (or, if you're ken rockwell, the greatest thing to happen in the world of film photography or photography ever besides the daguerrotype) whereismyshoe fucked around with this message at 18:59 on May 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 18:52
|
|
|
50mm 'crons are going for like $400 on KEH. drat those people adapting R lenses to other systems driving up the price  (I want one for my D700).
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 18:54
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:50mm 'crons are going for like $400 on KEH. drat those people adapting R lenses to other systems driving up the price The only thing I've been bummed out at not being able to find a deal on (yet) is the 90mm F2 Summicron. That one just keeps going up and up. And I know I'd be able to use the hell out of it.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 19:10
|
|
|
whereismyshoe posted:I hear the Nikon F3 being mentioned a lot more than the F4..any reason? from what i've gathered the F4 is pretty much an autofocus upgrade for the F3. F-F2-F3 is a pretty natural progression. The F4 is a separate beast entirely, with built-in motor-drive and auto-focus. It's my favorite camera that I own (F4S), and easily the most reliable, most ergonomic, just... can't say enough good things about it. If I can ever find a split-prism focusing screen for it, it'll be the perfect camera. Oh, but to answer your question - the F3 is smaller and less bulky, and doesn't require a bunch of AA batteries to run. It serves a different purpose, and if I didn't get a Pentax ME Super as my carryaround camera, I'd get an F3. Count Thrashula fucked around with this message at 19:14 on May 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 19:11
|
|
|
I have an F3 and it's the last 35mm SLR I will ever buy (probably). It's small, tough, fully featured, and looks rad as hell. I highly recommend them to anyone considering a manual focus Nikon body.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 19:16
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:FYI Menorah on Fire, I got my 50mm Summicron for $100, 35mm Elmarit for $110 and 180mm Tele Elmar for $200. I bought my first R4 Body in 2004 for $200, but I got a second one in 2010 as a backup for $100. About the only thing I spent any real money on is my R8 body, which is my main SLR. Deals can be had on R glass and bodies, so don't be frightened away from a VERY good system.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 19:21
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:F-F2-F3 is a pretty natural progression. The F4 is a separate beast entirely, with built-in motor-drive and auto-focus. It's my favorite camera that I own (F4S), and easily the most reliable, most ergonomic, just... can't say enough good things about it. If I can ever find a split-prism focusing screen for it, it'll be the perfect camera. Won't a F3 focusing screen work in an F4? I know the reverse is true, but I don't if the F3 screen will mess with the AF on the F4. Anyway, I love my F3. EDIT: It's expensive, but... http://www.ebay.com/itm/NIKON-F4-CA...d#ht_600wt_1130
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 19:21
|
|
|
FasterThanLight posted:How long ago was that? From what I've noticed, anything Leica (including R, M, or LTM) has pretty consistently doubled in value vs what it cost only 2 or 3 years ago. Used to be that you could find a decent v3 or even v4 Summicron for under $500, now the only thing you can get for that much are the old collapsible ones with fungus. I think I bought the 180mm in late 2010 and the 35mm in early 2011. So it's been at least a year. Bought both new bodies (R8 and backup R4) in late 2010 as well.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 19:57
|
|
|
Menorah on Fire posted:I've got a friend who's been shooting B/W on a Nikon FM10 for a while, I'm guessing it'd be a solid start for me too. I've got a 60D, Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, Canon EF-S 60mm Macro f/2.8, lovely 18-135 kit lens, and 50mm f/1.8 -- I've already budgeted some money aside to sell the body for a 7D and can't stand zooms shorter than telephoto, but this was a side project more for building a portfolio sans-lightroom. Get a F3 or a FM-2 instead if you want manual Nikon lenses. Or the Pentax-K, Pentax Spotmatic, or Canon FD systems are all very comparable as well. The only note I have is that FD can't be adapted to EOS.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 22:59
|
|
|
My F3 is my second favorite SLR behind my R8. It's an amazing piece of kit.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 00:06
|
|
|
Menorah on Fire posted:Thanks for the heads up, just had to ask the forum, but I'll leave questions like that for IRC in the future. There's a Rebel 2000 for sale in my area for $110, comes with a kit zoom of some kind (28-90mm perhaps). This is pretty typical. Lose the kit zoom (literally, it's probably worth less than the hassle of selling it), stick your 50mm on it, be happy. As far as old-school, manual-everything-is-the-only-way-to-go, pick a brand, set your budget to $100, and go to town. I have a weakness for early-to-mid 80's film gear, in the last year or so I've picked up a Pentax ME Super, a Pentax ZX-7 (AF, from mid-90's), a Canon AE-1, my dad's old Konica FC-1, and a handful of lenses for my Minolta X-700 that I've had since 1998. And I'm currently the leading bid on an ebay auction for a Pentax MX. Careful, it's easy to build up a tolerance in your gear lust / addiction when it's always $50 here, $100 there instead of $500 being the minimum threshold. Sounds like you're already enthused about Nikon. Good, go for it! This goes out the window, apparently, if you live in south western Australia. Speaking of which, is XTimmy still around, or did he fall into a raging river in Borneo?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 02:04
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:You have a Canon EF 50mm just get the best EOS film camera you are willing to buy. I think film Rebels are super cheap. Downside is that EOS bodies don't have a split screen and microprisms to aid with manual focussing and the cheaper ones use pentamirrors instead of a pentaprism. I started film with a Eos 300 but i can't stand that thing now. At least get something with a proper pentaprism, large viewfinder and focussing aids. A 50mm isn't that big a of a investment and most 2nd hand bodies you pick up have one attached. I love my Fujica ST605N that i got for €5 (m42). Look around and see what you find. edit: if you are considering older bodies and want to use the internal lightmeter another concern should be battery availability. PX625 batteries can be easily replaced with a 20 cent 675 size hearing aid battery. However for something like a Pentax Spotmatic you pretty much have to buy the $10 Wein Cells. Other models yet take the universally available SR44/AG13/357 batteries. ExecuDork posted:There's a Rebel 2000 for sale in my area for $110, comes with a kit zoom of some kind (28-90mm perhaps). This is pretty typical. Lose the kit zoom (literally, it's probably worth less than the hassle of selling it), stick your 50mm on it, be happy. Maybe i just live in the land of implausibly cheap gear or something. I bought my EOS 300 (=rebel 2000) for €10 including the poo poo kit lens. I could pick up old EOS bodies for €20 all day long. NihilismNow fucked around with this message at 10:52 on May 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 10:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 09:30 |
|
|
whereismyshoe posted:I hear the Nikon F3 being mentioned a lot more than the F4..any reason? from what i've gathered the F4 is pretty much an autofocus upgrade for the F3. evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 10:52 on May 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 10:49
|
|