|
Martytoof posted:I've always been weirded out by steel tanks, but there's a camera shop by my house that has a bunch of used ones that I've been eyeing. If you see a metal Nikor spiral 4x5 tank, remember: whatever you do, don't use it. It belongs to me. Buy it for me.
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 04:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 11:45 |
|
|
Well my initial check didn't reveal any obvious brand names I'd recognize. They were mostly just big steel tanks that looked the same. But I'll get some pics next time I go 
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 05:08
|
|
|
If Omega's what the shop's got for stainless gear, make sure they have a liberal return policy if you buy anything. OmegaSatter's quality control on their lower-end Chinese lines is atrocious. Poorly-sealing tanks, reels out of round, reels that aren't parallel, solder balls in the film path, film clips either completely soldered to the core or soldered on backward... so, so bad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 08:37
|
|
|
Confirmed that Velvia's pretty much dead 
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 16:37
|
|
|
at least we'll not always have 35mm and 120
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 17:31
|
|
|
That's not really anything new though, is it? Just looks like someone's blog speculating the same as what we saw yesterday, but no official word.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 17:44
|
|
|
Yeah, that post has been up since yesterday, it's just citing the BJP report from the UK.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 18:07
|
|
|
Is there a big spreadsheet-y list of film makers and all the products they make? If not that seems like it might be a cool project to do. Just to show people what's available at a glance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 23:04
|
|
|
I couldn't find any ISO/ASA200 film for my PEN-EES but the store did have some Kodak Ultramax 400 so I grabbed that to feed to my Pentax Super ME. Would bad things happen if I shoved a roll of ultramax in my PEN-EES which has a light meter that tops out at ASA200 or would I just waste a roll of film?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2012 00:01
|
|
|
Miso Beno posted:I couldn't find any ISO/ASA200 film for my PEN-EES but the store did have some Kodak Ultramax 400 so I grabbed that to feed to my Pentax Super ME. Would bad things happen if I shoved a roll of ultramax in my PEN-EES which has a light meter that tops out at ASA200 or would I just waste a roll of film? You'd probably get some slightly dense and extra saturated pictures. Most negative film still gives decent pictures even when exposure is off by one stop. Next time, grab some Portra 160.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2012 00:08
|
|
|
Think it through. The meter maxes out at ISO 200, your film is ISO 400. Thus, you're talking about a one-stop overexposure, plus any exposure error. Should be within the capabilities of negative film.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2012 00:16
|
|
|
They're still making velvia 100 in all sizes, and that's the better velvia imo
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2012 00:26
|
|
|
Isn't consumer film pretty much expected to be run through fixed-exposure point and shoots anyway? If one stop made any difference at all that'd put it right out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2012 00:38
|
|
|
I once shot a roll of 200 film at 100 by accident. I then put a roll of 200 in and re-shot as many of the photos as I could. When it was all said and done, I honestly couldn't tell the difference between the two.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2012 01:32
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Think it through. The meter maxes out at ISO 200, your film is ISO 400. Thus, you're talking about a one-stop overexposure, plus any exposure error. Should be within the capabilities of negative film. That's true. I've just never done any shooting with C41 before.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2012 05:04
|
|
|
Miso Beno posted:That's true. I've just never done any shooting with C41 before. No problem, I'm just trying to walk you through the thought process so you can answer questions like that on your own. If you're new and want to learn more about the technical side of how this stuff works, I cannot encourage you to read Ansel Adams' The Negative strongly enough. It's literally the only photo book I've paid money for and it was worth every cent.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2012 05:24
|
|
|
nemoulette posted:drat it, got burned on the Zorki 4K. Fantastic camera to play around with... However, the shutter curtains are dragging terribly at anything slower than 1/125, so I'll have to ask for a refund and hope for a better one next time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2012 10:47
|
|
|
Is it just tensioning maybe? I think rangefinder forums have a sticky about doing shutter tensioning on fed/zorkis in the FSU subforum. God I've practically lived at RFF over the past three weeks, I just realized. Pretty psyched about my Zorki and FED 
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2012 16:36
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Is it just tensioning maybe? I think rangefinder forums have a sticky about doing shutter tensioning on fed/zorkis in the FSU subforum.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2012 16:59
|
|
|
Quick breakaway from the camera-chat. I found out yesterday that the "DigitalTruth" massive dev chart contains some very large and possibly disastrous errors. I was using their app for what it's worth. I was developing Delta 400 in X-tol 1+1, which the chart pegs at 11:30 mins, but Ilford's own packaging (which I luckily also checked out) out states 8:30 minutes for the same dilution and temperature. Unless they changed their formulation quite recently I find this 3minute discrepancy to be worrisome at best. I developed it at Ilford's specified 8:30 and it had very good overall density. Any thoughts on this?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 01:51
|
|
|
I've only ever used their app for Ilfosol 3 and HC-110 and my results were favourable, but I don't doubt that there could be big errors in there. I think they have a forum where you could bring it up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 01:54
|
|
|
VomitOnLino posted:Quick breakaway from the camera-chat. Digitaltruth's development chart is user submitted so someone somewhere likes that time for xtol.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 03:12
|
|
|
There are many variables like water temperature, water quality and agitation intensity that go into development times. Ilford's times are probably a "cover our butts" average.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 03:24
|
|
|
VomitOnLino posted:Quick breakaway from the camera-chat. The Massive Dev Chart is a helpful tool but by no means the end-all, be-all. Actually, I take that back: the Massive Dev Chart was once a helpful tool, but you've discovered one of its biggest shortcomings as time has marched on. The entries are neither dated nor well curated. If an entry ever existed in the table, it's still in the table, you have no idea when the hell it's from, and the majority lack notes. Ilford did reformulate their emulsions—almost ten years ago. If you look up any Ilford film (XP obviously excluded), you'll get way old Ilford box times, "modern" (ten year old) Ilford box times, and a slew of user times for one emulsion or the other, generally with no indication what's what. There are other brand films that have been reformulated more often and the chart may as well just list zero to infinity minutes. Molten Llama fucked around with this message at 03:53 on Jul 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 03:50
|
|
|
I'm trying to read The Negative and it's seriously the most dry book I've read in a while. My ADD is making it borderline unreadable I just want to know things
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 04:00
|
|
|
Spot meter a shadow, spot meter a highlight, note the number of stops difference. Subtract two stops from the shadow reading, use that for your exposure. If the highlights are more than four stops higher than the shadows, develop 1/3 less time for each stop you need to pull it down. If the highlights are less than four stops higher than the shadows, develop 1/3 more time for each stop you need to push it up. Voila, you've just read The Negative and have learned the Ansel Adams' Patented Zone System. But in a real-world scenario, especially in a roll film scenario, I usually meter where I want zone III to be (shadows with detail), drop that reading two stops, expose, and develop as normal. Negative film has a good deal of latitude when it comes to developing and scanning, so it hasn't incredibly failed me yet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 13:18
|
|
|
Acros 100 in 120 expired in '08 kept in a 'dark cool room' (read: unrefrigerated): good deal at $2/roll in bulk? I have a decent stockpile already, and fresh rebranded Fomapan 100 from Freestyle is only like $3/roll after shipping.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 21:29
|
|
|
Anyone here with a FED-2 with a mushroom-cap style film advance knob? I'm trying to disassemble mine but I can't tell exactly where the grub screw should be in the hole. Is it embedded deep in the knob or is it right at the entrance to the screw hole? I can't really find any evidence that there is even a screw in there and I'm starting to suspect that the last person to disassemble this camera just epoxied the knob on or something 
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 04:54
|
|
|
On my FED-2 the grub screw is recessed about 1mm in the screw hole, definitely not flush with the side of the winder.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 09:26
|
|
|
It being as light as it is, I decided to run a roll of Ultramax through the Zorki anyway. In some pictures, there's a bit of what I thought was a light leak but doesn't seem to look like regular ones, and, besides, it only showed in some. Any ideas? Fine:  Wonky:   (If I decide to keep it / fix the curtain problem I mentioned previously, I almost want it to be fixable by tape because a blacked up rangefinder would be awesome).
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 17:19
|
|
|
Spedman posted:On my FED-2 the grub screw is recessed about 1mm in the screw hole, definitely not flush with the side of the winder. Ugh. I rather suspect that the last person to own my camera just up and glued the film advance knob onto the shaft. I don't see any evidence of a grub screw at all Oh well. I was hoping to disassemble the whole kit to clean the RF window, but I will probably just settle for an RF adjustment. Thanks for the info!
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 19:11
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:
I just wanted to circle back and say holy crap 72 frames takes FOREVER to shoot. After I upgrade DSLR bodies I'll snag an Epson v600.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 20:53
|
|
Pen buddies
|
Miso Beno posted:I just wanted to circle back and say holy crap 72 frames takes FOREVER to shoot. After I upgrade DSLR bodies I'll snag an Epson v600. I actually consider this an advantage of medium format. 10, 12, or 15 shots a roll means you get to see your pics sooner without individually handling every shot like large format.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 21:01
|
|
|
Man_of_Teflon posted:Acros 100 in 120 expired in '08 kept in a 'dark cool room' (read: unrefrigerated): good deal at $2/roll in bulk? First, Fomapan is poo poo, don't use it. Second, you can get fresh Acros for $3.20 per roll from Adorama. Is it worth it? You decide.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 23:19
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:I actually consider this an advantage of medium format. 10, 12, or 15 shots a roll means you get to see your pics sooner without individually handling every shot like large format. Since I have started shooting medium format, I can't stand 36 exposure rolls of 35mm anymore. It takes forever to finish one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 03:35
|
|
|
I don't know if I should post this in the film thread or the general thread, but it seems to be more film camera and manual focus related, so there. I was curious how exactly split prism and microprism focusing screens work, took me a while of googling around but I managed to get this extensive paper on it. Maybe someone else will find it interesting, too: http://www.scribd.com/doc/266790/Pr...-Reflex-Cameras
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 04:19
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:First, Fomapan is poo poo, don't use it. I must admit to rather liking Fomapan 400 and 100 in 4x5 with some Rodinal, and the 400 in 35mm for pushing the poo poo out of to 3200 also in Rodinal. It makes shooting a bit less pricey too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 05:15
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Since I have started shooting medium format, I can't stand 36 exposure rolls of 35mm anymore. It takes forever to finish one. This is also seriously why I am contemplating getting a bulk film loader and a dozen cans. Ten or twelve shot rolls. In and out of the tank ASAP. I know I'll be wasting some film .. well, probably a LOT of film .. but I shoot so infrequently these days that to be frank it would probably still take me a year to go through a bulk roll. The second I can find an AP loader secondhand for under $50 I am going to hop to bulk loading. I don't like the Watson ones. They seem to waste more film than even I'm comfortable with.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 05:18
|
|
|
I just picked up two rolls of 120 Ilford 100 ASA that I'm really excited about. I've been shooting the Red digital camera all semester at school and I need some god drat film in my life again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2012 19:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 11:45 |
|
|
I was recently on vacation and my grandpa gave me his old camera setup: A Canon FTb, 50mm lens, 28mm lens, 2 135mm lenses, a 85-205mm lens and a set of filters. I've been wanting to get started on film photography, and this setup gives me the opportunity I've been waiting for. I've never shot film before, and was wondering what kinds of film would be good to start on? There's a place near where I live that develops all types of film, so development isn't an issue with color or anything. Also, any equipment I might need; I have a tripod, but it's a little too bulky for me to carry around.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2012 01:04
|
|
