|
Miso Beno posted:I've fired two rolls Kodak Ultramax 400 of film through my PEN-EES, should I take it to my local Walgreens or do you guys have a preferred lab that you prefer for developing C41? Just be careful if you take it to non-pro lab they don't don't get all confused when the frames come out half the size they "should" be. edit: New page content!  A 4x5 shot. Spedman fucked around with this message at 14:16 on Aug 14, 2012 |
#
?
Aug 14, 2012 13:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 15:17 |
|
|
nemoulette posted:Here's two dumb newbie questions: One of the dials (probably the big one) will move the arm with the little red circle in it. Turn that until the needle points inside that little red circle. Then you'll have all your aperture/shutter speed combos.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2012 15:41
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:One of the dials (probably the big one) will move the arm with the little red circle in it. Turn that until the needle points inside that little red circle. Then you'll have all your aperture/shutter speed combos.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2012 16:18
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:How often do you make it up to Seattle? Capital Hill 60 minute http://www.capitolhillphotoseattle.com/ is the place I use. It sucks very much that they are not open on weekends. Work only puts me in Seattle once a month at best. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2012 17:28
|
|
|
Stopped into a pawn shop today. The guy was asking $200 for a Yashica GTN with a screw screwed into the shutter button (where I'm pretty sure a mechanical shutter release is supposed to go) and what looked like a wonky shutter. He told me the atom logo was a NASA logo because they used Yashicas on the moon missions. Based on prices I wasn't going to buy anything anyway, but that sealed the deal. ExecuDork posted:Sorry! nemoulette posted:I see. With the flop closed and the "closed" on the dial, it seems to think that 1/750-ish at f/16 on 400 ASA to be reasonable, outside is nice and sunny but I pointed it out of direct sunlight, does that seem somewhat accurate?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2012 20:16
|
|
|
As my luck would have it, the Costco next to my work is the only Costco in the region that doesn't process film. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2012 22:27
|
|
|
Trip report from processing and scanning a bunch of film from my vacation last week. Lomo 400 film has really bad colors and ugly grain/noise in the shadows. Reala 100 is kinda cool with fine grain and an easily-removable magenta cast. Portra 400 owns as always. Alright that's all, peace out
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2012 14:37
|
|
|
Agreed on the lomo 400. Surprising amount of grain.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2012 14:48
|
|
|
Miike posted:Agreed on the lomo 400. Surprising amount of grain. Seriously, what the hell is this poo poo (this is a crop) 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2012 14:58
|
|
|
That is hideous. I really have to get some Portra 400, I've been putting it off for ages. Finally shot a roll of Ektachrome Panther today, it's been expired for years but been in my freezer so I'm hoping for some decent exposures 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2012 17:21
|
|
|
What would you expect from Lomo film? The entire point of it is that it's absolute junk.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2012 17:26
|
|
|
.
Ohio State BOOniversity fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Jan 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2012 00:01
|
|
|
It cannot be developed anymore.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2012 00:04
|
|
|
.
Ohio State BOOniversity fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Jan 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2012 00:23
|
|
|
The tragedy of K-14 
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2012 00:25
|
|
|
Grocery store film (Fuji Superia 400 maybe?), Minolta SRT-201, and a Soligor 37-105 f/3.5 I found on eBay for $12. Scanned it with a Nikon LS-2000 (that I need to clean) I managed to convince Windows 7 x64 to run through a PCI SCSI adapter card and VueScan. Just ordered a roll of Ektar, so that's pretty exciting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2012 04:15
|
|
|
That's beautiful. I just got back a roll I shot on a Canon eos 500 I bought on eBay last week and it turns out there was big shutter problems. I also shot a roll of Ektachrome Panther on it, travelled across town to get it developed in a shop that does E-6 and paid double the usual for development and now it looks like it'll turn out badly
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2012 16:17
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:That's beautiful. I just got back a roll I shot on a Canon eos 500 I bought on eBay last week and it turns out there was big shutter problems. I also shot a roll of Ektachrome Panther on it, travelled across town to get it developed in a shop that does E-6 and paid double the usual for development and now it looks like it'll turn out badly yeah, that's the only thing i hate about canon..the cheaper (idk about the EOS-1 EOS-2 EOS-3 etc series) EOS-mount film SLR's are notorious for getting gook all over the shutter after it's been sitting for a while, thus jamming and otherwise rendering it unusable. i would love an old-style camera i could use the new lenses on. whereismyshoe fucked around with this message at 02:47 on Aug 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2012 01:30
|
|
|
So I shot a couple rolls of Pan F today and I've not had a lot of luck with. I used Rodinal 1+50 for 11 minutes at 20C like Ilford recommends and the massive dev chart says. The negatives came out very thin. I had this problem the last time I tried to shoot Pan F and just assumed I'd hosed up the exposure because I'm still pretty new with using a flash manually. This time I noticed that the text in the rebates (frame numbers and the "Ilford Pan F") are also very thin so I wonder if it is a developing issue and not a shooting issue (for what it's worth I also shot two rolls of FP4 today and they came out perfectly exposed). Anyway, has anyone here had success with Pan F and rodinal? If so what time/temp did you use? Regardless, with the magic of photoshop I made the scans look nice, but I expect they'd be a bitch to print from... 
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2012 02:37
|
|
|
Holy poo poo those OOF areas are on drugs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2012 12:32
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Holy poo poo those OOF areas are on drugs. Well, it's a Bronica not a Hasselblad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2012 17:10
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:So I shot a couple rolls of Pan F today and I've not had a lot of luck with. I used Rodinal 1+50 for 11 minutes at 20C like Ilford recommends and the massive dev chart says. The negatives came out very thin. I had this problem the last time I tried to shoot Pan F and just assumed I'd hosed up the exposure because I'm still pretty new with using a flash manually. This time I noticed that the text in the rebates (frame numbers and the "Ilford Pan F") are also very thin so I wonder if it is a developing issue and not a shooting issue (for what it's worth I also shot two rolls of FP4 today and they came out perfectly exposed). I've always had Pan F+ come out looking way too thin but somehow scanning and printing perfectly v  v If you're having trouble scanning with the Ilford recommended times, add some agitation and/or time and you're set.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2012 17:30
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:I've always had Pan F+ come out looking way too thin but somehow scanning and printing perfectly v Thanks, I might try printing one just to see how it goes and if I want to buy more Pan F+
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2012 18:16
|
|
|
so I've had an unexposed roll of Portra 400 loaded in my OM1 in my closet for several months. Is it worth bothering to use it or should I just throw it away at this point?DJExile posted:This is probably what I'm going to do when I get back from Scotland and Ireland. Congrats, the Oly 28mm f/2.8 is seriously one of my favorite lenses ever.  No idea but it shouldn't have expired yet. But don't expiration dates assume that the film is stored in a sealed container until it is used? VVV Bouillon Rube fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Aug 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2012 20:44
|
|
|
What's the expiry on it? It should be OK I'd imagine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2012 20:46
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:so I've had an unexposed roll of Portra 400 loaded in my OM1 in my closet for several months. Is it worth bothering to use it or should I just throw it away at this point?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2012 20:53
|
|
|
Has anyone seen this thing yet? http://www.ionaudio.com/products/details/pics2go It basically is a box + LEDS + film/slide holder you stick your iPhone into and your iPhone becomes the "Scanner" for your film. I'd love to see what kind of quality comes out of it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 17:35
|
|
|
echobucket posted:Has anyone seen this thing yet? My guess would be whatever lovely resolution the iPhone is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 18:45
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:My guess would be whatever lovely resolution the iPhone is. A miniscule 3264x2448. Let me fetch my microscope so I can see it!
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 19:02
|
|
|
RustedChrome posted:A miniscule 3264x2448. Let me fetch my microscope so I can see it! Oh yes, a 3264x2448 on a cell phone sized chip, let me just get rid of my Epson. Seriously, a cellphone film scan is gonna be shittier than your posting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 19:33
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Oh yes, a 3264x2448 on a cell phone sized chip, let me just get rid of my Epson. Seriously, a cellphone film scan is gonna be shittier than your posting. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 19:41
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Oh yes, a 3264x2448 on a cell phone sized chip, let me just get rid of my Epson. Seriously, a cellphone film scan is gonna be shittier than your posting. It's passable for seeing what you shot. And I've seen perfectly fine scans from cellphones for web presentation. Please save your elitism for your next gallery exhibition.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 19:42
|
|
|
More of a gear question, but most applicable to film cameras: What glue should I be using for light seals? I bought a bunch that I thought had self adhesive backs but no dice. Now I have to figure out how to make these permanent but replaceable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 19:42
|
|
|
RustedChrome posted:It's passable for seeing what you shot. And I've seen perfectly fine scans from cellphones for web presentation. Please save your elitism for your next gallery exhibition. Looking at your negative through a window is a pretty passable way to see what you've shot, but you don't see me advocating it as a scanning method.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 19:44
|
|
|
I was glancing at the packet of D-76 powder sitting on my desk as it mocks me because the fixer powder hasn't come in yet and then I noticed the dev chart and the whole 1:1 dilution thing. I've developed my own film maybe twice now so I'm still a complete beginner at this. Is there any advantage or disadvantage to diluting your developer other than stretching your supply?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 19:50
|
|
|
For $49 you can buy an Epson Perfection scanner on craigslist that will literally give you more leeway in what you can do with it. I "get" this product, but I'm not sure who the target consumer is. Who shoots film and doesn't already have a scanner? It seems like a really gimmicky way to blow $50.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 19:50
|
|
|
dukeku posted:Looking at your negative through a window is a pretty passable way to see what you've shot, but you don't see me advocating it as a scanning method. I'm not advocating anything. I also have an Epson scanner for my film that I'm not trading in, just in case anybody has doubts about the size of my manhood. Martytoof posted:
It's aimed at people who have a lot of old negatives sitting around that they want to digitize easily. I'm not saying it's as good as a "real" scanner but I think it's not going to be as bad as some people think. It's certainly not something for serious photographers like us. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 19:56
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:I was glancing at the packet of D-76 powder sitting on my desk as it mocks me because the fixer powder hasn't come in yet and then I noticed the dev chart and the whole 1:1 dilution thing. I've never used D-76 myself as I prefer liquid base developers, but my understanding is that it's just a quality issue. Sort of like the difference between setting your printer to economy vs high quality mode. If you're a student and are burning through film and you know your negs won't need to be any sort of super high quality then you can probably get by with a weaker dilution. If you just shot your friend's wedding then you probably want to baby that film as best you can. Though someone who's more experienced feel free to correct me. RustedChrome posted:It's aimed at people who have a lot of old negatives sitting around that they want to digitize easily. I'm not saying it's as good as a "real" scanner but I think it's not going to be as bad as some people think. It's certainly not something for serious photographers like us. I don't necessarily think it'll be bad or anything, but at $50 it seems to be aimed at people who just plain don't know any better. I mean like I said, I don't think loading the film into this kit is any easier than using my epson with its dumb film holder, and the software is free from Epson's site, so really it looks like it's just there to make a buck off someone who doesn't know there are better options. I'm certainly not trying to insinuate that I'm some sort of high and mighty photographer with what I posted, but I mean this more in the sense that someone can either go spend a thousand dollars on a 1980s k-car or a thousand dollars on a more reliable honda or something. It really has nothing to do with how serious a photographer I am. It's all about getting the best value for your money. some kinda jackal fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Aug 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 19:57
|
|
|
Hey, I just wondered if anyone had used one and what the quality looked like (Hopefully with some samples, I couldn't find any samples online). I didn't mean to start some kind of war :P
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 20:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 15:17 |
|
|
Honestly I find the fact that the product page has no samples to speak of more telling than anything I could come up with. Maybe it doesn't suck, but I sure wouldn't know it by looking at it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 20:11
|
|