|
I saw that and thought it could be useful. Honestly a flatbed is a paid in the rear end and doesn't produce great results with 35mm negatives. Also, especially with the older models, you are limited in your dynamic range, noise etc. Throw in a VueScan/Silverfast licence for $100+; and suddenly an 8mp HDR scan @ a few seconds per frame starts to sound pretty good for 90% of your average needs.
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 20:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 18:55 |
|
|
Hell, I paid €70 for a negative scanner and have quickly come to realise that it's complete poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 20:27
|
|
|
Speaking of potentially poo poo products, has anyone had any experience with Lomography's DigitaLIZA masks? I'm waffling between $60 for a set of DigitaLIZA masks (120+135), or $80+ for one BetterScanning 120 holder. The negative holders that come with the V500 are pretty lovely.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 20:30
|
|
|
I do all my scans with a lightbox that I mount an ME Super to. Great results.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 20:38
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:Speaking of potentially poo poo products, has anyone had any experience with Lomography's DigitaLIZA masks? I'm waffling between $60 for a set of DigitaLIZA masks (120+135), or $80+ for one BetterScanning 120 holder. The negative holders that come with the V500 are pretty lovely. The better scanning holder owns.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 20:40
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:Speaking of potentially poo poo products, has anyone had any experience with Lomography's DigitaLIZA masks? I'm waffling between $60 for a set of DigitaLIZA masks (120+135), or $80+ for one BetterScanning 120 holder. The negative holders that come with the V500 are pretty lovely. The Betterscanning holder is way more than $20 worth better than the Digitaliza.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 20:55
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:If you shoot film, get a scanner. Develop + Print or Develop + Scan (and get a CD) costs more than twice as much as Develop Only for me ($4 / roll vs. $10). Plus you don't have to find space to store all those prints or photoCDs you'll never show anybody. Negatives are nice and flat, and can be cut to chunks of 4 or 5 frames and fit into a binder. do you use a film scanner, or do you just put the negatives into a regular flatbed and invert the colours in photoshop or whatever? I'd prefer not to spend loads of money on a scanner, but also don't want crappy scans which i presume most cheap scanners would provide.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 20:56
|
|
|
You can find the V500 for not too much money, but if you want to be frugal go ahead and buy something like the Perfection 3200 which is the precursor to the V500 I believe. I have the 3200 and it produces magnificent results. The only thing I hate is the lovely plastic film holder, which is probably the same thing that ships with the V500 so.. I believe the going rate for a 3200 is like $50 on craigs. That said, scanning is easily the most tedious and annoying part of shooting film and I hate every second spent doing it 
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 21:01
|
|
|
squidflakes posted: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? Higher dilutions can also help keep contrast under control, which is useful when pushing film.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 21:02
|
|
|
Also with some films, a higher dilution has given me less noticeable grain but a little lower contrast.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 21:03
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:That said, scanning is easily the most tedious and annoying part of shooting film and I hate every second spent doing it Yeah it's an absolute nightmare for me, I usually get 3 or 4 rolls back at a time and the neg scanner I have only takes a strip of six frames at a time and you have to scan each frame one by one 
Quantum of Phallus fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Aug 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 21:09
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:You can find the V500 for not too much money, but if you want to be frugal go ahead and buy something like the Perfection 3200 which is the precursor to the V500 I believe. I have the 3200 and it produces magnificent results. The only thing I hate is the lovely plastic film holder, which is probably the same thing that ships with the V500 so.. cool thanks!
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 21:27
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:Also with some films, a higher dilution has given me less noticeable grain but a little lower contrast. That sounds reasonable. Someone should assemble a "film development cheat sheet", summarising how the different variables (tend to) affect the outcome. I think it's something like this? Dilution: Strong: Faster development, larger grain, more contrast Weak: Slower development, finer grain, less contrast (too dilute can cause uneven development from "pockets" in the liquid) Temperature: High: Faster development, larger grain Low: Slower development, finer grain (too low temperature can completely inhibit development) Agitation: More: Faster development, more contrast Less: Slower development, less contrast (risk of uneven development with most developers if agitation is too infrequent) That should be it, right? Maybe also the factors of stop bath or not, pre-wash or not?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 22:24
|
|
|
Welp, I pulled out the light seals on the Zorki 6 and replaced them with actual foam that I ordered online. Ran a sacrifice roll through it again and it just came out of the tank PRISTINE. I bought a "bulk" order of seals from camerasealkit.com for twelve dollars. Came in the mail today, and I was a little disappointed to find that the 1mm seals didn't have a self adhesive back. Also the entire package smelled like an ashtray. I went out to buy some rubber cement to bond the camera and seals. I scraped out the old "seal" which was quite literally just a piece of yarn (like knitting yarn, which I guess is supposed to be a good cheap way to seal your camera) held in with some glue. I tried to be as neat as I could dabbing the rubber cement into the seal cavity but in all honesty I just kind of made a mess. That was okay though, as the foam pretty much covered everything up and the excess rubber cement was easy to peel away once it hardened. The downside is that the camera is a LITTLE harder to close now since there is much more bulk between the doors. Truth be told I'm almost a little worried about the hinges -- they're held on with a flimsy metal "rod" that seems like it could bend from too much strain. I'll have to keep an eye on how they work. Anyway, pulled the roll out of the tank just now and I don't see a single leak. I'll scan the single shot I took later to verify, but right now it looks great. Anyone that wants to do this, I would probably recommend either buying adhesive backed foam yourself and being reeeeally precise with your cut, or buying some 1mm strips that you KNOW have a self adhesive back. Having the 1mm strips was a godsend because I'd NEVER be able to cut it that cleanly, but gluing everything was a pain in the dick. Anyway. I'm now 100% satisfied with my Zorki 6. Now to work two of my FED-2's into a working camera.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 23:17
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:I saw that and thought it could be useful. Honestly a flatbed is a paid in the rear end and doesn't produce great results with 35mm negatives. Also, especially with the older models, you are limited in your dynamic range, noise etc. Throw in a VueScan/Silverfast licence for $100+; and suddenly an 8mp HDR scan @ a few seconds per frame starts to sound pretty good for 90% of your average needs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 23:45
|
|
|
Also you can probably just use TWAIN. Like OSX has native support for my scanner, apparently, and I can just use Image Capture. The scanner will likely come with at least some basic software. Though we have a dedicated Scanner thread for just these questions 
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 23:53
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Anyway. I'm now 100% satisfied with my Zorki 6. Now to work two of my FED-2's into a working camera. Good job! You'll love your FED-2. At first I was skeptic that you could put it into your jeans pockets, but that's exactly where it stays all day long now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 00:42
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:I bought a "bulk" order of seals from camerasealkit.com for twelve dollars. Coming soon, Marty's discount seal repair.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 01:29
|
|
|
Today I found a Vivitar XC-3 in my basement. Is there a reason why I can't select any shutter speeds unless it's set to a film speed of 25? I also finally got a few rolls of film to run through my Canon and there are no leaks or issues  . I didn't bother getting anything more than the negatives back from the test roll though, 24 exposures of my desk aren't very interesting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 04:05
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Coming soon, Marty's discount seal repair. I wish. It was just like six strips of each.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 04:09
|
|
|
The Fed-2 is an okay camera, but I can't stand the viewfinder. So small and dark.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 04:14
|
|
|
HPL posted:The Fed-2 is an okay camera, but I can't stand the viewfinder. So small and dark. Zorki 6 VF is very decent. Doesn't hold a candle to a Leica or anything, but then again for a $100 camera I'm really really satisfied. Fed-2 VF is a little dim, yeah. I actually have zero problems with the Zorki 6 right now. It's the perfect size, the perfect weight, and once I find a collapsible lens it'll be pocketable too. Plus the advance lever is a little handier than the knob, for all the talking I did about wanting the wind knob instead. If only there was a collapsible Russian 50/2
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 04:18
|
|
|
Zorki 4 probably has the best viewfinder of the Russian rangefinders.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 04:21
|
|
|
No love for the Kiev 4? Viewfinder is probably not as good as the Zorki but the really long rangefinder base is really great.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 09:24
|
|
|
Enter Char posted:I also finally got a few rolls of film to run through my Canon and there are no leaks or issues Out of interest, what Canon was it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 10:01
|
|
|
Where the hell can I get my Roughneck Bessa?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 13:36
|
|
|
hay, is there a page or something that compares various types of (35mm, will be used in a pentax ME) film in terms of the results they produce?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 15:10
|
|
|
Here's one that's pretty cool http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/02/colour-film-comparison-pt-two/ http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/06/colour-film-comparison-pt-3/ obviously you'll have to test with your equipment, but gives you an idea.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 15:16
|
|
|
oh that's really really neat, thank you!
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 15:25
|
|
|
That's cool as heck FerryB, thanks
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 15:47
|
|
|
HPL posted:The Fed-2 is an okay camera, but I can't stand the viewfinder. So small and dark. Small, yes. Dark.. Depends whether your FED has been serviced recently or not. Mine was, and is pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 16:03
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:Out of interest, what Canon was it? An FTb I got from my grandpa, along with a set of lenses
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 16:08
|
|
|
Some of those Portra 160 shots looks like they were scanned wrong or something because they're seriously grainy and blown out and I've never seen that from any of my Portra shots
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 22:34
|
|
|
Crosspostin' from the P&S thread: I just got this for $3.50 and can relegate my Pentax UC-1 to "camera I tell my brother to keep in his bag".
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 22:55
|
|
|
This is E100VS that was accidentally cross-processed. Turned out almost okay. Purple Flowers by alkanphel, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 00:00
|
|
|
Anti-Derivative posted:do you use a film scanner, or do you just put the negatives into a regular flatbed and invert the colours in photoshop or whatever? I'd prefer not to spend loads of money on a scanner, but also don't want crappy scans which i presume most cheap scanners would provide. The Epsonscan software (free download from Epson) works just fine for me, too - keep in mind, my standards are probably noticeably lower than many others here (just review the ongoing conversation between myself and GWBBQ - dirty negs!  )I set it to "professional mode", which is the only mode that provides any level of user control at all, and tell it what kind of film I'm scanning. That turns on the lid light, and if I'm scanning negative film (either B&W or C-41) it automatically reverses so I get positive images (skies are blue, skin isn't). I could turn that off, and invert in GIMP or whatever, but, again, my current workflow is "good enough" for me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 02:10
|
|
|
I don't do a lot of scanning but just setting the white and black points on the curves histogram does wonders. The Epson software isn't half bad, but I have to run it in a VM.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 02:18
|
|
|
Epson software is okay. The difference between that and Silverfast or Vuescan is like night and day though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 02:22
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Epson software is okay. The difference between that and Silverfast or Vuescan is like night and day though. I'm all for VueScan. Tried Silverfast but found it to be poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 02:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 18:55 |
|
|
Would a Wallgreens / Walmart develop black and white film? I dont want to bring it and because its black and white have them go all breaking bad and it be 50$
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 03:07
|
|
