|
Getting a cheap extra body (or a motorized one that can do lead-out rewinds) is a better strategy.
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 23:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 16:41 |
|
|
pootiebigwang posted:Bought a bulk loader, 100' of Tri-X and everything I need to develop b/w at home ISO1600 in full sun? Are you shooting like 1/4000th f/11 or something?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 23:40
|
|
|
pootiebigwang posted:Also, gently caress changing bags FTFY. I've only used one once and it was a horrific experience. Funny story though, in my "advanced photography" class last semester there was this one older woman (community college lolz) whose final project came out super fogged and she was so bewildered as to why. After about an hour of debating with the teacher and saying it was his fault, she admitted to getting frustrated with the reel and bringing it into the "darkroom" to do it in the "safe light" so she could see it better. collective gigantic facepalm from the entire class
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 23:49
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Just remember that the amount of wasted film is the same no matter how many frames you load, so short-loading rolls means you're wasting a lot more film overall. Use a camera that requires very little leader. Of course you'll have to load it in the dark then. (I'm quite sure I'd be able to pull 40 or even 41 frames on a Rollei 35 if I loaded it in darkness.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 23:50
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Which loader did you get? I'm seriously thinking about getting one so I don't have to worry about shooting 24 shots before I can throw poo poo in the can. I'd love to do rolls of 10 or 12 shots. This is the one I got. http://www.freestylephoto.biz/63000-Legacy-Pro-Lloyd-35mm-Bulk-Film-Loader I had no problems loading it in the changing bag and everything went pretty smoothly. I still load 24 frames per shot but like not spending over 6 dollars for a 24 exp role than paying 20 dollars to get it developed with a lovely lab scan. Saves me a ton of money overall. Paul MaudDib posted:ISO1600 in full sun? Are you shooting like 1/4000th f/11 or something? Well not everyday/all the time but in this shot that sounds about right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2012 00:19
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Just remember that the amount of wasted film is the same no matter how many frames you load, so short-loading rolls means you're wasting a lot more film overall. There are some loaders that are more efficient with waste, combined with the fact that I don't shoot a LOT of film to begin with, means that even with the waste factored in I'd still take a long time to go through a bulk roll.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2012 01:52
|
|
|
Spedman posted:Just wondering if anyone has traded in gear at KEH, was their they paid me more for the broken rz67 than i paid buying it from them working  (i had disclosed it was broken but decided to start working when i brought it in...)
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2012 02:36
|
|
offer reasonable? Did they quibble over the rating?
|
Took my new toy camping: fukn love the Hexar.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2012 14:43
|
|
|
When I print in the darkroom I almost never use a filter lower than 3 1/2 and usually use a 4. I actually start with a 4 and move from there. Most things I've read suggest starting with a 2 filter so I'm concerned I'm inadvertently producing very low contrast negatives. I use rodinal with FP4 or HP5 at ilford's recommended time doing two inversions ever 30 seconds after solid agitation for the first 30 seconds. Should I increase dev time to increase contrast, agitate more vigorously, or just stop worrying about it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 21:34
|
|
|
I'll start with the least frequently asked question: How sure are you that your filters are good? It's possible (and perhaps most likely) you're producing lower-contrast negatives than you'd like, but especially if you bought your filter book used, it may be the case that your filters are faded.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 21:52
|
|
|
Molten Llama posted:I'll start with the least frequently asked question: How sure are you that your filters are good? You know, that may be the case with my filters. Some Foma fixed-grade paper I have, which should be around 4 on Ilford's scale (AFAIK), has consistently given me much harder prints than a pure grade 5 filtering on Ilford Multigrade paper. I'll probably get a new filterset when I get a place to set up darkroom again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 22:02
|
|
|
Got a new (and seemingly mind) Canon AV-1 after my old heirloom one stopped working. Seller claims it to have been working perfectly when he sent it off. My issue is that it the meter shoots straight up to 1/1000 regardless of conditions (with four different lenses that seem to work fine on another FD camera). The battery seems fine. Is this a common issue? Anyone have any ideas? If I go down to 25-100 ISO the meters goes down to 1/500-1/250 but is still unresponsive. widunder fucked around with this message at 22:12 on Oct 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 22:09
|
|
|
Molten Llama posted:I'll start with the least frequently asked question: How sure are you that your filters are good? I'd never considered that. The filters came with the enlarger when I bought it from some guy on craigslist so who knows how old they are. After a little googling I see that that fading is really common. 50$ for a new set 
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 22:26
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:I'd never considered that. The filters came with the enlarger when I bought it from some guy on craigslist so who knows how old they are. After a little googling I see that that fading is really common. 50$ for a new set Yeah, I spent way too much time wondering what I was doing wrong with the craigslist filters that came with my enlarger before buying a new set of Ilford filters. Huge difference.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 22:37
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Well now I feel ripped off. I think you have to order online and then pick up in their store if you want the prices listed on their website, otherwise you get to pay the same price as hapless tourists.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 01:49
|
|
|
So i've decided to delve into film photography (well, photography in general) a few months ago. After looking around a lot for a good deal and trying to catch up on this thread from the start (80 pages down, over a hundred to go) I managed to score a 35mm camera for me last week. This is a Yashica FX-D quartz. A nice Auto-exposure, manual focus camera from the 80's that is closely related to the contax 139. It uses the Y/C bayonet, which means I can get either cheap and nice yashica glass or (well, not for now) Zeiss MM lenses. It's all metal and compact and overall feels like a great camera, if not as automated/equiped as other newer cameras. I got it for a amazing deal and the camera is loving pristine. Besides some dirt on the viewfinder, you could believe it came out of the box yesterday. Except for one problem: The leatherette was completely gone. Those cameras are know to have bad leatherette that just tears apart easily. The seller probably thought that it would look better for selling clean than with a torn to hell vinyl cover. Getting a new from cameraleather would cost almost the same I paid for the camera, so armed with a ruler, photoshop, a x-acto knife, some printable adesive paper and Of Montreal's Paralytics Stalks cover...   (sorry for the bad p&s pics but eh, effort) Not a perfect fit, but good enough, and now that I have the templates I could probably churn out a completely new cover in 15 minutes or so, so i'm quite happy My test roll is ready from development tomorrow, dying to see if the thing is working as properly as I expect.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 02:25
|
|
|
That is a goddam sexy looking camera. What did you run through it for your first roll? And what lens is it wearing at the moment?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 02:32
|
|
|
Ran some superia x-tra 400. Together with kodak gold and tri-x (really expensive, 12 USD a roll) basically the only film you can get around here. I'm looking at ordering online to get some more variety and lower prices, but waiting 1-2 months for your film requires some forward planning. The lens is the kit lens, a 42-75mm f/3.5. Next month I'll probably buy a 2.8 28mm and a 1.X 50mm from ebay, both can be had for roughly 20 dollars (+ shipping) and are said to be quite sharp glass.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 02:44
|
|
|
 Chaparral Plains by atomicthumbs, on Flickr acros is good. pentax 67 is good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 05:36
|
|
|
Has anyone tried to develop any ECN-2 35mm film stock at home? I gather it's doable in C41 chems with a few changes here and there, but I've yet to read a good rundown of how it's done.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 05:56
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:acros is good. pentax 67 is good. Indeed! I love the grain on that, by the way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 09:35
|
|
|
 East Bay, North Bay by atomicthumbs, on Flickr my negatives have more dust than star trails lately, but I think I got all of them
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 10:41
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Has anyone tried to develop any ECN-2 35mm film stock at home? I gather it's doable in C41 chems with a few changes here and there, but I've yet to read a good rundown of how it's done. I haven't, but I have about 10 rolls of it that I shot and I've been waiting over a year now for Cinelab to install a new goddamn 35mm machine. They said they will develop still lengths of the stuff for $5-10 a roll, and seem like nice enough people, but holy crap it sure takes them a long time to get their poo poo together. I guess it's been a couple months since I last called them, maybe they're due for another ring on the ol' phone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 12:15
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Has anyone tried to develop any ECN-2 35mm film stock at home? I gather it's doable in C41 chems with a few changes here and there, but I've yet to read a good rundown of how it's done. 400ft of Kodak Vision 500T bulk rolled would be prettty rad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 19:19
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:400ft of Kodak Vision 500T bulk rolled would be prettty rad. This is precisely what I'm thinking. From the sound of it, it's a normal C41 process except you have to pre-bathe it to get rid of the remjet coating on the film or it'll contaminate the developer. I really want to give this a try now. Going to try to find someone who sells short-ends.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 20:21
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:my negatives have more dust than star trails lately, but I think I got all of them I hate that part of scanning. By the way, I've twitted some of your stuff, you should be seeing some traffic on your flickr account hopefully.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 20:44
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:This is precisely what I'm thinking. APUG has a handful of threads about this. From what I was able to gather, the process is similar to C-41, but different enough that using C-41 will give you low contrast + other issues. Also rem-jet. The good news is that if you have the head for it, the chemicals for ECN-2 are available from kodak. I stopped researching because I haven't even done my own B&W yet, but it would be nice to know someone was out there doing ECN-2 on thier own.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 21:09
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:This is precisely what I'm thinking. I think I read about somebody on APUG using dilute vinegar to remove remjet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 21:12
|
|
|
"Compatible" is not the same. ECN-2, even without the remjet, is not the same as C-41. Ask Photo Engineer on APUG how to do it and prepare to be scolded into oblivion by an old chemist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 21:14
|
|
|
I'm waiting on some HP5+ and t-max 3200 film to be delivered before I start my first foray into film photography. Pretty much all I know about film is from scanning over this thread for the last few days. I inherited some fd lenses, so I treated myself to a Canon ae-1 program. I've had a play about with it (no film) and I love the thing. But I was hoping to stick some 3200asa b&w film in it and get some grainy no flash snap shots at my wedding reception next week. But metering around my living room at night with a lamp or two on it looks like I'm a stop or two short of f numbers at 3200 and 1/125. I was going to get my first roll or two developed for me, but is my best bet to develop myself and pull/push the thing? Or am I dreaming here. Is film any better (compared to digital) at freezing people movement at 1/60 or am I right to look for 1/125 in most cases? And assuming I can push/pull the development, I take it I'd have to do the whole role equally, so would I need to purposely underexpose everything else that isn't at the limits? I'm not particularly knowledgeable on digital either so if any of this is nonsense please let me know! E: We do have a photographer and the digital cameras so it's not the end of the world if my film all goes to poo poo, but I'm trying to load up with info as best I can to give myself a fighting chance, but haven't really left myself much time. MeKeV fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Oct 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 21:35
|
|
|
Well, let me put it this way: All the samples from C41 processed ECN2 I see are good enough that I want to at least attempt the process  I will probably not go out and buy 400ft off the bat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 22:00
|
|
|
http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploadedFiles/US_plugins_acrobat_en_motion_support_processing_h247_h2407.pdf Someone decipher this and tell me what I need to buy, tia.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 22:26
|
|
|
MeKeV posted:I'm waiting on some HP5+ and t-max 3200 film to be delivered before I start my first foray into film photography. Pretty much all I know about film is from scanning over this thread for the last few days. If you're getting a pro lab to develop your b/w film, don't expect them to do more than 2 stops of push or 1 stop of pull, regardless of film. My (somewhat limited) experience with pushing HP5+ tells me that it can get pretty grainy even just pushed 2 stops to 1600, though, so that could be an option if you want grain. (On the other hand Tri-X 400 has seemed to be less grainy when I've pushed it.) T-Max 3200 should also be quite grainy even at 1600, or you can shoot it at 1000 which is its actual ISO value. Graininess also depends a lot on the developer used, and several more factors. If you want to control those you practically have to develop it yourself. The "ability to stop motion" is not really a property of the medium used to capture, technically it's purely in the shutter speed. However you can make an argument that a larger captured image has more resolution and therefore any motion during the exposure is more visible, but it doesn't really hold either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 22:28
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploadedFiles/US_plugins_acrobat_en_motion_support_processing_h247_h2407.pdf Pages 7-17 and 7-18 describe the process, the first uses ferricyanide-type bleach and the second uses "UL"-type bleach. The "UL" bleach works at a lower temperature, and there's probably also differences in cost and toxicity of the bleaches. PB-2 prebath. SD-49 developer. SB-14 stop. SR-29, SR-33, SR-34 or SR-35 bleach. F-34a fixer. FR-1 final rinse. Also notice that it's a pretty hot process, the developer works at 41.1 C +/- 0.1 C, and the bleaches also need to work pretty hot. The remaining intermediate baths should be between 27 C and 38 C. It also sounds like the chemistry is far more toxic than that used for B/W or "household" C-41, so you'll probably need extra good ventilation, and protective clothing. At page 7-27 starts a section showing mixing formulas for the different baths from bulk chemistry. There's a couple of "secret sauce" ingredients from Kodak, but most of it is standard chemicals that you'll have to source somewhere. Maybe you can get hold of someone on APUG who already mixes their own chemistry and get smaller amounts from them, I don't know. Edit: Page 7-26 also suggests that careless mixing of some of those things can easily get you hospitalised. So be careful. nielsm fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Oct 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 22:56
|
|
|
MeKeV posted:But I was hoping to stick some 3200asa b&w film in it and get some grainy no flash snap shots at my wedding reception next week. But metering around my living room at night with a lamp or two on it looks like I'm a stop or two short of f numbers at 3200 and 1/125. Develop it yourself. You'll obviously be busy around the time of the wedding, and after (or you should be), but in a few weeks you might have the hour-or-two it takes to develop your own first roll of B&W film. We keep going on about how easy it is, because it is so easy. Really. Freezing motion depends as much on the motion as on the shutter speed. Indoors you're not going to be able to freeze your cousin's nose-dive off the head table into the cake, but the slow movements of granny dancing with said cousin *before* he gets completely smashed should be doable. It also depends on the lens - wider lenses (e.g. 28mm) can be reasonably hand-held for longer shutter times than longer lenses (e.g. 210mm), all else being equal. The usual guideline is shutter speed = 1/focal length (so 1/30 through a 28mm is fine, but you'd want to be up around 1/250 for a telephoto zoom like the ever-popular 70-210; 1/60 through a nifty-fifty is OK unless the subject is really moving). What lens(es) do you have? Film, especially B&W, has wide exposure latitude. This means you can recover under- or over-exposed images, as it takes more than a stop or two to totally lose detail in the shadows or in the highlights. One way to recover this detail is to push (or pull) when developing, but for individual shots that turn out a little off, five minutes in Lightroom or Photoshop or GIMP (or whatever) after scanning the negatives will make a big difference. There's also probably going to be more light at the wedding & reception than your living room with one or two lamps on. I suspect you'll do fine at iso3200 and 1/30 to 1/125. I was in the wedding party for a couple of my friends when they got married last year. I shot some "candid" (read: drunken idiocy) shots, using Kodak TMAX 100 (prior to ceremony) and TMAX 400 (reception). Here's one of the bride's brother leaning in to say something (he could be discussing tax returns for all I know), shot at something like 1/30 through my 50mm f/1.7 (so probably at about 1.7), braced against the table (I was leaning on my elbows).  Hunter+Laird-4 by Execudork, on Flickr The dust spots are entirely my clumsy scanning technique. iso3200 film will obviously be more grainy than this, but with 3 stops more to play with you should be able to avoid too much motion blur.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 00:48
|
|
|
I don't get Kodak Gold.  kodakGold024.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr  kodakGold007.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr  kodakGold011.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr  kodakGold012.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 05:02
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:I don't get Kodak Gold. It's much cheaper than Portra and it's got acceptable quality. Good for snapshots.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 05:12
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:It's much cheaper than Portra and it's got acceptable quality. Good for snapshots. I meant more in a "how do I edit the curves so it doesn't look like poo poo" sort of "don't get". e. Then again I could say that about scanning any color film.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 05:15
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:I meant more in a "how do I edit the curves so it doesn't look like poo poo" sort of "don't get". Scan as raw positive, make s PS action/LR profile for each film you use to get it in the ballpark. Saves me so much goddamn time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 05:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 16:41 |
|
|
I got my hands on a bunch of free expired film. Portra 400: 4 rolls expired 2001, 5 expired 2002 Portra 160: 5 rolls espired 2006 Allegedly it's all been fridge stored. What can I expect from this stuff? How do I go about shooting it and do I need to give the lab special instructions when getting it developed?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 08:28
|
|
