|
I prefer to put the film in a baggie and shove it into my rectum to warm up, it is the only way the film seems to develop without problems.
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 02:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 05:32 |
|
|
Mannequin posted:She said my film might look a little "artsy" 93 problems but an art ain't one
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 03:03
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:It is not because you stored it at room temperature for a little while. Other explanations include: the lab hosed up, the film company hosed up, the film was incorrectly stored by the store you bought it at, you don't get shooting slides, that person really has a skin tone of concrete , someone sneaked into your apt and microwaved your film, the proper sacrifices were not made to the elder gods, the air in New Jersey is literally toxic to art, your camera lens suddenly became a new color, the illuminati has planted agents in the area and taking their photo reveals their true face, etc. This may very well be a picture of me. HAHAHA.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 03:42
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Good lord, why? What possible advantage could there be for this? Thermal intertia of the metal camera body causing the film to warm slower, I'm told.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 10:24
|
|
|
I'm going to get a camera made out of dry ice. Sure I'll lose some skin shooting it but it will be worth it for the stone cold arts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 10:29
|
|
|
"Your pictures are simply sublime, my dear"
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 12:35
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:"Your pictures are simply sublime, my dear" This post will be edited to the Citizen Kane clapping gif when I'm not on my phone. 
SoundMonkey fucked around with this message at 21:04 on Dec 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 20:15
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Thermal intertia of the metal camera body causing the film to warm slower, I'm told. "Thermal inertia"  The only thing that might happen is that your battery might not work quite as well until your camera heats back up to room temperature...
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 02:46
|
|
|
penneydude posted:"Thermal inertia" Actually the quantum fluctuations in the metal will discombobulate the outer electron shells during the thermal transition causing your film to be buffered against the negative de-excitation caused by the thermal cascade from beyond the insulatory boundary.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 03:13
|
|
|
I got some proper snap-off metal refillable film canisters today. What a night and day difference from the plastic ones that Freestyle sells.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 04:26
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Actually the quantum fluctuations in the metal will discombobulate the outer electron shells during the thermal transition causing your film to be buffered against the negative de-excitation caused by the thermal cascade from beyond the insulatory boundary. Mhmm, oh yea yeah yeah. I know some of these words. Esp discombobulate, yes, yeees.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 04:57
|
|
|
Ordered a box of (slightly expired) Rollei Advanced Technical Ortho 135 from Macodirect. Looking forward to trying that. (Hopefully I'll have a chance to develop something myself, I'd rather not send "odd" films like that off to a lab.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 17:29
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:This post will be edited to the Citizen Kane clapping gif when I'm not on my phone.  Still un-animated.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 20:10
|
|
|
It's playing for me. \/ I'm on chrome and it's fine Quantum of Phallus fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Dec 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 20:38
|
|
|
Musket posted:
you're using chrome aren't you
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 20:39
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:you're using chrome aren't you Click it to make it animate if it isn't because Google is too busy playing in their ball pit and doing wacky monkeycheese side projects to stoop to fixing simple bugs in Chrome or several-year-old bugs in Android.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 20:58
|
|
|
FYI to fix the non animating thing in Chrome which sucks balls, you just need to go into the plugins settings (about:plugins) and if you have two flash player things installed, disable the chrome one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 07:34
|
|
|
I have Chrome and that is animated just fine, with no special setting changes. How did you scrubs manage to break your browsers?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 08:37
|
|
|
Works fine for me using Chromium. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 16:34
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Actually the quantum fluctuations in the metal will discombobulate the outer electron shells during the thermal transition causing your film to be buffered against the negative de-excitation caused by the thermal cascade from beyond the insulatory boundary. But you don't want your film to be cold when you shoot it, or it's going to be underexposed. Buffering it against the negative de-excitation caused by the thermal cascade from beyond the insulatory barrier is, like...not ideal. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 19:45
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:I have Chrome and that is animated just fine, with no special setting changes. How did you scrubs manage to break your browsers? Mine worked fine for ages, and then one day randomly stopped making gifs animate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 19:48
|
|
|
penneydude posted:But you don't want your film to be cold when you shoot it, or it's going to be underexposed. Buffering it against the negative de-excitation caused by the thermal cascade from beyond the insulatory barrier is, like...not ideal. Does that mean I might have underexposed when I went out shooting snowy landscapy stuff last Saturday?  (Going to find out on Monday!)
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 22:10
|
|
|
Depends on how you had your flux capacitor set. Really though, none of that was supposed to make any sense. Your shots will be fine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 23:03
|
|
|
 Vert by atomicthumbs, on Flickr Smart Sharpen, used carefully, is a very handy tool to make sure sharpening a tough-to-sharpen photo doesn't make it look worse. atomicthumbs fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Dec 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 09:53
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:
this one is gorgeous. great job!
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 11:35
|
|
|
 Town by atomicthumbs, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 04:24
|
|
|
RIP Zeiss Ikon (if mirrorlessrumors.com is to be believed)
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 15:14
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Ordered a box of (slightly expired) Rollei Advanced Technical Ortho 135 from Macodirect. Looking forward to trying that. (Hopefully I'll have a chance to develop something myself, I'd rather not send "odd" films like that off to a lab.) Apparently the emulsion of Rollei ATO is red. I did not expect that. (On the other hand, since sensitivation to various wavelengths as far as I know is done with dyes, it might make sense.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 14:57
|
|
|
So my 12 year old wanted a Holga this Christmas. Rather than unleash another hipster on the world I figured I'd get her an old range finder so she could cut her film teeth cheaply. I found a Yashica Electro 35, got a battery, verified everything worked, and ran a test roll through it. That's where things got ugly.  Everything's blurring, like the shutter was left open too long. But I handhold down to 60th of a second on a DSL no problem so that doesn't make sense. Every shot was like this. Is the lens hosed? There's also a red line along that top, but that appears to be a printing problem. I didn't see it on the negatives that I scanned in. Unfortunately the blurriness was still there on the scans.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 19:26
|
|
|
The rangefinder could be miscalibrated. Is anything in focus on any photo?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 19:33
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:The rangefinder could be miscalibrated. Is anything in focus on any photo? It looks like shake, not misfocus-blur. Does the shutter speed sound right when you fire the camera? Have you tried taking some photos with the camera on a tripod/stable surface?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 19:38
|
|
|
nielsm posted:It looks like shake, not misfocus-blur. I thought it looked more like shake myself. As far as I can tell the shutter speeds sound correct. The Electro is aperture-priority, so I set the film speed, f/stop, and the camera determines the shutter speed. So it could very well be an issue where the shutter is being left open too long. The photos were a bit over-exposed and that is the most likely point of failure (other than a damaged lens). I haven't tried a tripod and honestly if that's the case then the camera will just become a paperweight. I can gift one of my existing film cameras to my kid. I just thought this would be easier for her to use. Plus I couldn't think of a camera I was willing to lose to a clumsy child.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 19:51
|
|
|
Studebaker Hawk posted:RIP Zeiss Ikon (if mirrorlessrumors.com is to be believed) Yeah, it's confirmed. It sucks; it's such a great camera and a cheaper alternative to Leica. I'm glad I still have mine, but I wonder if the lenses are gonna go away or if they're going to keep producing them. I guess now's a good time to replace my neutral diopter since I lost the original at a film festival in Japan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 19:55
|
|
|
 Drew II by atomicthumbs, on Flickr HP5+ pushed to 3200. The reduced exposure latitude is a pain in the rear end, but the grain isn't too big an obstacle in 6x7.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 23:43
|
|
|
New film day in the QoP household Got a giftcard for my birthday so this was all basically free 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 14:21
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:I thought it looked more like shake myself. As far as I can tell the shutter speeds sound correct. Well, your 12 year old will at least still get that Holga lomo effect in a camera that actually looks cool.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 23:25
|
|
|
What would be fair prices to develop 35mm with scans? I bought my first film camera a week ago and just finished up a roll.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 18:31
|
|
|
What resolution scans are you looking for? A roll plus scans (1600 long edge I think) at my local Target is 2.99, and the guy in the photo section is competent. Oh, assuming this is color negative film?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 18:43
|
|
|
Yeah just a roll of kodak gold to test it out. I also bought expired tmax, superia, agfa 50, and various other stuff. They generally don't scan high res enough to print off of?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 18:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 05:32 |
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:
Very nice!
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 21:56
|
|