|
8th-samurai posted:Cold chemicals will cause underdevelopment. Have you scanned any of them? Flat negs really aren't the worst thing. You can always bump contrast in post, removing it is a pain. Scanned a couple yeah. I'm at work just now though, don't have any for an example. It's probably a mix of colder chemicals and crap light in the first place. But yeah I'll play about with them in post.
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 10:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 02:19 |
|
|
Just a general question regarding development, what is the best way to agitate the mixture when developing? I've always taken it that you pick up the tank, and invert it once per second for the ten seconds it recommends each minute, but I see people talking about rotating the spindle fo the same period of time Is one better than the other, or does it not matter?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 11:23
|
|
|
Man_alive posted:Just a general question regarding development, what is the best way to agitate the mixture when developing? I've always taken it that you pick up the tank, and invert it once per second for the ten seconds it recommends each minute, but I see people talking about rotating the spindle fo the same period of time I gently pick up the tank and invert slowly while also twisting it in a figure eight pattern, then tap the bottom on the counter three times to shake off any bubbles. Never cared for the rotating spindle thing but only because it seems janky and hard to do smoothly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 12:21
|
|
|
Man_alive posted:Just a general question regarding development, what is the best way to agitate the mixture when developing? I've always taken it that you pick up the tank, and invert it once per second for the ten seconds it recommends each minute, but I see people talking about rotating the spindle fo the same period of time Manual inversion better redistributes the chemistry and is slightly more difficult to gently caress up than using the spindle. But at some tank sizes inversion isn't really an option; a lot of people can't handle the five roll tanks, and I've never seen anyone even attempt an eight roll tank.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 16:33
|
|
|
My Paterson tank always leaks a bit when I try inversion agitation, and has always done so. Of course I check that the lid is properly closed. So I just get by with rotation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 17:04
|
|
|
The lid on mine is hard to get on in the first place so I just don't bother with it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 20:35
|
|
|
My little two reel tank has a nice new lid so the chems stay in, I never use the lid from my older 5 reel tank, just get fixer and dev everywhere. So ALWAYS rinse off your tanks and associated paraphernalia in fresh water and let dry after processing, any residues will make that seal worse and worse over time. I do the same method as 8th, a nice smooth rotation with a couple of taps at the end. And if you're doing colour, follow the inversion guide to a T, otherwise you're gonna grain 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 21:20
|
|
|
Anyone have experience with xray film? It's way cheaper than normal film for 8x10 http://www.ebay.com/itm/HRT-8-x10-FUJI-GREEN-X-RAY-FILM-8-x-10-Lowest-price-/261056769987?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3cc8322fc3
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 21:31
|
|
|
nielsm posted:My Paterson tank always leaks a bit when I try inversion agitation, and has always done so. Of course I check that the lid is properly closed. So I just get by with rotation. I have a stainless tank as well, but I got it from an ebay seller that didn't know what it was and it doesn't have a way to seal it, so I just roll it around in my hand and tap it on the table to agitate. I'm not good enough at either shooting or developing to notice an effect of differences in agitation technique. I've used X-ray film, for contact exposures of radionuclide-labelled DNA fragments in polyacrylamide gels, about 10 years ago. It was sensitive to visible light, except red - the darkroom had a safelight that didn't gently caress it up, but it also had another, yellow light that I accidentally left on one day and ruined a sheet of film with. We had an automatic developer, I just fed the sheet in like an old-style fax machine and then waited about 5 minutes, so I don't know what chemistry was happening. Presumably something like normal C-41. I have no idea what the ISO-equivalent of that film would be. For worthless reference, I was using micro-Curie amounts of 32P in a gel that was about 14x11, exposed by laying the film directly against the cling-film wrapping the gel inside a flat, light-proof box. Exposure times were about 48 hours if the isotope was fresh, 5 days if it was a week old (32P's half life is about 14 days). We had to treat the chemicals from the developer as low-level liquid radioactive waste even though they never normally came in contact with the isotope, I wish I could remember what the bottles looked like; I was only there once when the tech was changing out the old solutions. If you can figure out how to shoot and develop that stuff it would a really cool (and cheap!) experiment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 21:50
|
|
|
My guess is that X-ray film is pretty much just technical film (similar to Tech Pan) possibly with extra sensitivity to X-ray radiation. If you use a regular b/w developer you probably get really strong contrast. Going by the Big Devchart for the Rollei ATO film (which I still haven't tried), you might get something like ISO 1 (yes, one) with 10-15 minutes in Rodinal 1+300. I don't know if that's supposed to be with normal agitation or stand. Maybe just develop it in trays by inspection  (Btw. that yellow-ish safelight might be Ilford's "light brown" one.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 22:02
|
|
|
Genderfluid posted:Anyone have experience with xray film? It's way cheaper than normal film for 8x10 http://www.ebay.com/itm/HRT-8-x10-FUJI-GREEN-X-RAY-FILM-8-x-10-Lowest-price-/261056769987?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3cc8322fc3 Here's a huge thread about it. Been meaning to give it a try, but I can't be bothered to carry my 8x10 around when it's cold out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 22:28
|
|
|
Ay dudes what speed do ya reckon I should be shooting my Ektapro 160 (c41, Portra 160 basically) at for best colour? Overexpose it by a stop? More? Less? What iso do you reckon I should plug into the meter heh.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 04:48
|
|
|
I haven't met a print film that didn't look better with an extra stop. I'd meter at 80.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 05:47
|
|
|
I'm weird I usually meter for box speed. I do however use a spotmeter and measure the brightest part of a scene and then set my exposure to be 3 or 4 stops lower than that. Sounds counter intuitive for neg film but it works for me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 06:07
|
|
|
Yeah, unknown, most likely expired neg film means you are best off overexposing a stop. If fresh, it can handle it with no problem; if old enough to have incurred speed loss, you're covered.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 08:42
|
|
|
So I really kind of want to dick around with a Hasselblad Xpan. Seems pretty cool, and it takes away form the pain of photomerging.   
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 18:03
|
|
|
Why not get a fuji 6x9 for a fraction of the cost? You can even get panoramic 35mm adapters for them so that you can go superwide or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 19:41
|
|
|
I thought it was only the Mamiyas that had panoramic adaptors? Either way the wide angle GSW690 would be a good fit. OR http://www.bhcamera.us/gaoersi617.php
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 22:42
|
|
|
I found this, so it seems they're out there for the fuji's. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Panoramic-Conversion-Kit-For-Fuji-6x9-/130833478363?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1e764872db
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 22:49
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:I found this, so it seems they're out there for the fuji's. That's pretty neat, but $60 isn't exactly cheap for some nuts and a frame.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2013 23:20
|
|
|
Spedman posted:That's pretty neat, but $60 isn't exactly cheap for some nuts and a frame. Right, but a fuji 6x9 with one of those is still half the cost of a hassleblad xpan.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 00:27
|
|
|
Yea, on Keh they go for $1900 for the kit. Plus 6x9 is on 120 film, that's a huge plus.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 02:13
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Right, but a fuji 6x9 with one of those is still half the cost of a hassleblad xpan. Oh totally, I just get sick of photographic accessory prices, it's nearly as bad as buying scientific equipment. I might knock up my own kit with some cork and thin MDF with a dremel. Santa is strapped posted:Yea, on Keh they go for $1900 for the kit. Plus 6x9 is on 120 film, that's a huge plus. I must say 6x9 is becoming one of my favourites to shoot, the Fuji lenses are super sharp, and I like the way the GW690 handles.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 08:35
|
|
|
Spedman posted:Oh totally, I just get sick of photographic accessory prices, it's nearly as bad as buying scientific equipment. It is scientific equipment 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 14:27
|
|
|
Just won a Canon EOS5 on eBay 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 16:13
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:It is scientific equipment Photography: Using science to make art since the early 19th century 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 20:21
|
|
|
penneydude posted:Photography: Using science to make art since the early 19th century I use a d7000 for some of my research (analyzing dust deposits) Early on we had just my d5000 mounted to the microscope, but we swapped to a d7000 and now have a nice laptop (with a nice big, high res screen) to tether to. Makes life way easier.  img035.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr  Galaxy Nexus by MrDespair, on Flickr e. god that storage room we were using as lab space was such a mess. e2. and since this is the film thread it's fun to know that detecting tau neutrinos is still done mostly via nuclear emulsion, basically really thick b/w film! The OPERA detector is just a box to hold tons (literally) of bricks that hold roughly 4x5 sheets of film (made by fuji) between lead. They even have a fully automated system so that if they think there's a hit recorded they can pull the brick out and have it automatically developed for processing. 
Dr. Despair fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Jan 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 21:50
|
|
|
The boss went for a Nikon V1 at work to mount on the microscopes, mirrorless interchangeable lens camera makes sense, I'm just not sure why she went that particular model. Also to keep it on film, I was reviewing a journal article recently (unfortunately I had to reject it) that was describing how to use an enlarger in reverse to accurately transfer micro patterns on to some black and white film, to then use the negs as a photolithography mask. While looking up references I came across this: http://gmwgroup.harvard.edu/pubs/pdf/702.pdf These guys were using the relatively unknown Polaroid instant 35mm black and white reversal film for creating substrates to grow metal on, where the silver acts as a base for the growth for the metallic micro structures.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 00:38
|
|
|
Spedman posted:Also to keep it on film, I was reviewing a journal article recently (unfortunately I had to reject it) that was describing how to use an enlarger in reverse to accurately transfer micro patterns on to some black and white film, to then use the negs as a photolithography mask. While looking up references I came across this: Sad you had to reject it, that would have been an interesting read. Hopefully the rejection wasn't final and they'll resubmit? Reminds me of the Graflarger accessory for the Speed/Crown Graphic press cameras. The idea was to mount a cold light to a negative carrier that slotted into the Graflok (?) back, and then use the whole camera as an enlarger. That way you could just buy the head of the enlarger instead of having to purchase a whole separate unit. You could probably make a perspective-correction enlarger out of a monorail camera like this (they were used back in the day to produce perspective-corrected maps from aerophotography shot at oblique angles). It could also be a cheap-ish way to build a compact 8x10 enlarger if you could come up with a strong and even enough light source.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 01:33
|
|
|
I've been toying with the idea of starting a scientific/technical imaging thread, seems like there might be a few other people who could contribute. Mostly because I've been scanning microarrays for the last couple of weeks and the workflow is remarkably similar to developing and scanning film. I've also done image analysis in the past, and photomicrography, and had a picture I took published on the cover of a journal. That's a bit of a mess of different ideas, but if there are other people willing to talk about sticking cameras on microscopes and X-ray detectors and whatnot I think it'd be fun. Especially if there are more stories about people finding interesting uses for photographic technology, like using film to grow micro metallic structures.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 01:53
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Sad you had to reject it, that would have been an interesting read. Hopefully the rejection wasn't final and they'll resubmit? I'd be surprised if they did, it was for a fairly low quality journal and the techniques and outcomes from the work have pretty much been done and out dated since the 70's/80's. But it was a lot of fun to read, and then I had to pick them apart for saying that their enlarger lens was sharpest wide open, it didn't mater what developer they used or what times they developed for, or what film they used to achieve a high contrast negative etc etc. I learnt how to make lithographic masks in the same way using a much better system, you have a "rocket" reverse enlarger, that projects (is that the right word?) the shrunken image (usually 200:1) onto a 2"x2" piece of glass with emulsion on it. We'd get the emulsion coated glass from Kodak in cassettes of 50, that would regularly get ruined by someone opening the box under white lights. Paul MaudDib posted:Reminds me of the Graflarger accessory *snip* That sounds pretty drat clever. ExecuDork posted:I've been toying with the idea of starting a scientific/technical imaging thread *snip* I'd be more than happy to contribute and really enjoy reading other peoples stories. I've personally got plenty of experience with both UV and e-beam lithography and SEM imaging, making electronic/photonic/plasmonic devices and structures.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 08:15
|
|
|
i used to do (and will soon restart) HE astro work. my phd advisor does CMOS x-ray sensors (though i'm trying not to do that). i've done a lot of work in understanding spacecraft flight instruments (imagers, etc) as a part of my job and can write a post or two.Mr. Despair posted:I use a d7000 for some of my research (analyzing dust deposits) what sort of dust? (fwiw in my dept people do pre-solar grain dust and i've worked with a few people in other sorts of dust) guidoanselmi fucked around with this message at 09:22 on Jan 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 09:18
|
|
|
The Film Thread: Kodak's dead so we're analyzing dust.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 12:44
|
|
|
pseudonordic posted:The Film Thread: Kodak's dead so we're analyzing dust. Basically forensics. Speaking of film, I'm on my way to deplete my second mix of chemicals for C-41 development, I'm really diving into it.  Dusk over Via Giardini di maxmars70, su Flickr Only, I wish the Digibase kit instructions weren't so awful. I am preparing a step by step how to doc with pix, if anyone's interested I'll publish it here (in this thread?).
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 12:48
|
|
|
I'd like to see a how-to guide that's better than the included instructions. Nice shot, by the way - the colours are pretty great. From the car-tailight trails I'm guessing 1/4 second?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 12:54
|
|
|
maxmars posted:Basically forensics. This is great. How hard is doing C-41 home development compared to BW?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 13:20
|
|
|
maxmars posted:Only, I wish the Digibase kit instructions weren't so awful. I am preparing a step by step how to doc with pix, if anyone's interested I'll publish it here (in this thread?). Please do!
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 14:24
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:I'd like to see a how-to guide that's better than the included instructions. Nice shot, by the way - the colours are pretty great. From the car-tailight trails I'm guessing 1/4 second? If only the instructions weren't full of errors and omissions.. Somebody was drunk when they compiled the PDF. Yes the speed was either 1/4 or 1/2. I'd say the latter as it's my preferred speed for such things but it may be the former as it wasn't full night yet. Santa is strapped posted:This is great. How hard is doing C-41 home development compared to BW? Honestly? You need to be precise but not rocket science-precise. If you can cook anything you can do this effortlessly. It also enormously helps to have one (or two) of these in a basin: http://www.firstcall-photographic.co.uk/products/784/nova-water-heater-novatronic I devised times for a single temperature for all the steps that those heaters could sustain and now it's routine. This covers another flaw of the PDF: they give you times for a variety of temperature for each step, but not the same temperature for every step.. This is moronic: the whole process (four chemicals + two washings) lasts less than 20 minutes, how can you reliably switch from, say, 37.8 C to 45 C from a step to the next? QPZIL posted:Please do! I'll try to put together a guide this weekend. The kit is very cheap (less than 1 € per roll, either 120 or 35mm), really makes you want to shoot more.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 16:55
|
|
|
maxmars posted:I'll try to put together a guide this weekend. The kit is very cheap (less than 1 € per roll, either 120 or 35mm), really makes you want to shoot more. What kit do you use? I'm not averse to some at-home chemistry experimentation 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 17:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 02:19 |
|
|
QPZIL posted:What kit do you use? I'm not averse to some at-home chemistry experimentation I'm using the Digibase C-41 kit. Sometimes it's called Compard, other times Rollei.. It's this one: http://www.firstcall-photographic.co.uk/products/3767/rollei-digibase-c-41-maxi-super-kit-5l I don't know what's inside of it, I'm afraid it is not as easy to replicate as Caffenol.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 17:13
|
|