|
Reichstag posted:Yes. The most common rec though is the Epson v700/750, which is the best consumer flatbed film scanner on the market. Dedicated scanners are hard to come by for medium format, but are definitely higher quality. As far as I know, the only two currently produced dedicated scanners that will take 120 are the Plustek 120 and a Reflecta something or other. Neither company is held in high regard generally, and I haven't seen much in the way of reviews of either product, but iirc there is one goon with the plustek, maybe they can chime in. I do have the Plustek Opticfilm 8100 and when I bought it, my own research brought me to the conclusion that it's the best bang for the buck if you only shoot 35mm. The ACTUAL (not advertised) resolution is the best of the bunch by a nice margin (3800 DPI vs. 3200 of the 8200 or Reflecta, flatbeds are much lower than that), max number of colors is slightly less than the reflecta but you can work around it using vuescan. The real deciding factor is, will you be scanning medium format too? If you aren't, then probably the 8100 is your best bet. If you are, then you're looking at a flatbed scanner (unless of course you can spend 2k for a Plustek Opticfilm 120). My flickr pics: http://www.flickr.com/photos/maxmarsiglietti/ If you notice, instead of the camera flickr reports "plustek opticfilm 8100" for those pics I did scan with it. You can judge by yourself if the quality is of your liking.
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 12:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 03:39 |
|
|
Argh, I have got to learn to stop pouring perfectly good fixer away. Am I the only one who has this problem?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 13:16
|
|
|
Holistic Detective posted:Argh, I have got to learn to stop pouring perfectly good fixer away. Am I the only one who has this problem? Nah, sounds like your local water table has a similar problem 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 13:43
|
|
|
Holistic Detective posted:Argh, I have got to learn to stop pouring perfectly good fixer away. Am I the only one who has this problem? Seriously please don't pour fix (especially used fix) down the drain. It is not exactly great for the environment. Quantum of Phallus posted:We have the Epson V500s in college and I don't know what it is about them but they just suck the colour out of negative scans. Really not a fan. All of my stuff up until like Nov of last year was scanned on a V600 without any color issues, well serious color issues. My guess would be this is a combination of Epson software and post processing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 13:58
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:Seconding recommending these. Mine is loving brilliant and I will never go back to the stock canon holder (8800F) I like the betterscanning holders but I found one thing - with some rolls, they're out of shape enough so that they sag down (imagine a slight U shape). I found that putting the film right on the glass and topping it with the betterscanning ANR glass flattens it out without loss of detail. If anything, the photo looked better since it was flatter. (V500 btw)
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:I like the betterscanning holders but I found one thing - with some rolls, they're out of shape enough so that they sag down (imagine a slight U shape). I found that putting the film right on the glass and topping it with the betterscanning ANR glass flattens it out without loss of detail. If anything, the photo looked better since it was flatter. So in that case you're not even using the glass holder? Thanks for all the reviews. I'll plan on grabbing a holder and glass from betterscanning. Now I just need to remember how to develop my own B&W reels. My chemicals are probably 3 or so years old. Still good?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 20:04
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:So in that case you're not even using the glass holder? I am using the glass piece without the plastic holder, it keeps the film flat. I guess Epson's DOF is good enough to catch the film right against the glass as well as at the height of the betterscanning holder.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 20:33
|
|
|
Holistic Detective posted:Argh, I have got to learn to stop pouring perfectly good fixer away. Am I the only one who has this problem? I have opposite problem, I just going and going forgetting how many rolls I've put through it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
Spedman posted:I have opposite problem, I just going and going forgetting how many rolls I've put through it. If you can't tell if your fixer is good just by smelling it, you're a scrub 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 21:36
|
|
|
If someone says "Velvia rated at ISO 40" it means that they rated/metered as it was an ISO 40 film but still developed normally instead of push/pulling, right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 22:49
|
|
|
Whoops I read that wrong.
Quantum of Phallus fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Feb 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 22:54
|
|
|
Primo Itch posted:If someone says "Velvia rated at ISO 40" it means that they rated/metered as it was an ISO 40 film but still developed normally instead of push/pulling, right? Correct. Technically, the correct way to put that is "rated at EI 40", since the ISO of the film does not actually change, you're just increasing or decreasing the exposure. Thus it's also correct to say that you "rated Tri-X at EI 1600 and pushed two stops", as the development is independent of the exposure.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2013 23:02
|
|
|
So I got my Tetenal kit, mixed everything up with the utmost care, got my film tank ready, made sure my developer was at EXACTLY the right temperature and used it EXACTLY the right amount of time, same with the blix, finally I poured my stabilizer, then realized... ...hm, the dev bottle feels a little light. Hm, the blix bottle feels awfully heavy... ...GOD drat IT. I POURED THE BLIX BACK INTO THE DEV AND MIXED THE LABELED CAPS AROUND. So, after my first roll of home-processed C-41, I ruined the chemicals  Oh well, next time I'm buying the powdered mix for almost half the price.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2013 00:02
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:If you can't tell if your fixer is good just by smelling it, you're a scrub Totally, I never do any of the leader testing malarkey, if it smells like fixer you're good to go. I turfed my last lot as the plastic bottle I had it in was turning black. QPZIL posted:C41 blues That sucks man, this is why I have a rinse between each step and only ever have one bottle open at a time, way too easy to confuse yourself. LATE EDIT: Me grammar good. Spedman fucked around with this message at 12:10 on Feb 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2013 00:26
|
|
|
Spedman posted:That sucks man, this why I have a rinse between each step and only ever have one bottle open at a time, way to easy to confuse yourself. This can never be quoted enough. I don't do a rinse between dev-bleach but the less stuff open at a time, the better. I found it useful to have a bench to put the one bottle I'm working with, apart from the rest.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2013 10:26
|
|
|
The good news is that my one roll turned out well enough! Goat by iantuten, on Flickr  Goat by iantuten, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2013 12:47
|
|
|
Those are some drat good goats.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2013 00:04
|
|
|
Is the Epson V500 my best bet for a scanner under $100? . Anything from Canon in this range? I'll be scanning B&W and color, 35mm.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2013 09:39
|
|
|
6.4 Billion posted:Is the Epson V500 my best bet for a scanner under $100? . Anything from Canon in this range? I'll be scanning B&W and color, 35mm. I think the Canon equivalent is the 4490 or something like that, but the Epson is the standard recommendation. You won't find anything better in the sub-$500 market.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2013 15:02
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:I think the Canon equivalent is the 4490 or something like that, but the Epson is the standard recommendation. You won't find anything better in the sub-$500 market. The three best 35mm scanners are under $500 and none of them is the V500, let alone a flatbed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
Stuff came in from Freestyle today and finally got to develop my first roll of B&W film, Tri-X 400 in Rodinal: CA 163 by jemuelb, on Flickr Honestly, just glad to have the negatives turn out alright. Now I'm excited to try out some Acros 100 when it comes in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 06:14
|
|
|
Last roll out of this C41 kit (losing the shadows), trying to finish off this series
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 10:36
|
|
|
Spedman posted:Last roll out of this C41 kit (losing the shadows), trying to finish off this series Nice picture. How vital is temperature control for colour development in your opinion? How is your tolerance, 1/4, 1/2, a full degree? I'm quite tempted on buying an E-6 kit since I can't really develop slide film around here (I know E-6 is different, but still...).
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 14:28
|
|
|
time to wrap it up, Leicailures Yashica Lynx 14 by voodoorootbeer, on Flickr shiny new roll of Ektar loaded and ready to go
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 15:28
|
|
|
voodoorootbeer posted:time to wrap it up, Leicailures  One of the best low-light platforms I've ever found. Now if I could just get one where the film counter isn't screwed up...
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 16:08
|
|
|
voodoorootbeer posted:time to wrap it up, Leicailures Oh man, always wanted one of those.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 16:43
|
|
|
Got my Zorki 4K in the mail, it's hella fun to use. Wrap it up, Yashicailures.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 16:47
|
|
|
I'm doing work experience in a photography studio and I just found a few rolls of Portra 400 B&W  Never new there was a Portra B&W, anyone have any words on it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 17:38
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:I'm doing work experience in a photography studio and I just found a few rolls of Portra 400 B&W http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/essays/vanRiper/010427.htm Basically it's c-41 black and white that attempts to have that typical orange color you see with c-41 negs, so that your average photolab printer will get a better black and white print out of it (sounds almost like T400CN film, but using portras film base instead).
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 17:42
|
|
|
Hmm, sounds tempting to be able to throw a B&W roll in with the one-hour colour C-41 rolls.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 17:46
|
|
|
Primo Itch posted:Nice picture. Thanks. When the chems have heated up to 38C, I just go for it as they'll be within 1C of that during the development process, which should only take about 3-4mins. If you're doing 20-25C (room temp development) the temperature isn't really going to drift so you just need to calculate the right time for the given temperature. As for E6, it's just as easy as C41 to do, except I've never seen it done at room temp, always 37C. The 3rd or 4th roll I ever developed was E6 and I never had a screw up, and it's really satisfying pulling a roll of transparencies out of the tank and hold them up to the light. My advice, DO IT. Quantum of Phallus posted:Hmm, sounds tempting to be able to throw a B&W roll in with the one-hour colour C-41 rolls. I always liked Ilford XP2, a similar C41 BW film, bur if you can't be hosed getting it processed as C41 you can just process as BW and get some great negs out of it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 20:56
|
|
|
Yo guys the Zorki 4K is a cool camera aight later Blacksmithing by iantuten, on Flickr  Blacksmithing by iantuten, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 05:40
|
|
|
I finally got the part I needed to use my rangefinder again. Good news: it works great and the lens is sharp too. Bad news: It's only a Leica.   Crappy drugstore scans of cheap Kodak Gold 400.    
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 21:47
|
|
|
But where's the Leica Glow™ at, bro? You should try and cultivate some mold to get it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 22:01
|
|
|
I just started taking a Introduction to Photography class at my local Community College. I just made the rookie mistake of not pressing the quick release button on my camera, so I got little bunches of film on my floor. I hope that doesn't affect my grade.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 00:00
|
|
|
Nixatron posted:I just started taking a Introduction to Photography class at my local Community College. I just made the rookie mistake of not pressing the quick release button on my camera, so I got little bunches of film on my floor. I hope that doesn't affect my grade. ...you rewound the film with the uptake spool locked? And the film didn't snap off the spool in the canister but instead did get rewound but being ripped along the sprocket holes? I haven't heard of that happening before, but I can imagine it'll be hard to get the film developed and printed/scanned like that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 00:22
|
|
|
nielsm posted:...you rewound the film with the uptake spool locked? And the film didn't snap off the spool in the canister but instead did get rewound but being ripped along the sprocket holes? I haven't heard of that happening before, but I can imagine it'll be hard to get the film developed and printed/scanned like that. Yup, that's what happened. At first I didn't know if that was just how it was suppose to sound so I just kinda kept on going for a little, but eventually I looked it up and realized that I might have ruined everything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 00:47
|
|
|
Nixatron posted:Yup, that's what happened. At first I didn't know if that was just how it was suppose to sound so I just kinda kept on going for a little, but eventually I looked it up and realized that I might have ruined everything. Congrats, I did that with a roll of mine a page or so ago 
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 00:59
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:Congrats, I did that with a roll of mine a page or so ago well as far as I can tell only the sprocket holes have rips in them, and its only the last little bit. so I think I can deal, but now I'll never mess up again. First time in the dark room with actual film tomorrow too. I'll see.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 01:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 03:39 |
|
|
You might get some of those stress mark half moon things. I get those when I gently caress up a roll getting it loaded on a reel sometimes
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 02:06
|
|
