|
Genderfluid posted:xposting from medium/large format thread That is sweet, really making those dodgy backs look even more tempting.
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 02:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 20:31 |
|
|
Thanks to a stupid recent equipment purchase, I am broke as hell. I just want some cheap b&w 120 film to screw around with while I am still learning to develop. And $7.50 a roll of Tri-X/HP5 is kind of annoying when you end up with like two keepers (the shipping to Australia really bumps up the price for everything). Ideally, I would like to pay < $4 a roll. What is the least-lovely cheap lovely chinese film? At the moment, after scouring ebay/maco/freestyle/bh/adorama, I can find: Shanghai GP3 100 - $2.72 (100pk), $2.75 (20pk), $2.90 (10pk) Arista.EDU 100 - $3.68 (50pk) Lucky 100 - $4.00 (20pk)
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 06:16
|
|
|
joelcamefalling posted:Thanks to a stupid recent equipment purchase, I am broke as hell. Shanghai is terrible film that smells of garlic and most likely have light leaks from the lovely backing paper. Arista EDU ultra is Foma which aside from the truly awful reciprocity is great film.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 06:27
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Shanghai is terrible film that smells of garlic and most likely have light leaks from the lovely backing paper. Arista EDU ultra is Foma which aside from the truly awful reciprocity is great film. Arista it is, then. At least until I go to Transylvania.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 07:51
|
|
|
joelcamefalling posted:Arista it is, then. Unrequested advice but.. I've found Foma to be more pleasant when overexposed by one stop. E.g. If you want to use it at the nominal speed, shoot it normally but push it +1 when developing. If you can't develop it yourself, shoot it -1.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 08:52
|
|
|
You should be able to get Fomapan 100 direct from Fomafoto for less than $4 (AUD) a roll including shipping to Australia. If you mix it up and get some Fomapan 400 too you can push the poo poo out of it to 3200 and still get usable images. Fomapan and Rodinal are good friends too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 09:51
|
|
|
joelcamefalling posted:Thanks to a stupid recent equipment purchase, I am broke as hell. did you remember to subtract the 19% vat from maco? The good stuff like TMax 100 is <$4/roll* *(+shipping) Buy 100 rolls and shipping converges to bugger-all. Go in with another aussie if it helps (I have a non-goon friend that I split shipping costs with) Captain Postal fucked around with this message at 12:08 on Feb 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 12:06
|
|
|
Spedman posted:You should be able to get Fomapan 100 direct from Fomafoto for less than $4 (AUD) a roll including shipping to Australia. I tried, but for I ended up with: $6.50ish - 10r $4.75 - 20r $4.15 - 50r ..and after that it got more expensive, somehow. Captain Postal posted:did you remember to subtract the 19% vat from maco? The good stuff like TMax 100 is <$4/roll* yeah, I was logged in at the time so it showed it with 0% VAT. Tmax squeaks in just under $4/roll (AUD), at 100 rolls $4.50 with shipping. Problem is, I don't know anyone else who shoots film around here, aside from a few holga fans... and definitely not anyone who wants fifty+ rolls of tmax. Then again, my local photo store sells is for $13/roll, and even ebay is like $8/roll for a five pack, so I could potentially sell it at zero loss at least. Stupid country.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 14:47
|
|
|
Goddrat TMAX 400 is grungy at roughly ISO3200. I'm saying roughly because these pictures were a bit underexposed and I was about 15ml too short on my developer, so I developed it a bit longer than recommended. Anyways, in my hurry I made an awful mistake and forgot to add a wetting agent on last rinse. Only realised it after it dried up and cut it up. So now I got some marks in my negatives here and there. Is there any way I can rinse it again with wetting agent or is it lost? Here are some quick scans of the roll. I didn't bother cleaning them up yet. Doing a documentary now of a local social housing, mainly inhabited by immigrants and their children. The guy on the left told me about the poo poo that goes down there. I don't know what the hell I got myself into.   
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 17:55
|
|
|
Fragrag posted:Anyways, in my hurry I made an awful mistake and forgot to add a wetting agent on last rinse. Only realised it after it dried up and cut it up. So now I got some marks in my negatives here and there. Is there any way I can rinse it again with wetting agent or is it lost? Sure. Grab something you can use as a developing tray, like a food storage box. Fill it with water and let your negatives soak a bit, then transfer them to another great with your wetting agent. Carefully hang the strips to dry by the edges. It might not be quite as good, but it's doable. You can also re-fix like that if you notice after the fact that you used too old fixer and it left spots of emulsion on the film.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 18:06
|
|
|
I find that I really, really like the look of super grainy, ultra high ISO film when looking through other peoples' photos, no matter how abused it ends up looking, but I'm never satisfied when it's my own. Even Delta 400 starts to make me a bit nutty with the grain. Also, on the not about water spots, yeah, just re-wash them in a tray or something. I've got a bunch of old rubber margarin tubs that I use for stuff like that. It actually didn't strike me until just now how weird it is that we bought margarine in 8x10" flat tubs... I used to be really, really terrible at washing my film, completely oblivious to massive water spots like this one until after I was done scanning. Also dust. Dust everywhere. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 21:14
|
|
|
One of my favorite pictures I've taken is on Tri-X pushed to 6400. D&D Night by iantuten, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 21:32
|
|
|
^ Always like that one.joelcamefalling posted:Stupid country. Tell me about it  I'd go in with you, but I've got a heap of black and white in the fridge slowly marching past it's expirery date.And if you want to push film, I would suggest staying away from T-max as its not designed to be pushed due it's grain structure (I think that's the reason). Films like Tri-x, Fomapan and Delta push nice as they're all similar film types. Here's some Fomapan at 3200: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 21:51
|
|
|
Portra 160 giving me some weird colours, at least to my eye. Ma Maison by alkanphel, on Flickr  Wine Bottles by alkanphel, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 23:03
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:Portra 160 giving me some weird colours, at least to my eye. Looks magenta
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 00:19
|
|
|
Genderfluid posted:Looks magenta Yeah that's what some others are saying too. Guess I need to work on my colour correction.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 10:47
|
|
|
I really only see the magenta in the first one, the second one looks pretty good to me. What's your scanning workflow like?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 10:59
|
|
|
Spedman posted:If you mix it up and get some Fomapan 400 too you can push the poo poo out of it to 3200 and still get usable images. Here's Foma 400 pushed to 1600 and overexposed by 1 stop: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 11:37
|
|
|
Saint Fu posted:I really only see the magenta in the first one, the second one looks pretty good to me. What's your scanning workflow like? Using the exposure lock and film base color lock methods first to get a baseline on the negative, then scanning it and letting Vuescan invert, then trying to do WB with LR. If that fails I just open it in PS and just to use the Curves layer to set the endpoints of the individual RGB channels.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 11:59
|
|
|
Alright, I am kicking myself in the rear end over this mistake and wondering what I can do. I use my Nikon N90s as a light meter for my medium format stuff. I thought I had it set to iso 1600 but ended up having it at iso 1000 (dumbdumbdumb) and shot a roll on medium format at that setting. I am using HP5+ so I'm not too worried about pushing it, I just don't know how long to develop for. I usually use HC-110 dilution B and develop for around 11 min at iso 1600. How would I compensate for this?
pootiebigwang fucked around with this message at 02:34 on Mar 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 02:32
|
|
|
pootiebigwang posted:Alright, I am kicking myself in the rear end over this mistake and wondering what I can do. I use my Nikon N90s as a light meter for my medium format stuff. I thought I had it set to iso 1600 but ended up having it at iso 1000 (dumbdumbdumb) and shot a roll on medium format at that setting. I am using HP5+ so I'm not too worried about pushing it, I just don't know how long to develop for. I usually use HC-110 dilution B and develop for around 11 min at iso 1600. How would I compensate for this? To be honest it's less than a stop mistake, it's not a huge deal. You can probably develop for 1600 and it'll look good and thick, or maybe do 10m for "normal" (EI800) development.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 03:00
|
|
|
pootiebigwang posted:Alright, I am kicking myself in the rear end over this mistake and wondering what I can do. I use my Nikon N90s as a light meter for my medium format stuff. I thought I had it set to iso 1600 but ended up having it at iso 1000 (dumbdumbdumb) and shot a roll on medium format at that setting. I am using HP5+ so I'm not too worried about pushing it, I just don't know how long to develop for. I usually use HC-110 dilution B and develop for around 11 min at iso 1600. How would I compensate for this? Well, according to digitaltruth HC-110 @ EL 1600 with HP5+ in dilution B is indeed 11:00 min. It also states 10:00 minutes for the same combination at EL 800. So 10:30 should do it just fine. Personally, I'd just develop it at 10:00 minutes; I generally like things a bit darker. But, either way you should be fine and well within the film's margin of error.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 03:03
|
|
|
My Pentax ME Super just came in today and I'm excited and also a bit scared. I picked up a 4-pack of cheap Fujifilm 400 to experiment with while I'm learning. So here are my stupid questions: 1) How do you properly load the film? I put the thin end into the white spool thing, spun it until it made a full rotation, shut the camera, and cranked it until the shot counter said 0. Is that all there is to it? and a follow-up to that, does the entire roll of film look like the part I saw, or does cranking it bring out the usable portion? 2) I've got most of the dials & such already figured out but on the ISO ring there are 2 options; 1 I can raise the silver ring to select the film ISO (I think) so I have that at 400. 2 There is a dial that gives me anywhere from 1/4x to 4x. What does this do? I just set it at 1x. I've got more questions about the actual camera but that probably belongs in the ME thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 03:24
|
|
|
GobiasIndustries posted:My Pentax ME Super just came in today and I'm excited and also a bit scared. I picked up a 4-pack of cheap Fujifilm 400 to experiment with while I'm learning. So here are my stupid questions: 1: That's actual film you are looking at. If you were to load the camera in a darkbag or something you'd be able to use that bit of the film for an extra shot or two. You might need to fire/crank until you hit frame 1, but just make sure your first shot or two aren't anything you're worried about having just in case. 2: the 1/4x to 4x options are basically exposure compensation, so that you can have it meter for something different without actually changing the iso. Also you're right that you were looking at the iso.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 03:27
|
|
|
Tried using my bed for changing bag. The film ended up with a quite high Dmin. Ugh. Any suggestions for making that work better? I'm not entirely sure if it was because of leaks by my arms or if my bedsheets just don't block enough light. Edit: Okay tried sticking my head under the sheets, and I could still see the pattern on them clearly. Stupid thing to not check beforehand. (Got me a roll of extra low contrast HP5+!) nielsm fucked around with this message at 14:14 on Mar 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 14:01
|
|
|
It's a better idea to use your bathroom with a towel stuffed under the door. If you have TL or LED light fixtures, wait a couple of minutes for their luminescence to disappear.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 14:42
|
|
|
Yeah the bathroom would have been darker after all, but there's still little cracks all around the door there, and this apartment is not mine to fix. (I'm renting a live-in room and I want to get out.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 15:04
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Yeah the bathroom would have been darker after all, but there's still little cracks all around the door there, and this apartment is not mine to fix. (I'm renting a live-in room and I want to get out.) That blue 3M painter's tape works pretty well, and it comes in cheap, giant rolls so you don't feel too bad taping yourself in and throwing it away afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 15:10
|
|
|
Buy a load of black bin-liners and use those.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 15:46
|
|
|
I used my bed up as a darkroom right up until a few months ago when I bought a changing bag to load 4x5 holders. The key is to do it at night (or at least not in direct sunlight) and use several layers of heavy blankets. I also used to wait before opening the film canister until I was sure there were no light leaks. Seriously though, buy a twenty dollar changing bag on ebay and don't look back.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 16:00
|
|
|
Agreed, at $20, a changing bag is totally worth it. I love mine, and it's nice being able to change sheet film out of LF holders anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 22:13
|
|
|
Finally got my first couple rolls of film developed after playing with my new AE-1 I got them developed and scanned at London Drugs, and paid a couple bucks extra for the "premium" high res scans. The files are roughly 6000x4000 pixels, but at full zoom they look extremely pixelated. Is this standard fare for labs such as this? Would love to hear from somebody who has used London Drugs specifically. Here's a sample at 100% zoom:   Pretty by iamthejeff, on Flickr  Rawr by iamthejeff, on Flickr  Denim Dad by iamthejeff, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 02:30
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:Finally got my first couple rolls of film developed after playing with my new AE-1 those look like absolute rear end and you got ripped off if you paid more than a dollar for those scans. it looks like they were saved as the lowest possible quality jpegs
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 02:48
|
|
|
Yeah, I'll agree with Genderfluid; that's pretty crappy. I'll bet you could get better scans from that smartphone scanner that Lomo is coming out with. This is a 100% crop from Precision Camera's Noritsu minilab "ultra-high res" scan (probably about the same equipment), originally 4492x6774.  It's not an Imacon-quality scan, maybe not even a V750-quality scan, but it's miles ahead of what London Drugs is trying to pass off as "quality".
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 02:59
|
|
|
I'm on the look out for a decent used negative scanner, but until then I think I'll let the negatives pile up without paying to have them scanned 
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 03:01
|
|
|
I picked up my v600 new for only $160 and it matches or beats most lab scans. It's not perfect, but it's good enough for posting pictures on the internet and will hold you over until you decide to upgrade to the v700.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 03:11
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:I picked up my v600 new for only $160 and it matches or beats most lab scans. It's not perfect, but it's good enough for posting pictures on the internet and will hold you over until you decide to upgrade to the v700. And buying a flatbed is a good excuse to buy a medium format camera.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 03:25
|
|
|
"You said you wanted them to be at least 4000 px wide." "These look like rear end! You can see the pixels! You just resized small images to make them bigger!' "But... you said you wanted them to be at least 4000 px wide..." Technically you got what you paid for. From stupid people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 04:06
|
|
|
I actually didn't ask them to enlarge them, though. They offer regular scans and premium scans for a couple bucks more. So really, they're just lying to people. I'm going to bring them back tomorrow and see what they say, but I wouldn't expect them to understand.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 04:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 20:31 |
|
|
Yeah, I'm willing to bet their "premium" is just a resize of their regular scan. It's got bigger numbers! That counts! Just try to be clear about how their "premium" scans don't have any more detail than their regular, they're just bigger files. Who knows, maybe they'll get it and go "oh, wow, that makes sense, no one's told us that before" and that London Drugs will become a Mecca of quality consumer services. Or maybe they'll at least give you your couple dollars back.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 08:14
|
|