|
copen posted:Wet printing is the poo poo. Everyone should try it who is interested in film. My suggestion would be to take a class at a community college that still has a dark room. Yeah, printing is definitely some of the most fun you can have with photography. There's nothing like putting on some chill tunes and hanging around the darkroom for a few hours. I'm lucky that my college has one that is usually accessible to anyone and chemicals are often around to use. It's closed for the summer though but I'm hopefully gonna shoot a lot of B&W when I go away to Norway later in the month and print it.
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 01:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 12:55 |
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Using the word "improve" comes with an implicit judgement that other people's processes aren't as good as yours. Look, it's great that your process works really well for you, but my process works really well for me. What you do really wouldn't make sense for the results I want. You can call it a judgement if you like, there are some serious shortcomings with some of the practices in this thread. I didn't show my before and after to criticize them, but to offer up an insight to what's possible within the physical part of the process. I'll just leave it at that since I don't want to awaken SoundMonkey. Reichstag said it was disingenuous of me to use an unretouched neg scan and that I should have used a flat print instead, but they both serve the same purpose- to show the neutral negative I started with. The neg scan showed it without my having to waste the time and money to do the flat print in the darkroom. Not to mention, I specifically said it was unretouched in my OP, so I don't know how that was anything other than completely open about it. It wasn't some digital vs film comparison that some made it out to be. It's still covered in dust, for crying out loud.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 01:41
|
|
|
Yeah, we do it wrong, we get it already.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 01:47
|
|
|
Sheesh the guy is just trying to say that wet printing is cool (ok maybe in a hamfisted way). Would everyone be so up in arms if he had posted it in the wet printing thread instead?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 01:54
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:You can call it a judgement if you like, there are some serious shortcomings with some of the practices in this thread. I agree, the posting practises in here are terrible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 02:13
|
|
|
My, my! So much insecurity here. First of all it doesn't matter how you achieve your vision. To steer this a bit away from the technical aspect let's imagine a beautiful artwork, say a bust or a statue. Do you really give a drat if the guy made it using power-tools or with the old fashioned hammer and chisel? I wouldn't. It's his artistic expression that counts. Same with paintings and so on. He is basically taking a part of himself (his vision) and putting it outside for all to see. This takes courage, as not everyone will agree with your vision, tastes or the perceived message. That means, that it doesn't matter what workflow you use. As your photographic vision is already being realized by the moment you go to your shooting location. Photography is a curatory medium, we curate reality, show our own view of it and then (maybe) modify it to achieve our mood and vision. So, ultimately it doesn't matter if you use your shiny Canon Mark II 1s, or whatever the new hotness is right now; or the Holga "toy" camera, which is also frowned upon here, to achieve your vision. It doesn't matter one iota. Because ultimately you should be pursuing your *own* vision, and not the approval of some people on the internet or somewhere else. You primary produce art for yourself. If you don't - I'd suggest you to perform some evaluation: "Where do I want to go from here?". I personally chose film, because I like the film aesthetic; it works for me and I do the shooting for my enjoyment. That's all I need, I'm simple like that. Now, I would love to do more darkroom printing, like I did in the past, but alas, I can't. I love the manual hands-on work it entails; it's just not practical for me here and in my current life situation. This film shooters thread here should be a pretty chill place, where we show off our stuff, have the odd technical rant or two and a safe haven from camera inferiority complexes. Our community is already small as it is, let's not subdivide further between the true artists and those that match the workflow to their circumstances. Because ultimately, like an old German chancellor said: "It's what comes out behind that matters."
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 03:04
|
|
|
VomitOnLino hit the nail on the head. Why discredit one technique over another merely because that is the way _you_ do it? As a community, we must embrace the differences/shortcomings of all processes and all artistic outputs - there are a million ways to create a million visions, pick one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 03:28
|
|
|
I print all my photos on my dilz and the only person that gets to see my "vision" is your mom.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 03:32
|
|
|
gently caress negs and prints, shoot wetplate 
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 05:47
|
|
|
47 new posts since only a few hours ago in the film thread! The film thread has blown up! Maybe there's some awesome photos here...SoundMonkey posted:I'm at the bar on my phone right now, and I'm seeing a lot of opinions, please don't ruin my birthday (yesterday actually) by making me come back to this thread on my laptop where by buttons are bigger than 1 pixel when I get home Don't make me break out storytime again!
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 06:08
|
|
|
here is my final product, an image formed on your retina in some manner: Summer by atomicthumbs, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 11:50
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:here is my final product, an image formed on your retina in some manner: So your final product is a lawnmower.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 12:54
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:Really haven't got the hang of correcting tone and colour in my scans yet. That's the part I like the most of scanning -- there's always something to learn. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 15:36
|
|
|
I'm using VueScan to create 'raw' tiffs and importing them into LR at the moment, but it doesn't really seem set up to process scans of negs. I've mainly been processing rolls from last year when I'd only just started with film though so it might also be down to poor exposure and developing too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 16:11
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:I'm using VueScan to create 'raw' tiffs and importing them into LR at the moment, but it doesn't really seem set up to process scans of negs. I've mainly been processing rolls from last year when I'd only just started with film though so it might also be down to poor exposure and developing too. The point of doing a raw scan is to not let the scanning program do any corrections whatsoever, including inverting negatives and countering base color.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 16:21
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:The point of doing a raw scan is to not let the scanning program do any corrections whatsoever, including inverting negatives and countering base color. That's what he's saying. Negative scan in Vuescan, invert and correct in LR. ...I think.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 16:34
|
|
|
Oh ha, I read right over the LR part. Though as long as it can invert and has working curves, that means it is set up to process negs as well as photoshop.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 16:35
|
|
|
I'm slowly but surely getting back into shooting with film. I'm going to do it so that I can get used to shooting in m mode on my dslr. I have some left over tmax 400 (I think that that's the number, might be wrong) that was left over from when I took a photography class a few years ago, but my only problem is I have no clue where to go to go get it developed. I really don't want to do it myself, mainly because of the fact that I really don't have a room I my house that's dark enough to do so. Does any one have any suggestions or know of a website that will do it for a decent price or are there any nj photo goons who know of an place that will do it for a decent price?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 17:26
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:That's what he's saying. Yeah, this is what I'm doing. LR does have the capability to work with negatives, although once you invert the tone curve you have to treat all the sliders as the reverse of what they normally do. No doubt the faulty part at the moment is me and I'll get there with practice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 17:46
|
|
|
screenwritersblues posted:I'm slowly but surely getting back into shooting with film. I'm going to do it so that I can get used to shooting in m mode on my dslr. Can I least get mad at this?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 17:47
|
|
|
screenwritersblues posted:I'm slowly but surely getting back into shooting with film. I'm going to do it so that I can get used to shooting in m mode on my dslr. I have some left over tmax 400 (I think that that's the number, might be wrong) that was left over from when I took a photography class a few years ago, but my only problem is I have no clue where to go to go get it developed. I really don't want to do it myself, mainly because of the fact that I really don't have a room I my house that's dark enough to do so. Does any one have any suggestions or know of a website that will do it for a decent price or are there any nj photo goons who know of an place that will do it for a decent price? 1) If you want to get used to shooting in M mode on your DSLR, shoot in M mode on your DSLR.  2) You can develop film in daylight tanks. 3) There are very few reasons not to do B&W development yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 18:00
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:Can I least get mad at this? gently caress yes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 18:01
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:gently caress yes. This but ironically.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 19:12
|
|
|
screenwritersblues posted:I'm slowly but surely getting back into shooting with film. I'm going to do it so that I can get used to shooting in m mode on my dslr. I have some left over tmax 400 (I think that that's the number, might be wrong) that was left over from when I took a photography class a few years ago, but my only problem is I have no clue where to go to go get it developed. I really don't want to do it myself, mainly because of the fact that I really don't have a room I my house that's dark enough to do so. Does any one have any suggestions or know of a website that will do it for a decent price or are there any nj photo goons who know of an place that will do it for a decent price? McMadCow posted:Can I least get mad at this?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 21:46
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:(NOT PRINTING! I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT PRINTING! JUST DEVELOPING FILM!) I'm angry about this. Who ever thought it was a good idea to begin using the word "develop" to mean "produce little postcard-sized prints" instead of refer to a chemical process? "We develop your digital photos" no gently caress you, you print them. Developing exposed film produces negatives. Developing exposed photographic paper produces a print of the negative exposed onto it. But developing a film does not produce loving prints. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 22:02
|
|
|
nielsm posted:I'm angry about this. I too am angry at Walmart's photo lab ad copy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 22:03
|
|
|
Pointless photograph-related anger: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWgvGjAhvIw DO NOT loving SHAKE POLAROID PICTURES. They don't work that way!
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 22:26
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Why get mad about somebody's excuse for turning a dial on a camera? If someone feels they need to use film to force themselves to develop certain skills that they will later apply to digital photography, why would that annoy somebody else? Because it's the Internet, I need to express disproportionate anger at everything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 23:56
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Developing exposed film produces negatives. Developing exposed photographic paper produces a print of the negative exposed onto it. But developing a film does not produce loving prints. Counterpoint: slides, Polaroids Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 01:31 on Jun 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 00:32
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Why get mad about somebody's excuse for turning a dial on a camera? If someone feels they need to use film to force themselves to develop certain skills that they will later apply to digital photography, why would that annoy somebody else? This was what I was going to come here to make more clear. I want to learn how to shoot properly, instead of just pointing the camera and shooting. I did it once back when I was in college, but I since have lost my way and want to start shooting film again before I go into the digital world. I found a place that will develop the film for like $10 +shipping and handling. I might give them a try and see how they do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 01:01
|
|
|
screenwritersblues posted:This was what I was going to come here to make more clear. I want to learn how to shoot properly, instead of just pointing the camera and shooting. I did it once back when I was in college, but I since have lost my way and want to start shooting film again before I go into the digital world. That seems really loving expensive compared to developing at home if you plan on doing any significant amount of shooting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 01:20
|
|
|
I think I just found my first tattoo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 01:38
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:That seems really loving expensive compared to developing at home if you plan on doing any significant amount of shooting. What about making prints then? This is where I'm kind of confused. Most people don't have the same technology that they have in labs to do it at home.. So how do they do it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 02:17
|
|
|
Making prints requires additional equipment and a dark room. You can develop film without a darkroom, you just need some chemicals, a changing bag and a daylight development tank. For colour film maybe some way to control water temperature, for B&W you don't really need that. 8th-samurai wrote a pretty decent guide on the very first page of this thread: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2864270#post344262317 I think most people here develop their own B&W, some people also do their own colour film, and a few do prints also. Have a look through the thread, there's loads of information. e: or just send it off, but $10 a roll seems a lot. I pay £3 a roll for 35mm or 120 colour negative film, slide film is a bit more. big scary monsters fucked around with this message at 02:31 on Jun 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 02:27
|
|
|
Making black and white prints at home is pretty easy. Could probably even get everything you need on craigslist for $100 dollars these days. Same chemicals as developing, you just need a spot that is big enough for an enlarger and some trays of chemicals. Oh and it has to be pretty dark. Color on the other hand is possible to do at home it's just quite a bit more complicated. e-6 and other processes probably not DIY unless you are a chem wizard and slightly insane.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 02:29
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:
where?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 02:33
|
|
|
http://www.ag-photolab.co.uk/c41-film-process-only-58-c.asp Doesn't include return delivery, but they send you postage paid bags for your film. Or if you're ordering from their shop (http://www.ag-photographic.co.uk/) you can combine postage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 02:47
|
|
|
screenwritersblues posted:What about making prints then? This is where I'm kind of confused. Most people don't have the same technology that they have in labs to do it at home.. So how do they do it? I upload tiffs to adoramapix.com and some prints show up in the mail a few days later. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 03:17
|
|
|
screenwritersblues posted:What about making prints then? This is where I'm kind of confused. Most people don't have the same technology that they have in labs to do it at home.. So how do they do it? Send it off to Digital Silver Imaging, get back silver gelatin prints 
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 03:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 12:55 |
|
|
copen posted:e-6 and other processes probably not DIY unless you are a chem wizard and slightly insane. If you can manage colour neg you can manage e6, there's just a few extra baths. You can even do it in three baths if you use the tetenal home kits (not sure how the results compare to the 7 bath process).
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 03:35
|
|
