|
big scary monsters posted: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. There is no reason not to. The per-roll develop cost is in the $3 range once you get the equipment, if I remember. Open offer, I'll ship newbies a tank for the cost of shipping if you'll post a couple pictures (say 3) from your next 3 rolls. It will have short-flange reels, so you might want to buy some long-flange reels at Freestyle or something. I think I have 2 spare tanks I've picked up at garage sales. Apart from that, you need: Developer (Rodinal is my recommendation here, alternatively HC-110) Stop (it's cheap as a chemical, or you can use white vinegar or water) Fixer Hypo-Clear (Fixer Remover) Photo-flo (it's like $5, just buy it) Negative sleeves Scanner (V500, refurb, about $100)
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 04:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 10:00 |
|
|
For $10, send off the first roll and decide if you want to bother shooting a second. Black and white film is a different experience for me compared to digital - there are plenty of obvious differences, but put them all together and the net effect means I don't even look at the shutter button or aperture dial the same way. Personally, there's plenty of room in my life for both (though the capacity of my freezer and my harddrives may argue otherwise on occassion). I've got a Tetenal E-6 kit here, but I don't think I'll use it before September or October. I developed C-41 a while ago, it was fine and not really more complicated than B&W - the extra care needed for temperatures was balanced by the lack of need to account for different films and ISO - C-41 is such a massively standardized process that I happily loaded Fuji 800 on one reel and Kodak 200 on the other in the same tank. Making prints from E-6, now... there's something very appealing about the Mad-Science-In-My-Bathroom aspect of that. One of these days I'll be really bored and I'll try to work out the chemistry for Kodachrome, and see if I can possibly do that. I have access to a reasonably well equiped lab, and some pretty significant chemistry expertise in the form of hallway conversations. Who knows, maybe I'll blow myself up!
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 05:27
|
|
|
Bobsledboy posted: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). I didn't realize e-6 was so obtainable at home. I keep toying with the idea of repurposing my laundry room into a dark room. I've got two full dark room setups that my mother in law is going to give me. My wife would probably kill me with the smell of stop bath and me leaving trays of chemicals around all the time. I've never done color printing but it looks hard to get the balance right, I'll just stick to photoshop for color.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 05:46
|
|
|
The smell is bad when you first mix it, but after that if you keep it in a sealed container it's not bad at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 05:50
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:There is no reason not to. The per-roll develop cost is in the $3 range once you get the equipment, if I remember. My cost per-roll, when equipment is already amortized, is about half an euro. 35 cents per roll for the developer (fomadon lqn), plus about 5-6 cent for fomafix, plus a negligible amount of cents for Photo flo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 08:10
|
|
|
Developed my first roll of Acros 100. New favourite film! DSC00167-2 by boydy88, on Flickr  DSC00175-2 by boydy88, on Flickr  DSC00158-2 by boydy88, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 10:14
|
|
|
Mods, can we make this the background of The Dorkroom?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 13:35
|
|
|
Bobsledboy posted: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). The tetnal E-6 process is just as easy as the C41, you've just got an extra dev step. The only thing is that once the chemicals go bad, they go BAD, and you won't get anything out of your roll, unlike negs where you should get something. ExecuDork posted:Making prints from E-6, now... there's something very appealing about the Mad-Science-In-My-Bathroom aspect of that. One of these days I'll be really bored and I'll try to work out the chemistry for Kodachrome, and see if I can possibly do that. I have access to a reasonably well equiped lab, and some pretty significant chemistry expertise in the form of hallway conversations. Who knows, maybe I'll blow myself up! After reading what the guy on APUG went through to get the Kodachrome process going, I really won't bother, unless you're feeling like being a masochist (the film needs to be re-exposed for each dye layer and dunked in another set of chems). He wouldn't even give the full details as he didn't want anyone trying.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 16:24
|
|
|
Spedman posted:The tetnal E-6 process is just as easy as the C41, you've just got an extra dev step. The only thing is that once the chemicals go bad, they go BAD, and you won't get anything out of your roll, unlike negs where you should get something. IIRC, the guy was a former Kodak chemical engineer, and still struggled.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 17:04
|
|
|
What's the major difficulty with developing Kodachrome? It was a popular film that was presumably mass processed all over the world, are there no labs selling off their old Kodachrome processing gear on the cheap? Or is it that the chemicals used aren't available or their composition isn't known? Even if it were pretty expensive to replicate whatever setup was used in processing I'm surprised that no wealthy film nerd (or photolab owner) has done so given how much people love this film.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 17:15
|
|
|
Kodachrome was made in the days where emulsions had lower complexity and developing processes had higher complexity. These days we have E-6 which is much easier to develop - there's no point in using Kodachrome.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 17:21
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:What's the major difficulty with developing Kodachrome? It was a popular film that was presumably mass processed all over the world, are there no labs selling off their old Kodachrome processing gear on the cheap? This issue is that there are no dyes in the emulsion itself. The dyes are in the chemicals, which as you guessed, were discontinued by Kodak. They were so scarce at the end, that the last batches were sent to Dwayne's, where they were worried they would run out before the December 31st 2010 submission deadline. The process was proprietary to Kodak, and most Kodachrome film was sold with development included because of this. The process is a crazy multi step thing, with different chemical baths and exposure to different colors of light in between.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 17:25
|
|
|
Just like there's no point in shooting film 
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 17:25
|
|
|
Kodachrome is the worst loving thing to develop. My tank's still covered in remjet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 17:30
|
|
|
I wrote an essay on the decline of film in the motion picture industry a few months ago and did a bit of research into the Kodachrome developing process. It was basically nuts and I can understand why Kodak discontinued it (It sucks knowing you'll never have that roll of Kodachrome in your freezer developed  )
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 17:30
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:I wrote an essay on the decline of film in the motion picture industry a few months ago and did a bit of research into the Kodachrome developing process. It was basically nuts and I can understand why Kodak discontinued it (It sucks knowing you'll never have that roll of Kodachrome in your freezer developed What percentage of AAA Hollywood titles are still being (mostly) shot on film stock?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 17:40
|
|
|
I don't have figures but not many. I think Star Trek was a recent big one. Fuji discontinued their motion picture line this year. Kodak push it as much as possible but I kinda get the feeling their motion picture stock business are out on their own, a bunch of film die-hards without much ties to the rest of Kodak. Arri have pretty much destroyed 35mm motion picture making with the Alexa. (I'm pretty OK with this, the Alexa is a fantastic camera)
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 18:05
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:What percentage of AAA Hollywood titles are still being (mostly) shot on film stock? More than I expected, I follow Kodak motion picture on Facebook and its surprising how many movies they mention.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 18:44
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:Or is it that the chemicals used aren't available or their composition isn't known? The chemicals are extremely toxic and Kodak eventually gave up producing them. Some people are working on replicating the process, but it is much more complex than conventional slide processes. Quantum of Phallus posted:Kodak push it as much as possible but I kinda get the feeling their motion picture stock business are out on their own, a bunch of film die-hards without much ties to the rest of Kodak. Kodak's motion-picture department has a fairly tight tie-in with the still department, I think. The technology in the new Portra 400 was first pioneered in the Vision3 500T motion picture stock before being backported to the still market, for example. I think Ektar may have evolved the same way? Regardless the entire film department don't have "much tie to the rest of Kodak" since, y'know, Kodak sold them off and stuff. Spedman posted:More than I expected, I follow Kodak motion picture on Facebook and its surprising how many movies they mention. It's quite a few. http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Customers/Productions/index.htm Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Jun 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 18:52
|
|
|
Yeah, the Fuji motion picture announcement wasn't as big as many (me included) assumed, since fuji motion stock was mainly used for commercials and such, hollywood tends to use kodak only.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 19:21
|
|
|
Spedman posted:The tetnal E-6 process is just as easy as the C41, you've just got an extra dev step. The only thing is that once the chemicals go bad, they go BAD, and you won't get anything out of your roll, unlike negs where you should get something. Spedman posted:After reading what the guy on APUG went through to get the Kodachrome process going, I really won't bother, unless you're feeling like being a masochist (the film needs to be re-exposed for each dye layer and dunked in another set of chems). He wouldn't even give the full details as he didn't want anyone trying. Sooner or later I'll accumulate enough excuses to use the phrase "Those FOOLS at the University!" while shaking my fist at the sky that this idea might take root. For now it's just a pleasant, lighting-streaked daydream.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 20:03
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Yeah, the Fuji motion picture announcement wasn't as big as many (me included) assumed, since fuji motion stock was mainly used for commercials and such, hollywood tends to use kodak only. Which is a big shame if you ask me. Vision 3 is an amazing film but Fuji has some amazing stocks too the Eterna Vivid range in particular is incredible. \/\/\/\/\/ 
Quantum of Phallus fucked around with this message at 10:11 on Jun 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 23:20
|
|
|
Found an old pic (about a year ago) of a craigslist haul for $50. Thought y'all would enjoy it
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 06:36
|
|
|
Expired? if so, was it cold stored?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 23:11
|
|
|
Spedman posted:Expired? if so, was it cold stored? Yeah it all expired in the early 2000s. It may or may not have been cold-stored, but I'm betting on not since the Ektachrome has had a nasty color shift. The black & white stuff turned out fine, however.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 01:06
|
|
|
My only issue with 120 home development was threading the film on the spools. I ruined a couple of rolls that way before I started practicing spooling the film over and over on my bus rides. Is 35mm any easier to spool than 120?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 02:57
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:My only issue with 120 home development was threading the film on the spools. I ruined a couple of rolls that way before I started practicing spooling the film over and over on my bus rides. Generally speaking, yes. But I find 35mm to be more easily derailed by too much humidity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 03:03
|
|
|
120 is even less fun to be honest. There's just as much film area to grab, plus if you have short-flange reels you have to worry about the unsupported center buckling as well. Humidity really invites grabbing no matter the format. That silver gelatin starts sticking like crazy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 03:38
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:120 is even less fun to be honest. There's just as much film area to grab, plus if you have short-flange reels you have to worry about the unsupported center buckling as well. If you can load 120 outside of a changing bag, i've found that holding the film between my knees parallel to the reel and slowly pulling more film up / cranking / pulling up / cranking works really well with short-flange reels.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 04:13
|
|
|
Just buy a Paterson tank & reels it's not worth the hassle of using anything else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 04:52
|
|
|
whereismyshoe posted:If you can load 120 outside of a changing bag, i've found that holding the film between my knees parallel to the reel and slowly pulling more film up / cranking / pulling up / cranking works really well with short-flange reels. There's no roll of film where I'd care to risk a random buckling crease. Short flange reels are acceptable for 35mm, but not recommended for 120 in my opinion. In all circumstances I recommend you spend the extra $14 once to not gently caress up your film.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 05:05
|
|
|
Speaking of 120, I just got back from a trip to the US with a bunch of Portra 400 to develop, I'll get to processing in the next few days when I don't feel like 10lb of poo poo in a 5lb bag Also on the trip the girlfriend's uncle was excited to find out I shoot film and gave me his Nikon FE set up, super generous 
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 05:26
|
|
|
Spedman posted:Also on the trip the girlfriend's uncle was excited to find out I shoot film and gave me his Nikon FE set up, super generous Woah, what lenses are those?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 06:19
|
|
|
Does anyone here know much about the ECN2 process? I found two rolls of Seattle Film Works SFW-XL when we cleaned out my grandfather's place. The first roll I shot and sent out, and they processed it using C41. I underexposed it like crazy and the shots were basically worthless and they didn't return the negatives citing damage, so I don't know what they looked like. I'm trying to figure out if this film is worth shooting and sending out for proper processing, or doing it myself if the chemicals are available, or if I should just put it on a shelf for decoration.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 08:01
|
|
|
Chill Callahan posted:Woah, what lenses are those? 28mm f/3.5, 50mm f/1.8, 28-80mm macro, 105mm f/2.5 and 500mm f/8 reflector lens. Nothing overly exotic or expensive, but a really nice setup. Mr. Powers posted:Does anyone here know much about the ECN2 process? I found two rolls of Seattle Film Works SFW-XL when we cleaned out my grandfather's place. The first roll I shot and sent out, and they processed it using C41. I underexposed it like crazy and the shots were basically worthless and they didn't return the negatives citing damage, so I don't know what they looked like. I'm trying to figure out if this film is worth shooting and sending out for proper processing, or doing it myself if the chemicals are available, or if I should just put it on a shelf for decoration. Every report I've heard of Seattle Film Works film is that it's terrible and not worth the effort, but I've never tried it myself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 08:17
|
|
|
Spedman posted:28mm f/3.5, 50mm f/1.8, 28-80mm macro, 105mm f/2.5 and 500mm f/8 reflector lens. Nothing overly exotic or expensive, but a really nice setup. Considering the lab I found online that can do proper ECN2 processing charges about $40 for the first roll, shelf decoration it is!
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 14:08
|
|
|
Spedman posted:28mm f/3.5, 50mm f/1.8, 28-80mm macro, 105mm f/2.5 and 500mm f/8 reflector lens. Nothing overly exotic or expensive, but a really nice setup. The 105mm f/2.5 owns so drat hard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 15:52
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:The 105mm f/2.5 owns so drat hard. Yeah it does. Paul MaudDib posted:Humidity really invites grabbing no matter the format. That silver gelatin starts sticking like crazy. Buy Hewes reels and humidity doesn't matter anymore  I like metal reels so much more, but the paterson tanks are much easier to poor chemicals into and out of. I wish someone would make a hybrid system.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 17:28
|
|
|
 I have no idea what I'm doing, but I like it.  
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 08:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 10:00 |
|
|
More film stuff double post yall  
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 07:29
|
|