|
Hell yes. That's a good lens. Well, the Zeiss Jena anyway. The Soligor is most likely a hunk of junk.
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 09:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 01:59 |
|
|
Most definitely! Get a roll of cheap film first to make sure it works, get it developed and if it's OK, go wild.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 10:58
|
|
|
Geektox posted:Was cleaning out my basement today and found an old Praktica LTL camera, which I believe I took in trade for some Magic cards back in high school. The thing has a Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 50mm f2.8 lens and a Soligor Zoom+Macro 80-200mm lens. As a complete beginner to photograpy (I already have a digital camera I recently inherited) Is it worth buying film to use with this thing? No. It's totally worthless, but since you're new here, I'll take it off your hands for free. I'll pay the shipping, too, if you need me to.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 12:18
|
|
|
 So this arrived today, seems to be working alright. There was a shot roll of film in it, might get it developed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 12:43
|
|
|
Geektox posted:Was cleaning out my basement today and found an old Praktica LTL camera, which I believe I took in trade for some Magic cards back in high school. The thing has a Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 50mm f2.8 lens and a Soligor Zoom+Macro 80-200mm lens. As a complete beginner to photograpy (I already have a digital camera I recently inherited) Is it worth buying film to use with this thing? Didn't you also inherit an M9 recently? Friggin' camera gold mine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 13:41
|
|
|
Spedman posted:Didn't you also inherit an M9 recently? Friggin' camera gold mine. And to think just last week my most sophisticated shooting set-up was a P&S and a GorillaPod! atomicthumbs posted:No. It's totally worthless, but since you're new here, I'll take it off your hands for free. I'll pay the shipping, too, if you need me to. My, such kindly goons in this subforum... HPL posted:Hell yes. That's a good lens. Well, the Zeiss Jena anyway. The Soligor is most likely a hunk of junk. Seems like the Soligor is also very hazy, is there a way to fix that?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 19:14
|
|
|
Geektox posted:And to think just last week my most sophisticated shooting set-up was a P&S and a GorillaPod! If it's hazy it could be fungus or mold. Fixable, but they tend to grow inside the lens so it would require some assembly. Probably not worth the effort when you could just buy a clean copy for 20 bucks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 19:16
|
|
|
Geektox posted:Was cleaning out my basement today and found an old Praktica LTL camera, which I believe I took in trade for some Magic cards back in high school. The thing has a Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 50mm f2.8 lens and a Soligor Zoom+Macro 80-200mm lens. As a complete beginner to photograpy (I already have a digital camera I recently inherited) Is it worth buying film to use with this thing? Do a function check first, run the shutter a few times and all that, see if the different speeds actually work. I have a collection of old cameras and it's always dun to take pictures with them. So yes, buy a cheap film and go to town!
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 19:19
|
|
|
The massive dev chart is pretty awesome. I really wasn't expecting to find times for cross processing Kodak BW400CN in D76, but lo and behold there it was.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 22:42
|
|
|
Mr. Powers posted:Kodak BW400CN in D76 why 
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 22:45
|
|
|
The roll is over 2 years old since that's when I last shot on C41 B&W film. It was in my FM when I took my girlfriend shooting today. The Ritz that did C41 for me isn't around anymore, so I figured I'd give cross processing a try. There are only about 10 shots from today and most of them are probably out of focus.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 22:51
|
|
|
Do you not live near a drugstore or supermarket or something?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 23:32
|
|
|
HPL posted:Do you not live near a drugstore or supermarket or something? I haven't seen any around here that still do photo processing without sending it out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 23:45
|
|
|
I took an instax hiking today.  img001.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr  img002.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr  img004.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr I don't feel like the scans do justice to the negs though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2013 02:39
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:I took an instax hiking today. Pos's? I wonder how much the Instax chemistry has in common with E-6 since it's positive rather than negative. I went ahead and "scanned" mine with my D90 and macro lens. The real trick is eliminating the reflections.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2013 05:29
|
|
|
If it's the same as FP-100c the negatives do hold quite a bit of detail. My test negative scan was sharp at 2571 DPI (~20 lp/mm), on my SS 45 Ultra. It's really a shame FP-100c45 is dead, it used to be by far the cheapest way to shoot a 4x5 color negative, plus you get a proof print immediately, assuming you can process them reliably. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 05:37 on Aug 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2013 05:33
|
|
|
Can someone please tell me what they think the scan quality is like on these? These are my first few MF negs that I got done at a commercial place in the city. Fujicolour 400H  Don by Alex Gard, on Flickr  Don by Alex Gard, on Flickr Shanghai GP3 100  Mums garden by Alex Gard, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2013 06:32
|
|
|
I think that looks pretty great. They're not blown out at all and the color balance isn't terribly inconsistent between those two examples, which puts them above my experiences with minilab scans.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2013 06:56
|
|
|
Cool. I just wanted to make sure the insane prices to get the film developed and scanned was at least semi justifiable. Perhaps I should just get my own scanner. I'm sure this has been discussed here before, but I emailed a guy I follow on Flickr about his workflow and he said he scans his negs as Raw files with multiple exposures (3 times, one for low lights, normal and highlights) on a Epson V700 through VueScan. Is this over the top? Wonder if the lab will do that for me. His work is amazing though...
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2013 07:02
|
|
|
If you have a digital camera build a film holder mated to a cheap macro lens instead. It'll speed up scanning by a couple orders of magnitude.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2013 10:11
|
|
|
But that would be giving up one of the benefits of shooting MF.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2013 10:57
|
|
|
Just got a notification from Ebay that I won an auction. I was all "what the gently caress?"  until I realized I put out a lowball bid a week ago on a ME Super belt clip. Got it for   
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2013 12:49
|
|
|
I just picked up a Kodak Precision Enlarger Model 1 for $10 from a friend's dad. It's complete and set up for medium format with optics. I just need a new bulb. He ended up giving me long expired, but frozen, Kodak Gold and Kodak Max rolls, so maybe it's time I pick up a C41 kit. He also gave me two shot rolls of TMax to process for him. These rolls were exposed 30 years ago, but frozen. He wasn't sure if he pushed them or not. Is it possible to stand develop with D76? If not, am I going to have the best luck with a dilution and longer times?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2013 21:00
|
|
|
Mr. Powers posted:Is it possible to stand develop with D76? No. Rodinal, HC-110, Ilfotec HC. Those work for stand, as far as I know nothing else does. (These developers don't produce bromide during development, or at least there is no issue of bromide drag with them. Most developers, D76 being one of those, get bromide drag issues if not regularly agitated.) If you develop them for 1 stop over box speed the results should be usable even if they were shot at speed, or up to possibly +2 stops. You might be able to get away with slightly longer than usual development time if you agitate less often, and less strongly, and get lower contrast that way, but I doubt you'd really gain anything from it. I believe more dilute typically raises contrast, but don't take my word for that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2013 21:20
|
|
|
If you're really not sure, there's always Diafine, but that will push your contrast even lower. If they were my photos I'd do Rodinal 1:100 for 1:30. +1 stop with a dilute developer should do just fine. D76 is a pretty active developer and you need to have a pretty good idea of the developing time. If you were going full tryhard on this, you could develop by inspection. A 15w green safelight bulb at a certain distance for a few seconds won't fog the film unduly after about half the development.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2013 18:39
|
|
|
I'll post results from the cross processing and mystery push roll once I run them. I don't have a scanner though. On the enlarger, it is a Kodak Precision Enlarger Model 1. I'm having trouble figuring out what bulb is needed. It looks like a standard household socket, but I haven't tried a bulb in it yet. If it is standard household socket, what sort of bulb do I need to put in it in terms of color temperature? From what I read, I should replace the cord for it (I should probably do this to my Omega as well), so I'll have to find a cord to sacrifice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2013 15:56
|
|
|
All the enlargers I have seen use standard E27 socket bulbs. You should probably buy the bulb from a photography store, at least there are ones marketed specifically for enlarger use. (They are high-powered incandescent ones, possibly made for extra precision, more even light or so. The general ban on high-powered incandescent bulbs doesn't affect these in the EU since they are special-purpose bulbs.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2013 16:32
|
|
|
Anybody has tips for how to get wet film on the reels? I've been playing around with inverting black and white film and got to a point I can start getting decent slides out of it, but my current method for loading the film after the second exposure (powering it into the reels) will always damage the film somewhat. Are metal reels better than plastic reels for this?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 01:35
|
|
|
Primo Itch posted:Anybody has tips for how to get wet film on the reels? I've been playing around with inverting black and white film and got to a point I can start getting decent slides out of it, but my current method for loading the film after the second exposure (powering it into the reels) will always damage the film somewhat. Are metal reels better than plastic reels for this? Yeah, it's completely impossible to get wet film onto plastic reels. The film has to physically slide the whole distance onto the reel. They don't call it a silver-gelatin emulsion for nothing, it literally gets gummy and it will stick to the reel and tear. It does this even from your sweat/breath in a changing bag or in a small room if you don't hurry. You could always put it in a washbasin in a darkroom and carefully circulate it through the chemicals (wear gloves), making sure it's not sticking to itself unduly. I've always wanted to try this as well. Please post some slides and let us know your process! Ilford? Any modifications? vvv Yeah, metal reels will probably help vvv Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 02:14 on Aug 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 01:44
|
|
|
I don't have a darkroom, so I really need options that can put the film back in the tank  Maybe metal reels will help? Else I'll probably have to let the film dry in a dark place before keeping on with the development.I don't have anything interesting yet, only shots of my balcony since i've been mostly trying to develop the technique, but I'll try to get some scanned tomorrow. For the process, I'm using the Ilford guide but have modified it a little bit since I can't get any Ilford chemicals around here. So it's 12 minutes of dektol for first development, and D-76 for the second development. I'll still getting my proportions right for what I want and the film I'm using, but Dektol is around 1+1 for 12 minutes and D-76 stock for 6 minutes looks good for really contrasty (my goal) Pan F+. I plan on writing down my technique to share with dorkroom as soon as I get it really tight and have some nice examples to show. You should really try your hands at it, it's fun and not really that hard even if reading the Ilford guide might seen a little daunting, although getting exactly the results you want seen to require quite some experimentation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 02:11
|
|
|
Yeah, get metal HEWES reels. Don't bother with that spring clip bullshit on cheaper reels. You can clip into the sprocket holes 100% of the time, even when wet. Plus, Hewes uses a heavy gauge of steel in the rings so they can be handled much more firmly and they won't unseat the film through torquing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 03:04
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:Yeah, get metal HEWES reels. Don't bother with that spring clip bullshit on cheaper reels. You can clip into the sprocket holes 100% of the time, even when wet. Plus, Hewes uses a heavy gauge of steel in the rings so they can be handled much more firmly and they won't unseat the film through torquing. Do what McMadCow says... Hewes reels cost twice what cheap reels cost, but are worth every penny.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 03:31
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:Yeah, get metal HEWES reels. Don't bother with that spring clip bullshit on cheaper reels. You can clip into the sprocket holes 100% of the time, even when wet. Plus, Hewes uses a heavy gauge of steel in the rings so they can be handled much more firmly and they won't unseat the film through torquing. Should've said that I'm shooting 120... Are the HEWES 120 reels also worth the price difference?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 03:42
|
|
|
Primo Itch posted:Should've said that I'm shooting 120... Are the HEWES 120 reels also worth the price difference? I think so. They're a whole lot better than the generic Adorama reels or Taiwanese imports, at least. Kindermann 120 reels are also pretty solid, if you should come across them on eBay.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 04:03
|
|
|
Developed my first roll at home with Rodinal. I'm really happy with how it came out. hazy by Jordan_t_Brown, on Flickr  shallow by Jordan_t_Brown, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 04:44
|
|
|
Primo Itch posted:I don't have a darkroom, so I really need options that can put the film back in the tank Any reason why you haven't tried the Foma r100 reversal film or the associated developer kit?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 06:27
|
|
|
How purist are you guys about digitally post processing film? I find that most everything i try basically ruins pics. Mind you im useless with dodge/burn. Is there a different approach i should use with film post processing (digitally)?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 11:59
|
|
|
I scan my film with my d800 and do post on that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 12:40
|
|
|
How do you handle the noise/grain from film? I had a play with the jpegs from scans i got and welp, no good. Also, i asked the lab what they would charge for large quality (raw/dng @90mb)scans and they said 90$ per roll of 120. Good reason to invest in a scanner/rig with my 5d?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 12:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 01:59 |
|
|
Sludge Tank posted:How purist are you guys about digitally post processing film? I find that most everything i try basically ruins pics. Mind you im useless with dodge/burn. Is there a different approach i should use with film post processing (digitally)? Post-processing JPEG scans is a bad idea. Better to scan or use your 5D to get meaty raws that allow you to do lots of editing. I usually use curve layers with masks in Photoshop, which is more or less like the old dodge/burn in the darkroom. But LR5's brush is incredibly powerful now so I don't use Photoshop as much as I do previously. Also, just leave the grain in the film, that's part of film's charm.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 13:21
|
|
