|
You meant to say Fuji Acros 100  (in 120 format)
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 11:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 07:20 |
|
|
For any Tampa-area goons who might be in here, I'm moving cross-country soon and want to give away some of my darkroom chemicals rather than take them to the county hazmat site. I have a stainless steel tank in there too if anyone needs a startup kit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 15:28
|
|
|
aliencowboy posted:Also, Tri-X is objectively the best film. Only the 400.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 16:33
|
|
|
I didn't realize that Fuji made Superia in 120. Why is it more expensive than their Pro films? Is it pretty much just an Asian thing? I really like the idea of a consumer 120 film for a little extra grain. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 16:57
|
|
|
Portra is obviously great for portrait stuff and also makes anything lit with fluorescents look really cool. If you can get your hands on some Ektachrome Panter, it is amazing for bright exteriors and interiors with controlled lighting with the right filters/photoshop magic. Ilford Delta 3200 is a great B&W stock for low light, you can push it insane amounts. You should just try every stock though til you find one you like.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 20:07
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:Portra is obviously great for portrait stuff and also makes anything lit with fluorescents look really cool. 3200 speed film is only good for justifying a hand check at the airport. Push Tri-X or HP5 like a grown up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 21:20
|
|
|
aliencowboy posted:I didn't realize that Fuji made Superia in 120. Why is it more expensive than their Pro films? Is it pretty much just an Asian thing? I was going to suggest Ektacolor, but I've just found out that it was dumped on the market as the new Portra 160 came out, so all the supplied are gone. It was a consumer stock only sold in Asia, which looked a lot like 160NC, but the negatives were a fair bit thiner and a little more grainier than real Portra. Bummed to see it go.  E in Apollo Bay by mr_student, on Flickr 8th-snype posted:3200 speed film is only good for justifying a hand check at the airport. Push Tri-X or HP5 like a grown up. Or Foma 400 like a cheapskate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 23:12
|
|
|
Spedman posted:Or Foma 400 like a cheapskate. Foma 400 Akbar  Toto, we're not in Kansas anymore di maxmars70, su Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 23:39
|
|
|
I'm in love with film again. End of the Season Sunset by benruset, on Flickr  Convention Hall by benruset, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 01:09
|
|
|
Finally completed a roll of Portra 400 that had been sitting in my camera for almost a year. It's my first roll of the new Portra, and I gotta say that I love the colors. Corridor Thing by krnhotwings, on Flickr  Scripps Pier by krnhotwings, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 04:26
|
|
|
krnhotwings posted:Finally completed a roll of Portra 400 that had been sitting in my camera for almost a year. It's my first roll of the new Portra, and I gotta say that I love the colors. What's up San Diego? I'm out of Carlsbad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 04:43
|
|
|
Looks like there is a 'new' Hollywood film on the block. ISO 800, Tungsten balanced, Remjet layer removed. It is (based on) Kodak Vision3 500T. So you can expect awesome color, extreme latitude-goodness and push-ability. This version apparently can be developed in C41. 35mm only, sadly... Very, very tempting... http://www.cinestillfilm.com/
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 03:56
|
|
|
VomitOnLino posted:Looks like there is a 'new' Hollywood film on the block. ISO 800, Tungsten balanced, Remjet layer removed. if i ever shot 35mm i'd be all over that 
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 04:16
|
|
|
I am unwilling to pay $10 a roll for 35mm film.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 04:36
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:I am unwilling to pay $10 a roll for 35mm film. Don't move to Canada. It costs like $15 before tax to shoot and develop a roll of (fresh) Portra.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 04:40
|
|
|
aliencowboy posted:Don't move to Canada. Suck it, free healthcare havers. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 05:11
|
|
|
aliencowboy posted:Don't move to Canada. I can't find Portra locally (Calgary) for less than 12.50 a roll soooo
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 16:25
|
|
|
A 5 pack of Protra 400 (120) comes out to $45ish here in Toronto And when you throw the development on top of it..
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 00:20
|
|
|
Buy from freestyle? That's what I do and shipping here costs way more than shipping to Canada...
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 03:20
|
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:A 5 pack of Protra 400 (120) comes out to $45ish here in Toronto Or from the film photography podcast store, there going for $29.24 plus shipping: http://filmphotographyproject.com/store/120-kodak-portra-400-5-pack
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 03:51
|
|
|
Sweet, I'll buy from there! Edit: 400 shot at 3200 and pushed only 1 stop? I've been underestimating portra. 
bobmarleysghost fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Sep 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 17:40
|
|
|
Portra 400 is god.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 19:44
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:Portra 400 is god. No kidding. Guess I need to start pushing portra.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 19:55
|
|
|
I've shot a single roll from 400 - 1600, not pushed in development, and had every shot come out okay (ignoring the rubbish content of the photos). Thats shot at 1600 (accidentally as I've didn't change my camera settings as the sun was setting in the hard shade), with no push.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 00:18
|
|
|
I stand by my cheat code for photos comment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 00:29
|
|
|
I have a couple rolls of Acros and a couple of Tri-X sitting around that I want to develop. I shot the Tri-X at a variety of speeds from 400 to 1600 because I intend to stand develop. I was thinking Rodinal and I found plenty of Acros and Tri-X stuff developed in Rodinal that I like on Flickr. This will be my first home develop and I was really hoping to grab a pile of Arista Premium from Freestyle in the same order. Is this my best bet? Should I worry about expiration if I'm only using tiny amounts for stand developing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 04:34
|
|
|
Rodinal basically never goes bad so you should be ok.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 06:26
|
|
|
voodoorootbeer posted:I have a couple rolls of Acros and a couple of Tri-X sitting around that I want to develop. I shot the Tri-X at a variety of speeds from 400 to 1600 because I intend to stand develop. I was thinking Rodinal and I found plenty of Acros and Tri-X stuff developed in Rodinal that I like on Flickr. This will be my first home develop and I was really hoping to grab a pile of Arista Premium from Freestyle in the same order. Is this my best bet? Should I worry about expiration if I'm only using tiny amounts for stand developing? That's the stuff you want. I have only used it a couple of times so far but it's nice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 08:20
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:Rodinal basically never goes bad so you should be ok. Speaking of which, I've got 2 unopened bottles of HC-110 that expire next month. Have been in the fridge the whole time. I assume they're gonna be good to use for a while longer? I've got 10 months before I move...
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 10:17
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Speaking of which, I've got 2 unopened bottles of HC-110 that expire next month. Have been in the fridge the whole time. I assume they're gonna be good to use for a while longer? I've got 10 months before I move... HC-110s expiration date can be completely ignored, the bottle will leak before the syrup goes bad. My current one claims an exp date of 08-2012 and there is no difference in quality from the day I bought it. I don't keep it in the fridge just in a closet a away from the light.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 10:28
|
|
|
Me again with more annoying questions regarding reciprocity failure T-MAX 100, from my metered reading I got 1:40 (with my filters stacked, in this instance it was 1/60 + 25 red + 10 stop ND) The Kodak chart says that for "1 minute just + 1/3 stop aperture" (the next time on the chart is 10 minutes) Another Reciprocity chart I found online say I should expose at about 3 minutes at 1:40 (they had "1 minute adjusted to 2 minutes, and 2 minutes adjusted to 4:30 so I estimated around 3 minutes to be ok for 1:40?) this new app I've got which does reciprocity failure calculations taking into consideration any filters you might use says I should give 5:59, another similar app gave me something like 4 minutes yet this guy I follow on flickr says he never takes into account reciprocity failure and he often goes up to (but not over) 3 minutes So which is right? It just seems to be a pretty big variation between 3 minutes and 6 How do you guys take into account this, or do you generally try and stay away from exposure times that enter into these territories? (from what I gather most good quality films like Acros are pretty good up to 120 seconds? is this right?) Or am I right in guessing that exposure times between 3-5 minutes aren't going to be too destroyed by over/underexposure that they couldn't be saved with post production? sorry if this is too annoying, and inb4 "test a bunch of shots at different times and see what you get", I just wanted to see what y'all had to say about the difference in opinions...  )sorry for confusing convoluted post. just doing my nut in being scared of having great photos screwed by misunderstanding.. NB these iphone apps seem pretty neat, and really easy to use. This one is called "Reciprocity Timer". Another one called "Film Timer" has some different formulae from different people you can choose for the same film stock so you get some different outcomes which adds more confusion. They cost between $1-2 Sludge Tank fucked around with this message at 12:20 on Sep 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 11:31
|
|
|
Here's some dude's album of Portra 400 pushed 3 stops : http://www.flickr.com/photos/phloodpants/sets/72157626086079045/ 
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 14:55
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:That's the stuff you want. I have only used it a couple of times so far but it's nice. when did it become "r09 one shot" instead of adonal or whatever adox was calling it
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 18:34
|
|
|
I've been digging on FP4+ as of late. I like what I can get out of it in 30+ second exposures.   
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 19:21
|
|
|
Genderfluid posted:when did it become "r09 one shot" instead of adonal or whatever adox was calling it I think Agfa owns/owned the trademark to the 'Rodinal' name, but the formula is public domain so different companies make it under different names. I have a couple bottles of Adox Adonal and r09 is just what Compard calls it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 05:02
|
|
|
I still don't really like Ektar. Mr. Plywood by Isaac Sachs, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 05:22
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:I still don't really like Ektar. I'm not an Ektar fan either but that looks nice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 05:28
|
|
|
i like ektar, it's just very situational. in the right settings where you have fairly bright light and want saturated color it's excellent. two of my favorite photos of mine were taken on it.  Matisse Museum, Nice by JaundiceDave, on Flickr  Seaside Bench, Promenade des Anglais, Nice by JaundiceDave, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 05:32
|
|
|
Genderfluid posted:i like ektar, it's just very situational. in the right settings where you have fairly bright light and want saturated color it's excellent. two of my favorite photos of mine were taken on it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 05:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 07:20 |
|
|
I agree with Genderfluid that Ektar is very situational. For every roll of Portra/400H I go through, at some point I come across a shot I know would look fantastic with Ektar but it's not enough to convince me to shoot it with any regularity. If I had a camera with a removable back or shot 4x5, I'd probably keep some on hand.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 05:39
|
|