|
You know, everybody who likes it seems to think it's great for direct-light sunsets and for neon. I tried it in both of those situations, as well as on a cloudy day, and yeah, it's fine, and I can get pretty much what I want - but I feel like it took a lot more work to get the color 'right' compared to with Portra. I can always add saturation, but it's harder to take it out. Helen's Pacific Costumers by Isaac Sachs, on Flickr
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 15:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 07:10 |
|
|
I think Ektar blows in sunlight. I just like it to make contrasty blue-weighted shots on cloudy days.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 19:55
|
|
|
aliencowboy posted: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. The reason I shoot Ektar in 4x5 is mostly because it's cheaper than Portra by almost $10 for 10 sheets.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 21:59
|
|
|
PushingKingston posted:The reason I shoot Ektar in 4x5 is mostly because it's cheaper than Portra by almost $10 for 10 sheets. But you're shooting 4x5. Saving 25% seems like false economy to me at that point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 23:00
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:But you're shooting 4x5. Saving 25% seems like false economy to me at that point. I bought a 5-pack of 120 ektar for the same reason. Portra was only $6 more... I am still working on my first roll--maybe I will like it? I am still adjusting to framing on a TLR. It's a bit embarrassing how long it takes me to get a shot level while hand held.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 23:15
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:But you're shooting 4x5. Saving 25% seems like false economy to me at that point. Exactly this, if I am going to pay $7 an exposure then I'm going to get the film the takes the least work in post to look the way I want it to. I keep thinking that I should buy a box of 4x5 Ektar and give it another chance, maybe I will when I run out of NPS 160.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 15:33
|
|
|
Portra by all tangible accounts is superior, but when I shoot Ektar, it's to get the Ektar look; I don't try and fight it. Cafe by Winston85, on Flickr  Snoopy by Winston85, on Flickr  0002_35.jpg by Winston85, on Flickr  Free Delivery by Winston85, on Flickr  0018_19.jpg by Winston85, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 15:46
|
|
|
Looks like the UK Kodak Pension Plan has formed a new company called Kodak Alaris to keep on selling film: http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2296502/new-kodak-company-to-continue-selling-film
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 01:45
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:Looks like the UK Kodak Pension Plan has formed a new company called Kodak Alaris to keep on selling film: http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2296502/new-kodak-company-to-continue-selling-film Note to Ye Olde Britshe People: Please don't gently caress up Portra, do whatever the hell you want to the rest of that poo poo but leave the only good thing in my life alone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 01:49
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:Looks like the UK Kodak Pension Plan has formed a new company called Kodak Alaris to keep on selling film: http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2296502/new-kodak-company-to-continue-selling-film I don't have much to add, except maybe two things. First the name Alaris: In Latin, if I haven't forgot everything, it means auxiliary cavalry, or perhaps even other aux. reinforcements. Kind of clever, if you ask me. Secondly, this: Some executive dude posted:"...preserve the heritage and legacy of the Kodak brand, while embodying greater speed and agility to meet market needs and changes." Worries me a bit. Basically it's: Okay. Let's stop innovating (stealing from the Vision Film line) and flog that horse some more - then sell it. Now I might be talking out of my rear, but I have seen where this goes before with Polaroid probably being the most fitting for this topic, or Rollei for that matter; except that the Rollei story has a happy ending. Namely the employees buying back the company from Samsung. So... Buy. Buy! Buy!!! And extend your fridge capacity, too - probably.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 02:14
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Finally, got a remotely serious DSLR negative scanning rig set up. (Tip: Get a thin CCFL or LED light table for background light.) From LETPD - Can you post a picture of your rig? I'm hoping to build one soon although I'll probably just use my SB-700 in a light box behind the negative as the backlight.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 04:33
|
|
|
voodoorootbeer posted:From LETPD - Can you post a picture of your rig? I'm hoping to build one soon although I'll probably just use my SB-700 in a light box behind the negative as the backlight. Really just the DSLR mounted on tripod above a light panel, of the type you'll use to view negatives on. (I.e. basically even illumination at a stable color temperature.) I use a Nikon D80 with Nikkor 55 mm f/2.8 Micro, at f/5.6 1/25 s ISO 200 to take the shots, and reverse the tone curve in Lightroom. Of course you'd adjust the exposure to fit the exact light source. The camera is mounted on a tripod, set to point straight down. The only really special thing is I have a little 3D printed negative strip holder, to keep them flat. I can post the 3D model for it later.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 07:08
|
|
|
I have a exactly same setup minus the strip holder, and camera. I have noticed that it works pretty well with a crop body, which unfortunately for me is a d50 which limits resolution greatly. Things get fun when you try to use a full frame camera like a d800 with it. To get the 1:1 magnification you have to use extension tubes, which really messes with corner sharpness on a 55mm 2.8 ais. Not to mention headaches involving keeping the rig absolutely level and at appropriate focus and magnification level. I am seriously thinking about getting a 60mm 2.8 macro. Now to keep things flat I use a pane of glass which is not optimal for a lot of reasons. Would you mind letting us know how could one obtain such a 3d printed model?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 07:38
|
|
|
Putrid Grin posted:Now to keep things flat I use a pane of glass which is not optimal for a lot of reasons. Would you mind letting us know how could one obtain such a 3d printed model? I designed the model myself, with a little experimenting I managed to get working sprocket tabs to keep the film precisely in place. Then just got it produced on a 3D printer I have access to. Pair of models here, it may need a slight amount of filing down to make the parts fit, depending on the calibration of the printer. The holder is 25 holes long, so it fits 3 frames + a bit (to make up for uneven frame spacing).
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 08:06
|
|
|
Who needs innovation when you've got Portra and Tri-X?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 10:23
|
|
|
VomitOnLino posted:First the name Alaris: In Latin, if I haven't forgot everything, it means auxiliary cavalry, or perhaps even other aux. reinforcements. Kind of clever, if you ask me. Literally, "ala" it's "shoulder" / "wing" and yes it was used to indicate auxiliary troops / reinforcements.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 10:34
|
|
|
HPL posted:Who needs innovation when you've got Portra and Tri-X?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 10:37
|
|
|
Does anyone have experience with Walmart's film processing and scans? It's absolutely dirt cheap and I'm really tempted....
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 19:42
|
|
|
change my name posted:Does anyone have experience with Walmart's film processing and scans? It's absolutely dirt cheap and I'm really tempted.... You don't even get what you pay for.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
Yeah I'm pretty sure it was in this thread that people were saying you don't even get your negs back.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 20:03
|
|
|
change my name posted:Does anyone have experience with Walmart's film processing and scans? It's absolutely dirt cheap and I'm really tempted.... Hold your negative in one hand, point your cellphone with the other, awkwardly hit the shutter release and then invert the your shaky handheld snaps on your PC. Not only will you save $5 a roll but the pictures will probably be less blurry, grainy, and/or blown out than the Walmart scans. They're seriously godawful. They might be worth it as proofs if you have like 30 rolls to scan but don't plan on ever being able to show them to anyone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 20:09
|
|
|
Okay, thanks. Seems like it was too good to be true.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 20:25
|
|
|
change my name posted:Okay, thanks. Seems like it was too good to be true. They send the negs out for development to Fuji, who recently stopped returning negs to Walmart. You can still take film in to be developed but you get the poo poo scans and/or prints with no negs. The days of inexpensive dev only at walmart are done.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
There's lots of anecdotal info here regarding Walmart, your experience will be different depending on where in the world you are. All of my local Walmarts still develop c41 in-house in one hour, for about 5bux +5 for the scans depending on who's working that day. I absolutely do get my negs back. That being said the scans are low res, and the contrast and DR is poor. On bad days my negs may come back dirty. Generally I only go there for test rolls.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 20:53
|
|
|
Just out of curiosity, how much do you guys pay on average for B&W development/scans? I mean I know why it's more expensive, but I think the film lab near my house is ripping us off. Plus the guy only develops black and white 1 day a week, which seems like extra bullshit. I wish I didn't love tri-x so much.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 23:31
|
|
|
They do it once a week + charge a lot as an idiot tax for the people that can't spend $40 to start developing it themselves at home.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 23:32
|
|
|
change my name posted:Just out of curiosity, how much do you guys pay on average for B&W development/scans? I mean I know why it's more expensive, but I think the film lab near my house is ripping us off. Plus the guy only develops black and white 1 day a week, which seems like extra bullshit. I wish I didn't love tri-x so much. I pay less than $1 in chemicals per 1L tank (6 4x5 sheets). It's ridiculously hard to gently caress up doing it yourself, which is what you should be doing. How much have you spent on B&W development so far?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 23:39
|
|
|
To be fair, though, you have to factor the cost of a scanner and/or enlarging and printing equipment to the cost of developing B&W. The lack of a scanner here would be the only reason why I'd take my B&W to be developed elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 23:51
|
|
|
I actually have a film scanner on my desk, just nowhere to develop. I guess I could ask my friends with setups to help me out, but just dropping it off has always been more convenient? Lately they've been getting pretty brazen about slacking off, though (for instance they claimed one of my rolls was damaged, and all of the negatives were blanked out, despite it being a fresh roll). There's a walgreens moving in across the street though, so I shouldn't even have to put up with it for too much longer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 23:58
|
|
|
change my name posted:I actually have a film scanner on my desk, just nowhere to develop. I guess I could ask my friends with setups to help me out, but just dropping it off has always been more convenient? Lately they've been getting pretty brazen about slacking off, though (for instance they claimed one of my rolls was damaged, and all of the negatives were blanked out, despite it being a fresh roll). There's a walgreens moving in across the street though, so I shouldn't even have to put up with it for too much longer. Do you have a sink? Then you have a place to develop film.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 00:02
|
|
|
Do you have access to a sink with a small table near it? Then you've got somewhere to develop film. Keep in mind: Developing film does not need a darkroom. You just need a dark place to transfer the exposed film to the developing tank, a simple changing bag fulfills that. And it's incredibly hard to gently caress up a b/w development.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 00:06
|
|
|
If you're really a cheapstake (like me) hiding under three blankets at night will also work...
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 01:07
|
|
|
Not to mention that Walgreens is likely only set up to do C41 so they will either completely hose your Tri-X or just not know what to do with it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 01:52
|
|
|
Primo Itch posted:If you're really a cheapstake (like me) hiding under three blankets at night will also work... There's no reason to do that anymore, changing bags are under $20 now. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Darkroom-Fi...=item565b5bbf7e
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 02:23
|
|
|
nielsm posted:And it's incredibly hard to gently caress up a b/w development. The only thing you can really screw up is the reel loading. Sacrifice a roll when starting out to make sure you can do it without error first. Also, patterson reels hate the poo poo out of any humidity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 02:25
|
|
|
nm posted:The only thing you can really screw up is the reel loading. Sacrifice a roll when starting out to make sure you can do it without error first. Also, patterson reels hate the poo poo out of any humidity. Actually all plastic reels do, I have tried AP, Jobo and Paterson. Sometimes even the humidity of your sweating is enough to make the ball bearings gum up against the film, causing nasty crinkles in the film. So yeah, buy the cheapest film you can (usually B/W film) and try loading it a couple of times. Also practice taking apart the spool and putting it together in the bag as well. If something goes wrong with loading (see above) this is how you start from scratch, after taking a break preferably. Also as another tip, use the kind of scissors they use in kindergarten, this way you can't accidentally puncture the changing bag with the pointed ends.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 03:16
|
|
|
VomitOnLino posted:Actually all plastic reels do, I have tried AP, Jobo and Paterson. With the patterson reel, if it starts sticking at the end (which is when it always loving sticks), if you bang the reel against your tank, it can loosen up enough just enough to get the last 2 in or so on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 04:06
|
|
|
I've found that it helps immensely if I cut the leading end (the one that goes first into the reel) with an arrow shape instead of letting it be flat. Never had a stuck roll ever after I tried it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 09:23
|
|
|
maxmars posted:I've found that it helps immensely if I cut the leading end (the one that goes first into the reel) with an arrow shape instead of letting it be flat. Never had a stuck roll ever after I tried it. Yeah that helps for 35mm film, I do it all the time, sadly it's pretty hard to do with 120 film. Well I guess you could try it in the changing bag, but I'd be worried about making the wrong cuts, as it is a mess of tools, film, tank, reels and backing paper in there. Also, in my experience 120 format is the film which, probably due to it's larger surface area, gets crumpled up more easily anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 09:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 07:10 |
|
|
VomitOnLino posted:Yeah that helps for 35mm film, I do it all the time, sadly it's pretty hard to do with 120 film. Well I guess you could try it in the changing bag, but I'd be worried about making the wrong cuts, as it is a mess of tools, film, tank, reels and backing paper in there. I snip the corners off my 120 film in the bag every time. Only a couple of mm, but it seriously helps you slide the film in past the ball bearings. As long as you aren't shooting all the way to the edge of the film via some form of black magic, you won't even get close to your last frame (or first?)
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 10:05
|
|
