|
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. By the way, there are two kinds of reels. There's the "short flange" that have like a little tooth that's about 1/4" long as a guide, and "long flange" that are like 3/4" long. The long flange type are much much better about bucking in general, but particularly on 120 because the middle of the film is so unsupported by short flange.
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 16:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 22:05 |
|
|
BrosephofArimathea posted: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?) Yeah I do that inside the bag too! It's not that hard. You need scissors that are in good working order so that you don't have to fiddle with them too much of course.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 16:20
|
|
|
I'm the weird exception. I hate metal reels, and I only like the small flange plastic ones. i never have any problems with 120 or 220 - when i load the film i always take the first 3 inches or so and curl them back the other way so that the film lies flat and isn't as resistant to being loaded. i cut the corners when i put the film into sleeves though
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 19:03
|
|
|
So I shoot 35mm and have a bunch of FD lenses for my Canon EF. My budget doesn't allow me to go into MF. I always envied people with waist level viewfinders because how much more fun and forgivable to take pictures of people without them freezing like a deer in headlights when you bring your camera to your eyes. I've been considering: 1) Is there some sort of accessory I could use? I've seen those right angle viewfinders but those seem like you have to put your eye next to it regardless? 2) I've read about 35mm TLR cameras from the 50s that look cool and seem to have what I'm looking for. Are these things somewhat affordable and reliable?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 10:29
|
|
|
nemoulette posted:So I shoot 35mm and have a bunch of FD lenses for my Canon EF. My budget doesn't allow me to go into MF. I always envied people with waist level viewfinders because how much more fun and forgivable to take pictures of people without them freezing like a deer in headlights when you bring your camera to your eyes. Sadly, 35mm WLFs are generally useless except for using the camera at ground level without bending over too far. The ground glass is just too small to accurately focus from a foot or two away like you would with a medium format camera. You could probably get into a TLR for pretty cheap though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 11:36
|
|
|
A yashica-mat is almost certainly better and cheaper than any 35mm camera with a wlf. If you can shoot 35mm b/w you can do 120 just as cheap and easy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 14:35
|
|
|
Comedy technological anachronism option: Get a Zigview. You wouldn't be able to control the shutter from the video viewfinder, but it would fit over the eyepiece, I think. For twice the cost of a basic TLR - just buy one from the Buy/Sell thread (there's pretty much always one or more available in the Dorkroom) along with a couple of packs of film.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 16:30
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:For twice the cost of a basic TLR - just buy one from the Buy/Sell thread (there's pretty much always one or more available in the Dorkroom) along with a couple of packs of film. I've had two Yashica C TLRs for sale for the last 6 months. Warranty's most likely run out by now, but they're freshly CLA'd.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 16:35
|
|
|
So, if I want to push Tri-X to let's say, 1600 (or even 3200?), shooting outside in the evening / at night or hanging out in bars and so forth, what do you prefer in terms of development? I use Tmax dev. I've never used stand or semi-stand development, what are your preferences? How far can you push Tri-X without it being insanely grainy?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 15:48
|
|
|
Depends on what format you're shooting. If you want to avoid grain, I wouldn't push it past 1600 on 35mm. I'd say you could comfortably go to 3200 on something larger than 645
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 16:08
|
|
|
If you want to minimize grain shooting a digital camera is a pretty good bet
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 16:44
|
|
|
There's no "silly antique store bullshit" thread so this can go here: Ansco Flash Clipper by voodoorootbeer, on Flickr There's a roll in there with only 4 exposures used, so of course I'm going to finish it off. Any idea if a minilab set up to do C41 120 could run 616 through without a problem? I'm probably going to have to wait for a sunny day since I don't even recognize that flash connection. Also not sure why there's an exposure guide with variable aperture on it since this thing is definitely fixed everything. Side note: the flickr app now has a built in editor with a "backlit" setting, so that's handy I guess.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 17:57
|
|
|
aliencowboy posted:Depends on what format you're shooting. If you want to avoid grain, I wouldn't push it past 1600 on 35mm. I'd say you could comfortably go to 3200 on something larger than 645 Lies, Tri-X is fine up to 6400 on 35mm.  Pogues Tri-X (30) by 8th-samurai, on Flickr That is a lovely lab scan too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 22:06
|
|
|
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/5-Rolls-...cb66a542&_uhb=1 I didn't even know b&w portra existed. Wouldn't mind trying it, if I could get my hands on just a single roll.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 00:51
|
|
|
BrosephofArimathea posted:http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/5-Rolls-...cb66a542&_uhb=1 It's mad poo poo, you develop it C41 like Ilford Xp2, the studio I was doing work experience in last year had a few rolls of it lying around in 120. I honestly can't see the advantage unless you're desperate to develop some B&W with your colour rolls on the cheap.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 00:54
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:Lies, Tri-X is fine up to 6400 on 35mm. Well, yeah... but we're weirdos.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 03:08
|
|
|
I've seen people who have shot Portra at 3200 and pushed one and people who have pushed the full three stops, both with results that look pretty good. Have any of you tried both? Which works better?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 06:34
|
|
|
I'm in the process of shooting a roll of Portra 400 @ 800, not gonna have it pushed. I think I should be ok...
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 07:18
|
|
|
I think the general consensus is shoot porta 400 at whatever speed you wnat and it will own no matter what.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 08:07
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:I think the general consensus is shoot porta 400 at whatever speed you wnat and it will own no matter what. Pretty much this.  filmscan098 by g.hetzel, on Flickr  filmscan101-Edit by g.hetzel, on Flickr Both of these are Portra 400 shot at who the heck knows because the meter in my ME super acts weird when the battery is low.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 09:22
|
|
|
The Film Thread: Buy Portra 400, disregard Metering
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 17:38
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:The Film Thread: Buy Portra 400, disregard Metering They're just pretending they can disregard metering, they actually have NO CLUE on how to meter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 23:23
|
|
|
maxmars posted:They're just pretending they can disregard metering, they actually have NO CLUE on how to meter. Not true. I wave the meter at the glowy thing in the sky and the little computer inside spits out numbers. Numbers are for loving nerds though so I have renamed all my aperture and shutter speeds to manly things. For instance today's optimum exposure in my backyard is f/sex-with-a-hooker at 1/monster-truck of a second. Please bear in mind that this is setting the grass on zone V so if you are looking for more open shadows this might be incorrect.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 23:33
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:Numbers are for loving nerds New thread title spotted.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 23:35
|
|
|
i underexposed this by 2 to 4 stops and it came out fine. portra's really a magic bullet Museum Couch, Amsterdam by JaundiceDave, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 23:46
|
|
|
Nice, but... Gaaahhh! Straighten your horizontals man! The carpet is kind of a dead give-away, if that doesn't help try to use the perspective tools.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 02:30
|
|
|
I'm ordering some B&W soon, what do y'all recommend? The choices are most of the Ilford range (XP2, FP4, HP5, Delta 100,400 and 3200), Kodak Tri-X, TMax or Fuji Neopan I'm a bit fan of HP5 and never really liked Neopan but I'm open to any suggestions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 21:09
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:I'm ordering some B&W soon, what do y'all recommend? Get some FP4. Also try Tri-X for a change from HP5. (Without having done serious comparions, I think Tri-X looks somewhat better when pushed hard.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Get some FP4. Seconding FP4. I tried it recently (HP5 mostly before) and love it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 21:14
|
|
|
Tri-X or HP5. They're both versatile and push well, but personally, I think Tri-X has more character to it. Delta 3200 is worth trying at least once.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 21:17
|
|
|
Yeah I shot a roll of Delta 3200 in a Olympus Infinity Epic earlier this year, it looked amazing (then I lost the camera  )Cool, I'll give Tri-X and FP4 a try! Thanks lovely film people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
What do you want to shoot? Tri-x is a great all-rounder, but I don't love it for landscapes, for example.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 21:28
|
|
|
Probably street stuff and portraits. I'd like to do some B&W stuff at night again like I did with the Delta 3200. (I think I might get another roll of that just to try pushing it to 6400, until I got an EOS5 I wasn't able to manually set film speeds on my camera.) It'll be 35mm too if that makes any difference.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 21:51
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:Probably street stuff and portraits. I'd like to do some B&W stuff at night again like I did with the Delta 3200. (I think I might get another roll of that just to try pushing it to 6400, until I got an EOS5 I wasn't able to manually set film speeds on my camera.) If you're going to shoot at 3200 and 6400, at least also give HP5 and Tri-X a chance at those speeds. You may prefer them over Delta 3200. (Just make sure you use a developer suited for pushing that much so you won't be sitting around turning the tank every minute for most of an hour.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 22:14
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:Portra 400 Quantum of Phallus posted:Kodak Tri-X, TMax Plus Porta 160, Ektar 100, Fuji Superia 800, and three rolls of Walgreens (200, 400, 800). Thanks to everyone who suggested Filmphotographyproject.com  9 Rolls of Fun by Execudork, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 00:24
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:Yeah I shot a roll of Delta 3200 in a Olympus Infinity Epic earlier this year, it looked amazing (then I lost the camera YOU LOST THE OLY?? Aaagh! So sorry!!
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 09:07
|
|
|
I think I left it in a taxi when I was on a documentary shoot. My name and address were on it so I hold out hope it'll come back some day 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 11:07
|
|
|
I was developing two rolls of HP5+ and upon finishing it, the negatives were extremely faint. Turns out the developer was bad So is there any way to salvage/scan it(Other then building a time machine) or is it a case of "don't cry over spilled milk"?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2013 05:48
|
|
|
Blacksofa posted:I was developing two rolls of HP5+ and upon finishing it, the negatives were extremely faint. Turns out the developer was bad If you can see "something" in the negatives you should be able to pull something out, it'll probably be very grainy with the scanner pushing it's limits.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2013 07:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 22:05 |
|
|
Got these at a thrift shop for $2. I don't know anything about film but i hope these aren't junk.   They're pretty dirty and have a lot of scratches, but they work. It appears to function fine. I'm kind of excited about this did I find a cool thing
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 03:49
|
|