|
VomitOnLino posted:You could try certo6.com ... don't know about any other "Folder specialists" out there... Had a so-so experience with him. Oh, right. Yeah, I am sure I'm going to mess up my first roll of film trying to load this thing.
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 18:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 00:15 |
|
|
Here's the Six. My apologies for the completely lovely cell phone pictures.    
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 02:59
|
|
|
I've changed my mind on using one of those Eskimo tents for a portable darkroom after doing some reading, and I think I might get one of those  hydroponic grow tents instead. They're designed to be light tight and have air ventilation, just have to fiddle with the zip to get it to work from the other direction.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 10:22
|
|
|
Provia 100F Mailboxes, Sin Ming, 2013 by alkanphel, on Flickr  Sin Ming, 2013 by alkanphel, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 03:09
|
|
|
     
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 00:39
|
|
|
Just got a pretty good deal on Sinar F2 Rodenstock 150mm f/5.6 Sironar-N Schneider Super Angulon 90mm f/8 buncha film holders etc etc Should receive sooner rather than later hopefully. Super excited. Can't wait to get this huge rear end loving bag of film developed. I found a small light leak in one of my a12 backs a few days ago, pulled the dark slide out and some foam came with it. I hope it hasn't been there long otherwise god knows how many rolls i've put through. Next on list is v700 and developing stuff. Wooo Sludge Tank fucked around with this message at 06:48 on Oct 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 06:44
|
|
|
Sludge Tank posted:Just got a pretty good deal on Awesome! Look into getting a Mod54 reel for dev to make your life infinitely less painful.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 06:49
|
|
|
Noted! Thanks..! Very keen to stop blowing money on sending rolls into a lab. I don't have access to a laundry/sink that is lightproofable, so is tray development out of the question? Also just out of curiosity, is there any way of fitting an A12 back to the F2? Sludge Tank fucked around with this message at 08:42 on Oct 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 07:07
|
|
|
Sludge Tank posted:Noted! Thanks..! Very keen to stop blowing money on sending rolls into a lab. You need a light tight room do tray developing, you can do the taco method with 4x5 in a tank, but the results tend be pretty mixed, the mod54 reel fixes that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 07:56
|
|
|
Sludge Tank posted:Also just out of curiosity, is there any way of fitting an A12 back to the F2? Well, there's these: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Moveable-Adapter-For-Hasselblad-V-Back-To-Linhof-Sinar-Toyo-Wista-Horseman-4x5-/370906480594 But I think you're better served getting a rollfilm back meant for 4x5 in the first place, like the Graflex backs: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Graflex-Graphic-22-Roll-Film-Back-120-Film-6x6-FOR-4x5-graflex-back-film-/221300198583
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 20:00
|
|
|
e: wrong F2
Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 23:08 on Oct 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 22:50
|
|
|
Returned the Super Angulon 90mm f/8, going to save up for the f/4.5. Only a couple of hundred more... good choice?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 02:34
|
|
|
Sludge Tank posted:Returned the Super Angulon 90mm f/8, going to save up for the f/4.5. Only a couple of hundred more... good choice? Why would you want a f/4.5 version? Assuming that's not a typo. It offers little, but a brighter focusing screen. It's also much more expensive, heavier and larger. And probably not that much brighter comparing to the f/5.6 version as that's not even a full stop brighter, as opposed to f/8 vs f/5.6. Yes, the f/8 is a bit dark on the ground glass, a fact that's already completely alleviated with the f/5.6 version. But I found that if you have a good dark-cloth it matters little, it's not like you're going to be shooting action. At least that was my impression, from my time playing around with the stuff on a friend's loaner camera.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 03:57
|
|
|
Sludge Tank posted:Returned the Super Angulon 90mm f/8, going to save up for the f/4.5. Only a couple of hundred more... good choice? There isn't an f/4.5 large format Super Angulon 90mm, though there is an f/5.6. If the f/5.6 is only a couple hundred more, either you're getting an amazing deal on the f/5.6 or you got ripped off on the f/8. If you're talking about the Nikkor-SW 90mm f/4.5 - it's brighter than the f/8, sure, but it's not as sharp. I'd have stuck with what you had.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 04:21
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:There isn't an f/4.5 large format Super Angulon 90mm, though there is an f/5.6. If the f/5.6 is only a couple hundred more, either you're getting an amazing deal on the f/5.6 or you got ripped off on the f/8. On keh the f/5.6 is about 150 more than an f/8. I've been looking at 90mm lenses and the Nikkor SW and the Rodenstock Grandagon both seem like winners to me. They have large image circles, with the Nikon being a little larger, but the Grandagon gets a bit more light for focusing since it's f/6.8. Am I right in assuming that I can't go wrong with either lens?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 04:53
|
|
|
derp sorry I meant f5.6. e: 5.6 has larger image circle than f/8? Considering it's not that much more than the f/8, does this make it worthwhile? Still have chance to cancel my cancellation... read a KR review who said that the 5.6 was a little preferable over the 8 for GG visibility and slightly larger image circle...? Or is this really splitting hairs? Sludge Tank fucked around with this message at 05:10 on Oct 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 05:06
|
|
|
Sludge Tank posted:derp sorry I meant f5.6. eggsovereasy posted:On keh the f/5.6 is about 150 more than an f/8. I did forget there was an older, non-XL f/5.6. I'd still take the f/8 for the smaller size - I never use even the f/8 wide open. If you're planning to use a wide angle lens wide open and you really want the extra stop, sure... Eggsovereasy, between the Nikkor-SW f/8 and the Grandagon I'd take the Nikkor. I can't overstate how sharp it is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 05:28
|
|
|
The Nikkor-SW 90mm f/8 is the sharpest lens I've used on 4x5. I'm still able to focus with it at EV 0, although it takes a bit of concentration.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 21:09
|
|
|
Velvia 50 Little Garden 1, Serangoon North, 2013 by alkanphel, on Flickr  Little Garden 2, Serangoon North, 2013 by alkanphel, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 00:21
|
|
|
Took Fuji GSW690III to a loving weird rear end jungle in Costa Rica. I somehow had a chance to snap some shots when I wasn't swatting away mosquitoes that were trying me through my shirt while trying to dodge bullet ants. Now I know why the "bushmaster" (our tour guide) was wearing a parka and jeans when it was 90+ degrees.   
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 19:11
|
|
|
notlodar posted:Took Fuji GSW690III to a loving weird rear end jungle in Costa Rica. I somehow had a chance to snap some shots when I wasn't swatting away mosquitoes that were trying me through my shirt while trying to dodge bullet ants. Now I know why the "bushmaster" (our tour guide) was wearing a parka and jeans when it was 90+ degrees. you need to either rescan these or reprocess them so that they don't look like you turned contrast to 11
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 22:57
|
|
|
They look good on my (supposedly calibrated) monitor, but on this iphone not so much. I'll have to see how they (digitally) print.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 23:31
|
|
|
Yeah, my monitor is calibrated too and they're definitely contrasty, but I feel it really works with the images.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 23:41
|
|
|
I think the second one is pretty cool. Not a fan of including film borders in images though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 00:49
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:I think the second one is pretty cool. Not a fan of including film borders in images though. But otherwise how can people tell how cool I am for using film??
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 00:50
|
|
|
Aaalmost through my big backlog of B&W to be developed, loaded the last roll of 120 last night. Also have it in the tank with a roll of 35mm, which I realized it's been at least 2 years since I developed. The cursing and fumbling with a bottle opener in the dark really took me back, heh. This one's pretty dope. And welcome back! MrBlandAverage posted:But otherwise how can people tell how cool I am for using film?? Paging McMadcow
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 01:12
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:But otherwise how can people tell how cool I am for using film?? Reichstag posted:I think the second one is pretty cool. Not a fan of including film borders in images though. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 01:30
|
|
|
I think the high contrast looks nice with a few of them
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 03:04
|
|
|
Some more Acros! Weathered Wood, Little India, 2012 by alkanphel, on Flickr  Redhill, 2012 by alkanphel, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 03:07
|
|
|
PushingKingston posted:Yeah, my monitor is calibrated too and they're definitely contrasty, but I feel it really works with the images. Reichstag posted:I think the second one is pretty cool. Not a fan of including film borders in images though. Chill Callahan posted:I think the high contrast looks nice with a few of them
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 03:56
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:
I like this one a lot.  
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 06:01
|
|
|
My girlfriends father just sent me 12 rolls of black and white tmax film. Two questions: 1: The film is all expired by at least 7 years, but has been stored in a fridge that entire time. It's currently residing in mine after being shipped across the country. Anyone know whether that's going to make an appreciable (negative) impact on the image? 2: Actually my second question is stupid, never mind.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 06:14
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:My girlfriends father just sent me 12 rolls of black and white tmax film. Two questions: Well, let's go over the basics, in order of importance: 1. Frozen or chilled film keeps pretty well, as the fridge not only keeps it cool, but also is a metal enclosure. (Radiation) 2. Low speed film keeps better than fast film. 3. Color negative keeps better than slide, black and white better than both. 4. Medium format keeps better than 35, this is probably due to cartridges vs vacuum sealed baggies. Considering all that, you should be OK shooting that T-Max at box speed (if ISO 100) or maybe something like 320 if it's the 400 speed version. T-Max is quite forgiving, not as much as Tri-X but it still takes some abuse.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 06:25
|
|
|
VomitOnLino posted:Well, let's go over the basics, in order of importance: Woah wait, freezing film doesnt have any negative effects?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 06:28
|
|
|
VomitOnLino posted:Well, let's go over the basics, in order of importance: Gotta keep that film underground if you're really worried.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 06:41
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:Woah wait, freezing film doesnt have any negative effects? All my film is frozen. This includes black and white, color negatives and slides. All of a wide range of speeds. Also new film, expired film, and very expired film. I have yet to see any negative effects from it. I'm sure other dorkroomers are able to corroborate. The only thing is, before shooting either move it into the fridge, or let it sit unopened until it has adjusted to your shooting climate. You don't want condensation in your camera or on your film, especially with medium format, where it would make a huge mess with the backing paper and easily could jam up your camera.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 06:41
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:1: The film is all expired by at least 7 years, but has been stored in a fridge that entire time. It's currently residing in mine after being shipped across the country. Anyone know whether that's going to make an appreciable (negative) impact on the image? You might notice a slight loss of speed. APUG consensus seems to be about 1/2 stop to 1 full stop per decade, but I've shot (in the last year) mid-70s Verichrome Pan at box speed and called it good. E6 starts going weird relatively quickly, but any slow-to-mid-speed black-and-white (except PanF for some reason) will be fine even if he left it in the back of a sock drawer. Maybe overexpose 1/3 or 1/2 stop if you're feeling conservative.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 06:53
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:Woah wait, freezing film doesnt have any negative effects? Other than what VomitOnLino said about making sure there you minimise any chance of condensation when brining up to room temperature there should be any problems. But I've heard from a Kodak guy on a podcast (I think thats where it was from), that freezing doesn't keep the film any longer than just keeping it at <4C (or there a bouts) in a fridge with regards to prolonging the life of the film.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 08:38
|
|
|
Spedman posted:Other than what VomitOnLino said about making sure there you minimise any chance of condensation when brining up to room temperature there should be any problems. Yeah, I've heard that, too. I keep it in the freezer anyway, because: a) My fridge isn't set at 4°C because that'd be a waste -- and b) I have more space in the freezer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 09:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 00:15 |
|
|
Apologies for the atrocious grammar in my last post, jet-lag taking over. I think most people who hoard film tend to use those very big/deep freezers as you can't really get a cheap fridge that size, plus colder usually means better if you're trying to store something long term. I've just got a little bar-fridge for film as the lady of the house got sick of me using the crisper in the big fridge for film storage, but I do use the tiny freezer in the bar-fridge to keep any instant film I have floating around as I've heard that freezing does help.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 09:40
|
|