|
The good news: finished the last two rolls of B&W in my backlog (which stretched back over 3 years at one point, although lots of jumping around). The bad news: Still have to send out the colour for developing, and today I took inventory of everything I have to scan (actually there's more, this is just out of the stuff since moving to Japan over 2 years ago, doesn't include aforementioned color)  
Pompous Rhombus fucked around with this message at 05:03 on Nov 1, 2013 |
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 04:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 13:00 |
|
|
Ham Dogs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 07:38
|
|
|
Hope you have a macro setup not just a scanner
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 12:34
|
|
|
Sometimes it's worth paying the extra few euros/dollars to have stuff scanned, scanning on a flatbed takes so long and if you've got a substantial number of rolls it feels endless.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2013 13:40
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:
It turns out the heater is working - the thermal protection switch had to be reset  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMgGFYWlpgc Working Jobo CPP2 for $250? Yup.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 00:42
|
|
|
I expect free processing for life as my finder's fee.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 01:19
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:It turns out the heater is working - the thermal protection switch had to be reset gently caress youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 09:59
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:
Niiiiice
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 11:30
|
|
|
I took a few different films to Scotland, all three were Kodak colour negative, here's some results: Portra 160  Ektar 100  Ektar 100  Color Pro 160 All shot with the GW690ii, more shots over in the landscape thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2013 21:56
|
|
|
Spedman posted:I took a few different films to Scotland, all three were Kodak colour negative, here's some results: This is the best thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2013 00:47
|
|
|
BrosephofArimathea posted:This is the best thing. I totally agree and it makes me want to shoot color.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2013 01:40
|
|
|
Buy every film camera you like and fill them with every filmstock you like. And then roll around naked all over them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2013 01:44
|
|
|
Spedman posted:I took a few different films to Scotland, all three were Kodak colour negative, here's some results: They're all great but the above is really inspiring IMHO.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2013 10:33
|
|
|
Hopefully this is the right place to ask, can anyone recommend a good film scanner that is in the sub-$400 price range? It seems like everything I can find on Amazon is either $800+ professional equipment, or $75-100 pieces of garbage. The reason I ask is because my father, a photographer by trade for 45 years, has thousands of mostly black and white negatives that I would like to get scanned. While I can always take it to Sam's Club and get them scanned, with 1,000+ frames it's just cheaper to buy my own if I can get comparable quality to their scans (300dpi, around 1818 pixels wide). Complicating matters is the fact that, as a news photographer who occasionally did some work for the county coroner, Sam's or Target may take issue with converting some images (particularly gruesome car wrecks and shootings with dead people visible, etc).
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2013 20:10
|
|
|
If it's 35mm then take a look at second hand dedicated Minolta ones. The Epson V500 is a flatbed that will do up to 120 and you can pick it up for $2-300. Otherwise a super budget option if you can find them is one of the older Epson scanners, I picked up a Perfection 2450 for the equivalent of about $50 and it will scan LF. Be warned that any of those options will take you a very long time and it might be worth just paying to have them scanned. There's also a dedicated scanner thread, might be worth a look. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3307521
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:If it's 35mm then take a look at second hand dedicated Minolta ones. The Epson V500 is a flatbed that will do up to 120 and you can pick it up for $2-300. Otherwise a super budget option if you can find them is one of the older Epson scanners, I picked up a Perfection 2450 for the equivalent of about $50 and it will scan LF. Be warned that any of those options will take you a very long time and it might be worth just paying to have them scanned. Awesome, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2013 21:21
|
|
|
If you can spare the cash, one option is to buy a nice scanner and then sell it after you're done. High-end scanners don't really lose value on the used market. Yeah, the v500 is the standard recommendation here. Flatbeds do take forever. There are some nice dedicated film scanners (I don't know anything about that Plustek), and you can often pick up the older ones for cheap. Especially if you are willing to work with odd hardware configurations - SCSI stuff is dirt cheap nowadays (get an AHA-2940, it's the only card with Win7 drivers). If you send it out be prepared to pay a buttload for that many scans. Walmart and other minilab type places don't give much of a poo poo about the quality of the scan, I got some as proofs when I had a vacation's worth of images to scan and they were pretty bad. You can get scans good, cheap, or fast, pick two. (Good and cheap involves doing them yourself)
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2013 22:48
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:
Aw, I have my mom's old XG-1. Nice camera. It was my primary shooter in the 90's. Had to check out Flickr for some of my old scans from like 10 years ago. Probably should redo them.   I need to use it more, but I've never had good luck with color 35mm film. Does anyone have any suggestions? Edit: Yeah, I guess I should have known that answer. Krispy Wafer fucked around with this message at 02:10 on Nov 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 01:46
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:I need to use it more, but I've never had good luck with color 35mm film. Does anyone have any suggestions? Portra.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 01:54
|
|
|
Portra is the 'best' colour film. It scans really well, has teensy grain and you can push it pretty much as far as you want. It's also (relatively) expensive. Ektar is a little slower but has punchier colour saturation and contrast. If you like how slide film looks and hate how it scans, this is for you. Velvia has two modes: 1. Stunningly beautiful, 2. Horrifyingly ugly. Try out a roll for funsies if you can get E-6 processed locally. Superia/Gold: fast, cheap and rough around the edges. Great for snapshots.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 02:44
|
|
|
Provia is my choice in slide (well, currently produced slide), very faithful color rendition and lovely shadows.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 02:53
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Provia is my choice in slide (well, currently produced slide), very faithful color rendition and lovely shadows. Yup. Velvia's colors are exaggerated, Provia's are essentially correct. When you think of a NatGeo looking landscape Provia is basically that type of color balance. It's very good looking for anything snowy or landscape-y.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 04:03
|
|
|
aliencowboy posted:Buy every film camera you like and fill them with every filmstock you like. And then roll around naked all over them. Film cameras are all boxy with sharp, hard corners. I have no desire to roll around on them, naked or clothed. But all full of film, all the time, is a fantastic idea and I heartily approve.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 04:18
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Film cameras are all boxy with sharp, hard corners. I have no desire to roll around on them, naked or clothed. Weirdo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 04:25
|
|
|
Speaking of boxy and sharp cameras, I know this is digital and outside the realm of this thread, but I saw this today and I'm glad to see a DSLR that is going back to some of the awesome things about film cameras before everything started turning into electronic controls: http://mobile.theverge.com/2013/11/4/5065556/nikons-new-full-frame-camera-leaks-out-with-glorious-retro-styling Physical controls for shutter speed, exposure compensation, and ISO. carticket fucked around with this message at 04:52 on Nov 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 04:48
|
|
|
Still way too many buttons. Bring it back with a not-sucky NEX-style interface, or no LCD or back buttons at all. There's like fifteen controls on the back plate, it's just too much for that size body.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 05:15
|
|
|
That thing is so false metal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 05:33
|
|
|
Mr. Powers posted:Speaking of boxy and sharp cameras, I know this is digital and outside the realm of this thread, but I saw this today and I'm glad to see a DSLR that is going back to some of the awesome things about film cameras before everything started turning into electronic controls: 2,700 bucks? Pssh. Yeah, okay.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 07:58
|
|
|
I wish it said Pentax instead of Nikon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 15:10
|
|
|
Pentax ME-Super D!!
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 17:07
|
|
|
I really hope someday we get a removable digital sensor for 35mm cameras. I know there's a prototype out there but it looks awful.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 17:25
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:I really hope someday we get a removable digital sensor for 35mm cameras. I know there's a prototype out there but it looks awful. I believe any removable digital sensor that exists is a joke/hoax/product concept. There's a few technical issues that would need to be worked around. For example the sensor would have no idea when the exposure starts. You could start the exposure from a PC flash sync, but the sensor would have no idea how long the exposure is. Something like e-TTL would certainly work, but that's a very narrow range of cameras. I suppose you could do a P67 style thing where the sensor starts recording when the shutter opens and then records some longer period of time, with the actual exposure controlled by the in-body shutter. So you set 1/60 on the mechanical shutter, 1/30 on the electronic shutter, or something like that. You're giving up a stop or more of noise by doing that, though. There's also broader problems with marketing the concept. The sensor is the most expensive and lowest-margin part in the whole camera (which aren't incredibly high-margin to begin with), and there's no lock-in to future purchases of glass (which is where the money is made). Most people probably don't want to pay $2k for a gimmicky removable back unit when they could just pay $2500 and get the whole camera. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 17:52 on Nov 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 17:48
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:I believe any removable digital sensor that exists is a joke/hoax/product concept. No you're not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 23:07
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:No you're not. Yes, yes you are. Also, to end this derail: Here's a film picture I recently took. Color balance is wonky because it's Fuji T64 from 1989 or something, but I still like it. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 02:09
|
|
|
That's pretty neat, reminds me of the tones/hues I was getting from shooting colour paper negatives.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 03:23
|
|
|
VomitOnLino posted:Yes, yes you are. You need an exposure lasting at least a minute before you encounter any thermal noise at all. If you were to add an external shutter set to 1/60 to a digital camera and took two shots with the digital camera at 1/30 and 1 second they would both be completely identical. How much noisier is an f/5.6, 1/30 shot compared to an f/4, 1/60; this is effectively what you would be doing. It sure as hell isn't 1 stop of noise.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 03:28
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:You need an exposure lasting at least a minute before you encounter any thermal noise at all. If you were to add an external shutter set to 1/60 to a digital camera and took two shots with the digital camera at 1/30 and 1 second they would both be completely identical. How much noisier is an f/5.6, 1/30 shot compared to an f/4, 1/60; this is effectively what you would be doing. It sure as hell isn't 1 stop of noise. A 1/30 exposure is the same thing as two 1/60 exposures added together. That includes the noise, so no, it's not exactly the same. That said, we're talking about a negligible amount of noise here and there'd be just about no real-world impact.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 03:37
|
|
|
I just ordered the first rolls of film that I've bought in the last decade. 2 x Portra 160, 2 x Ektar 100, and 2 x Tri-X 400. I've been shooting on another roll of long expired generic film and am really enjoying the simplicity and slowness of my K1000. I can sort of see myself shifting away from digital now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 19:52
|
|
|
Yeah I'm hanging onto my Canon L lenses in some weird pathetic hope I'll want to get a DSLR again, but I need to get rid of it all before it depreciates too much. And I need to justify all the money I just blew on a v700 and assorted chemicals et al e: if anyone wants some L series lenses, hit met up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2013 08:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 13:00 |
|
|
It took me so long to decided whether or not to sell my D7000 that the next version came out and I lost like $400 of value from mine 
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2013 16:30
|
|
