|
Santa is strapped posted:[for scanning negatives] Coming back to this point, is there anything in particular I should look for in a macro lens to do this kind of thing? Would this Tamron 90mm f/2.8 work just fine? On a crop body, if that matters.
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 11:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 00:34 |
|
|
404notfound posted:Coming back to this point, is there anything in particular I should look for in a macro lens to do this kind of thing? Would this Tamron 90mm f/2.8 work just fine? On a crop body, if that matters. The lens just needs to be sharp. On a crop body, 2:1 reproduction ratio (i.e. objects are projected onto sensor with dimensions halved at closest focus) should be fine. I love my Nikkor 55/2.8 AI, which only does 2:1 macro, it almost perfectly covers a Nikon DX sensor with a regular negative. After you have a decent lens, you also need a way to hold the film flat and level relative to the camera, and you need an even, textureless light source behind the negative. Get a light table for the light source. If you have access to a 3D printer, here is a printable holder for 135 format negative strips.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 13:19
|
|
|
ShotgunWillie posted:Henley's Twentieth Century Home & Workshop Formulas Recipes & Processes, 1927 Could you post the homemade paper section? Maybe scan or something? I'd be really interested in maybe trying some...
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 15:15
|
|
|
Curlynegchat and macrolenschat -relevant -- I just finished my first roll of home developed Acros. Euclid by voodoorootbeer, on Flickr  Untitled by voodoorootbeer, on Flickr  Narmada by voodoorootbeer, on Flickr I ended up cutting 35mm-sized mat board from a scrap piece of mat then using clamps to attach it a piece of picture frame glass. I set my SB-700 pointed at the back of a cardboard box with a hole in it, then put sheets of printer paper on the back of the box and in front of the hole. Shot at f11, 1/125, 200ISO with flash at 1/2 power.  D90 with 105 Micro Nikkor "scanner" by voodoorootbeer, on Flickr Couple negs had this weird fog - is it from underexposure or some photoflo fuckery?  Untitled by voodoorootbeer, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 17:33
|
|
|
The first few shots look a little low in contrast, are they straight out of your rig? As for the last one, does the neg itself look very thin, giving lots of black space with a positive? If people don't want to scan, they should have a crack at using one of these: http://www.macodirect.de/digital-duplicatorbrus-version-p-751.html I've never used one, but it looks pretty neat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 23:23
|
|
|
Has anyone actually used one of those? They got brought up in the thread a while back but no-one posted any results. What about this thing? Reviews on it seem good: http://www.amazon.com/Opteka-Slide-Copier-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000EQ24Z4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1384554641&sr=8-1&keywords=slide+copier+canon Quantum of Phallus fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Nov 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 23:29
|
|
|
Spedman posted:The first few shots look a little low in contrast, are they straight out of your rig? As for the last one, does the neg itself look very thin, giving lots of black space with a positive? Wouldn't the (i'm assuming) cheap close-up lens built in be bad for image quality? The idea sounds good, but it's hard to believe it has decent glass at that price.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 23:30
|
|
|
Primo Itch posted:Wouldn't the (i'm assuming) cheap close-up lens built in be bad for image quality? The idea sounds good, but it's hard to believe it has decent glass at that price. From my understanding you're supposed to just screw that onto a macro lens, rather than it acting as a lens it's self.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 04:53
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:Has anyone actually used one of those? They got brought up in the thread a while back but no-one posted any results. Is there one of those but for strips of negatives? Also, what makes it "for" Canon cameras?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 05:00
|
|
|
So my pentax k1000's mirror keeps getting stuck when I take photo's at 1/60 or sometimes 1/125, and I'd either have to pull the lever down by hand or take a shot at 1/1000 to get it unstuck. It needs to get it's foam replaced, but I don't think it's the culprit to this problem just yet. Any ideas on how I should begin troubleshooting this thing?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 06:04
|
|
|
404notfound posted:Is there one of those but for strips of negatives? Also, what makes it "for" Canon cameras? No idea, there's one for Nikon for the same price. Understanding posted:So my pentax k1000's mirror keeps getting stuck when I take photo's at 1/60 or sometimes 1/125, and I'd either have to pull the lever down by hand or take a shot at 1/1000 to get it unstuck. It needs to get it's foam replaced, but I don't think it's the culprit to this problem just yet. Any ideas on how I should begin troubleshooting this thing? I have no idea if the K1000 has one but try changing the battery. At least you can rule that out. Quantum of Phallus fucked around with this message at 12:01 on Nov 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 11:54
|
|
|
Spedman posted:The first few shots look a little low in contrast, are they straight out of your rig? As for the last one, does the neg itself look very thin, giving lots of black space with a positive? Some if the negs were really low contrast, yeah. I added some contrast in Lightroom mostly by pulling down the blacks and upping the whites until the histogram started to clip. Pretty sure the left side loss of contrast in the sliding board picture is flare -- the Lynx has an uncoated lens that flares like a motherfucker. The dark space in the foggy ones does look really thin. I can't really see anything on the neg itself. I had my diffuser paper about an inch behind the frame... maybe I should move it back some more?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 15:12
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:I have no idea if the K1000 has one but try changing the battery. At least you can rule that out. it's not a battery operated camera. It's all mechanical, that's why I don't really want to start trouble shooting it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 19:33
|
|
|
Spedman posted:From my understanding you're supposed to just screw that onto a macro lens, rather than it acting as a lens it's self. Yup, you put it onto any lens (not just macro) and it adds a diopter correction, like a set of eyeglasses that makes the lens nearsighted. The quality is variable. The cheap ones are kinda bad, the nice 2-element Canon 500D filters are pretty great. You can also use a wide angle lens plus a normal and a reversing ring or something like that, someone here has done that and it seemed to work pretty well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 20:41
|
|
|
Understanding posted:it's not a battery operated camera. It's all mechanical, that's why I don't really want to start trouble shooting it. It's likely the foam light seal starting to decay and get sticky. So when the shutter fires, the mirror flips up, hits the foam and gets stuck. On faster shutter speeds it bounces down fast enough to overcome the stickiness. You should be able to find someone to do a CLA on the camera for <$75. Eric Hendrickson seems to be the best guy to do CLAs on Pentax film SLRs and lenses. The people over at the Pentax Forum rave about him. I'm thinking about sending my K1000 over to him for some preventative maintenance. ZippySLC fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Nov 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2013 17:02
|
|
|
ZippySLC posted:It's likely the foam light seal starting to decay and get sticky. So when the shutter fires, the mirror flips up, hits the foam and gets stuck. On faster shutter speeds it bounces down fast enough to overcome the stickiness. He did a great job on my spotty. Was under $100 and worth every penny.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2013 18:37
|
|
|
I just, by chance, won a couple of Pentax Super ME's on auction yesterday. Good to hear I can get them serviced if they need it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2013 19:45
|
|
|
I was checking out an antique shop that just opened up in my area, and I found a camera bag with a $15 price tag on it. When I opened it, it had this sucker in there. It had a 28-80mm kit lens on it, with original documents and instructions. I replaced the kit lens with my Pentacon 50mm and finished off the roll that was in there, and dropped it off at a rinky-dink development place. I suck at shooting film and I have no scanner, but the photos came out alright. Stake out your local yard sales and antique malls, folks. I don't know if anyone even uses this thing, but for 15 bucks, I thought it was neat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2013 21:34
|
|
|
Low Desert Punk posted:finished off the roll that was in there, and dropped it off at a rinky-dink development place. I suck at shooting film and I have no scanner, but the photos came out alright. Second, are you saying you finished off a partially-exposed roll that had been sitting in the camera for who-knows-how-long? Anything interesting come out of that? Find a second-hand scanner (with light in the lid for film) for $20 or whatever and put that poo poo up, man!
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2013 02:27
|
|
|
I'm always afraid of getting rolls I find in second-hand cameras developed in case there's dodgy poo poo on them, I usually dump them straight away.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2013 03:02
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:I'm always afraid of getting rolls I find in second-hand cameras developed in case there's dodgy poo poo on them, I usually dump them straight away. What the gently caress
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2013 03:06
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:I'm always afraid of getting rolls I find in second-hand cameras developed in case there's dodgy poo poo on them, I usually dump them straight away. your odds of finding something that could get you in trouble are so low as to be nonexistent. you're being paranoid over nothing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2013 03:25
|
|
|
Genderfluid posted:your odds of finding something that could get you in trouble are so low as to be nonexistent. you're being paranoid over nothing. This. Even my non photographer friends knew that the stuff they shot was going to be potentially seen by the mini-lab guys making the prints. I assume this is true for almost everyone, especially when they had a better-than point and shoot film camera. Remember this was before the days of personalized data, and 99.5% of the consumers had to to through the public and human interaction to get to their prints / images. They wouldn't shoot dodgy stuff on there and were already hesitant about boobies and similar things. So next time, send them to me. Don't throw them away. I'll pay postage. Really!
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2013 03:39
|
|
|
in any case, if you get dev only without scans or prints, i don't think the minilab guys would see what's on the negatives unless they were looking really hard.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2013 03:58
|
|
|
IR filter + 10 stop IRND ok for long exposures on ilford sfx 200 or is the film no good for LE's? Also will the IR filter black out the blue sky on this film?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2013 11:03
|
|
|
Imagine someone had shot vital crime evidence... on an undeveloped roll of Kodachrome.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2013 12:26
|
|
|
I just had this happen, my fiancé's uncle gave me his old FE with a half shot roll of film in it. I thought, awesome! I'll be able to get some old unseen family photos from it, so I wind it up, pop open the back and it's a roll of Kodachrome 64 
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2013 12:38
|
|
|
I always hold out hope that those crazy Russian (?) guys who acquired Kodachrome chemicals will sort something out for us 
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2013 12:39
|
|
|
Spedman posted:I just had this happen, my fiancé's uncle gave me his old FE with a half shot roll of film in it. I thought, awesome! I'll be able to get some old unseen family photos from it, so I wind it up, pop open the back and it's a roll of Kodachrome 64 You can actually process it as b&w. I looked it up and a few people have tried it with varied success. Grainy as poo poo, iirc, but better than nothing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2013 21:48
|
|
|
ShotgunWillie posted:You can actually process it as b&w. I looked it up and a few people have tried it with varied success. Grainy as poo poo, iirc, but better than nothing. Mr Despair tried this and ended up with un-removable ramjet on everything, it's a really terrible process. I might give it a try if someone has worked out a pre-wash method for it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2013 22:30
|
|
|
Spedman posted:Mr Despair tried this and ended up with un-removable ramjet on everything, it's a really terrible process. I might give it a try if someone has worked out a pre-wash method for it. If you ever figure out anything on this let me know I have like 5 rolls of Kodachrome in my freezer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2013 23:18
|
|
|
It seems that a pre-wash in an alkaline solution will do the trick. http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/88098-kr64-id-11-part-2-success-d.html quote:Persistant soaking works, at least so far. I have another test clip soaking, after three hours and two changes of solution it's nearly clean.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2013 23:49
|
|
|
while i was processing these I thought they were portra, but I went back and looked at the filenames and it turned out they're all ektar, so I had to update my "portra is god" philosphy to "portras 160 and 400 are the Father and Son and ektar is the Holy Ghost" Radar Road by atomicthumbs, on Flickr  Dust Town by atomicthumbs, on Flickr  Infinity by atomicthumbs, on Flickr  Dimming by atomicthumbs, on Flickr  Done for the Day by atomicthumbs, on Flickr  High Desert (Tonopah Synopsis) by atomicthumbs, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2013 08:03
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:while i was processing these I thought they were portra, but I went back and looked at the filenames and it turned out they're all ektar, so I had to update my "portra is god" philosphy to "portras 160 and 400 are the Father and Son and ektar is the Holy Ghost" Seriously those look heck of nice. Why do people poo poo all over Ektar?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2013 08:27
|
|
|
Spedman posted:Mr Despair tried this and ended up with un-removable ramjet on everything, it's a really terrible process. I might give it a try if someone has worked out a pre-wash method for it. To be honest it wasn't that bad, but the reel I used is stained black. Doesn't affect the film I've developed on that reel since then. According to my notes I developed with HC110 dilution B, 20C, for about 10 minutes. Did an extra long wash at the end with water, and then wiped the negs clean with a cotton glove before hanging. Some of the shots I took came out pretty ok, some were off, but I didn't take careful notes with it so it's hard for me to say what I'd do differently if I did it again. I also don't remember if the kodachrome was 64 or 25 iso, but it was super expired either way. e. it was expired 64 that I probably shot at 25 or something to compensate. These were the shots from that roll: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrdespair/sets/72157632773634339/
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2013 09:03
|
|
|
Very nice atomicthumbs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2013 09:14
|
|
|
voodoorootbeer posted:Seriously those look heck of nice. Why do people poo poo all over Ektar? Because it looks not so great if you don't have that particular kind of light.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2013 15:49
|
|
|
voodoorootbeer posted:Seriously those look heck of nice. Why do people poo poo all over Ektar? ektar is a wonderful film. it's a lot more situational than portra, however, which is why portra is preferred.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2013 23:01
|
|
|
Genderfluid posted:ektar is a wonderful film. it's a lot more situational than portra, however, which is why portra is preferred. I recently bought two rolls of Ektar. When is it appropriate to use?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2013 23:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 00:34 |
|
|
Don't use in midday blaring sunlight as you'll end up with extreme red and greens, and I think if you under expose you'll end up with poo browns (I might be wrong with over/under exposure on this one).
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2013 23:34
|
|