|
404notfound posted:All right, that sounds good. I've never seen a mounted medium format slide before, but I was wondering if the lab would end up giving those to me. The V600 has holders for 35mm strips, 35mm slides, and 120 strips, but I wouldn't know what to do with 120 slides.
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 22:45 |
|
|
Maybe helpful to UK dorkroomers; a photography student mate of mine told me that Poundland sells film. It's 24 exposure Agfa VistaPlus 200. Dunno what it's like but for that price I went and picked up a couple of rolls.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
Also Ireland's equivalent, Dealz, does the same deal for €1.49
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:Maybe helpful to UK dorkroomers; a photography student mate of mine told me that Poundland sells film. It's 24 exposure Agfa VistaPlus 200. Dunno what it's like but for that price I went and picked up a couple of rolls. It's apparently rebadged Fuji C200. Sadly my local Poundland never seems to have any in stock 
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
Poundland is the best store name ever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 05:19
|
|
|
pantsfree posted:It's apparently rebadged Fuji C200. Sadly my local Poundland never seems to have any in stock I don't know, I've shot a few rolls and the colors are nothing like C200. They're far more saturated, especially red. Here is the 400 ISO version of that film. I do like it for mindless shooting.  Amazing rose di maxmars70, su Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 09:41
|
|
|
So... I've stumbled onto some rolls of TMAX 100, some color FUJI 120 and 35mm film, all at least 10 years expired. I don't know what their story is. Probably not supposed to really know about it. I also found a box of really old 4x5 negatives from an old portrait photographer at my school dark room. I thought about making a print or two but the only interesting shots were on this larger format that had two exposures on something like a 6x9. I could pilfer a roll of old TMAX 100 film to see how it'll come out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
I think I might switch to shooting T-rix at 1600 in the city. The texture of the grain really brings out the texture of the all encompassing concrete.  _DSC5877 by Stingray of Doom, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 10:48
|
|
|
Pretty sure Tri-x 400 pushed to hell and back was Daido Moriyama's film of choice for Japanese street scape awesomeness, so much grain.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 14:36
|
|
|
Some Fuji Provia 400x I shot recently. Affaire by Quantum of Phallus  Affaire by Quantum of Phallus  Affaire by Quantum of Phallus
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 15:11
|
|
|
Spedman posted:Pretty sure Tri-x 400 pushed to hell and back was Daido Moriyama's film of choice for Japanese street scape awesomeness, so much grain. I Think that the grain he is known for is from his printing process, not development of negatives. There is a documentary film called "Near Equal" where its touched upon. Now that he is shooting jpegs, I am curious what his work looks like.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 07:09
|
|
|
I'm guessing you mean that he uses the printing process with high contrast filters and burn-in to accentuate the grain? As it doesn't make a lot of sense to me that he can make grain just happen through the process of making a wet print (or I'm missing something incredibly obvious, which may well be the case).
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 12:59
|
|
|
Putrid Grin posted:Now that he is shooting jpegs, I am curious what his work looks like. From what I've read in more recent interviews, he's shooting with a digital compact now, Ricoh or Nikon I think, so he has a custom preset in Silver Efex Pro 2 that he just asks his assistant to apply to the jpegs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 14:17
|
|
|
Putrid Grin posted:There is a documentary film called "Near Equal" where its touched upon. Just watched this. It's rad as hell and also on youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaeEx0Uvef8
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
I just finished shooting a roll of Portra 400, and was really excited to see how wide the latitude for exposure is because I've heard amazing things. I've metered a bunch of shots to 800 and above, and bracketed a few shots as well. Then I unloaded the film and realised this whole time I've been shooting Provia 400. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
Baron Dirigible posted:I just finished shooting a roll of Portra 400, and was really excited to see how wide the latitude for exposure is because I've heard amazing things. I've metered a bunch of shots to 800 and above, and bracketed a few shots as well. Man that sucks.  Well Fuji film CAN be underexposed although not at Portra levels. This is slightly underexposed Fuji Superia 400.  Meet Philo's lutist shop di maxmars70, su Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
maxmars posted:Man that sucks. I always liked Superia at 1/3 or 2/3 of a stop underexposed when I used it, but he's talking about fast slide film here, which has very little in terms of exposure latitude.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
Primo Itch posted:I always liked Superia at 1/3 or 2/3 of a stop underexposed when I used it, but he's talking about fast slide film here, which has very little in terms of exposure latitude. Yes I know, I shoot pretty much Fuji only. It's going to suck but who knows, maybe a few shots will come out just fine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 07:43
|
|
|
I got the slides back and, yeah, while a few shots are unusable, most of them actually worked out alright (they're still lovely because my focus and composition sucks). It helps that I'd actually already shot half the roll before switching backs and getting confused about what I had loaded. Unrelated: is there a good primer anywhere on the different types of Ilford film? The Ilford website just talks about speed -- is that the only real difference between HP5, Delta, Pan-F etc?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 14:26
|
|
|
Spedman posted:Pretty sure Tri-x 400 pushed to hell and back was Daido Moriyama's film of choice for Japanese street scape awesomeness, so much grain. Tri-X at ISO1600 is something everybody should try, especially if you go the full old-tyme newspaper route and cook it in Dektol (I forget the exact time and temp, but it's scalding-hot and extremely short: something like 1min at 150 degrees in a paint mixer, the bare minimum of fixer, shake it off and throw it in the enlarger still wet). Grain like footballs, contrast that gives a whole new meaning to "black-and-white." Tri-X at ISO3200 is good enough for newsprint; it has a certain je ne sais quoi that films meant for ISO3200 lack. I still default to ISO320/640 on my DSLRs because of Tri-X. Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 15:26 on Feb 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 15:24
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
Baron Dirigible posted:I got the slides back and, yeah, while a few shots are unusable, most of them actually worked out alright (they're still lovely because my focus and composition sucks). It helps that I'd actually already shot half the roll before switching backs and getting confused about what I had loaded. Quick and dirty: Delta is similar to T-Max in that it sports an "ehnanced" kind of grain (more acutance at the expense of worse latitude, very very roughly). HP5+/FP4 is traditional grain so more similar to TriX tech. Kentmere films (also by Hartman) are traditional grain too. Pan F is a slow film. Very fine grain, very contrasty. Never used it (all of my 50 iso was Efke before the demise of).
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
To add to the Ilford discussion - in my experience, FP4+ has somewhat more contrast and HP5+ somewhat less. All other things equal, I'll choose FP4+ in flatter light and HP5+ in harsher light if I want to even it out. A lot of times, though, I do need the extra speed and go with HP5+. I dislike Delta. If I'm shooting a T-grain film, it's going to be Acros. That stuff is magic 
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
In my experience, Tri-X pops a little better at stock speeds but HP5 is a little more reliable if you really start pushing it to the 2000-3200 range. I find Delta 3200 to be a bit much when it comes to 35mm, but I think it looks fantastic shot at 3200-6400 on medium format.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
maxmars posted:Pan F is a slow film. Very fine grain, very contrasty. Never used it (all of my 50 iso was Efke I love Pan F. You lose speed and it's usually not practical to use as a day-to-day film, but goddamn if it doesn't have amazing contrast while keeping a lot of nice, soft mid-greys in between.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
So, its been a while since I've been in this thread. I've just come into a very large collection of 6x6 negatives that were found in my late great Aunt's house. These would have been taken by my great uncle who passed away about 20 years ago. Based on the age of my uncles and aunts in some of the shots, I can come up with a range of 50's and 60's for the bulk of them. It looks like the bulk are Kodak Verachrome or Verachrome Pan, and Kodak's date codes are pretty well documented. Has anyone done date estimation of other films? The only other markings I've seen have been ADOX, and I've sent an email asking about historical coding on the film. I ordered cotton gloves and a 100 pack of Printfile 6x6 sheets (sadly you can buy them as "Instagram print sheets"), as there all in wax paper envelopes currently. My plan is to load them into the sheets and either borrow a light box or build a crappy one and use my DSLR to snap shots of each sheet to quickly digitize them. I guess I'm looking for some advice on how to handle this amount of negatives to both preserve them and make then accessible. Once I digitize with the camera and decimate into individual frames I'm not really sure how to track them back to a specific page. Also, these negative are remarkable. They're the highest contrast negatives I've seen. The deepest blacks and clearest highlights (or is it the other way round?). I picked up new chemicals and I'm pretty excited about having something to print in the enlarger setup for 6x6 I got for $10 last year.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
Is there any good 35mm slide film that you can still buy new? I know Provia 400x got discontinued recently. I have a few expired rolls of Ektrachrome Panther 100 in my freezer but it's starting to show its age.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
Provia 100f.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
Cool, I'll pick up a few rolls.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:Is there any good 35mm slide film that you can still buy new? I know Provia 400x got discontinued recently. I have a few expired rolls of Ektrachrome Panther 100 in my freezer but it's starting to show its age. I quite like Velvia, I'm pretty sure they're still making 50 (or is it 100)? But I'm stupidly fond of the things Velvia does to reds and oranges. I've got a little project in mind, some multiple-flash-lit shots of still life - the dinosaur skeletons* in the lobby of the Geology building at the university. I was thinking this would be a good use of the roll of Portra 160 I got in a mixed bag from FilmPhotographyProject a while ago, but I have other films, too. Has anyone used Portra 160 indoors with flash? Would that be a squandered opportunity given Portra's awesome latitude under natural light? * They're plastic / fibreglass reproductions of actual fossils, not real skeletons
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
 rig test 1.0 by Stingray of Doom, on Flickr I need to work on this one, me thinks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 09:26
|
|
|
Film newbie questions time So I went out and bought all of the chemicals and gear that I need to process some B&W film. I've been shooting with Ilford HP5 so I decided to go with all Ilford chemicals to make it easy for my first time. I got a 1L bottle of Ilfotec HC concentrate. The instructions recommend creating a 1+3 dilution to create a stock developer first, and then further diluting that for actually developing the film. But this shortens the lifespan of the developer. I only see myself shooting maybe 1 roll per month tops, so is it worth it for me to mix up the entire concentrate to produce 4L of stock developer, or can I get by with mixing the 1+15, 1+31 or even 1+47 dilution straight from concentrate as I need it? And what difference does it make on the film if I develop for longer with a weaker solution vs shorter with a stronger solution. Does it matter for my first time, or should I just experiment with different options and figure out what I like best?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 05:18
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:Film newbie questions time In general the shorter the dev time (the more concentrated the mixture), the higher the contrast. Mix your developer fresh each time straight from the bottle, no need to make that intermediary version.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 05:24
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:Film newbie questions time Yes, you can (and should) mix your working solution from concentrate. Stock solutions are for people that are going to use it all in a month or two. Developing longer with a weaker solution and less often agitation is known as semistand development. Developer soaks into the film, agitation exchanges the the exhausted developer with fresh stuff from the tank. The theory is that weaker solutions and less agitation will allow the developer to exhaust in the highlights first and then the shadows continue to develop a tiny amount, which adds up to an overall decrease in contrast. You do have to be careful of things like bromide drag if you agitate too little with some films. I recommend getting a notebook and keeping track of times, agitation scheme, and developer concentration until you settle on a routine that you like. Feel free to ask for help on the IRC channel if you need anything, there's almost always at least one film dude in there 24 hours a day and you probably won't get made fun of too hard.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
Thanks for the tips. Well I successfully developed my first roll, but drat it was pretty sketchy. Had to unwind the film from the reel a few times to get it right. Then I had problems measuring such small amounts of developer (I probably need to buy syringes), and the timing was messy. I think it ended up a tad underdeveloped because the parts that are supposed to be clear are fairly grey still. I'm letting it dry overnight and I'll post scans in the morning.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 07:56
|
|
|
Yeah a plastic syringe from the drugstore (as long as it has ml markings) is very useful.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 09:07
|
|
|
I use 10cc syringes and metal blunt needles to measure chems. You can get them cheap on ebay.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 09:34
|
|
|
A tip for letting the film slide effortlessly onto the plastic or metal spiral roll. With your scissors, shape the first couple of cm of film as a pointy arrow.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 10:02
|
|
|
Mr. Powers posted:So, its been a while since I've been in this thread. I've just come into a very large collection of 6x6 negatives that were found in my late great Aunt's house. These would have been taken by my great uncle who passed away about 20 years ago. Based on the age of my uncles and aunts in some of the shots, I can come up with a range of 50's and 60's for the bulk of them. That sounds really cool! Also, way less effort than digitizing via scanner. Sadly, not an option for the 70+ rolls of 120 of my personal stuff I have laying around, but I'll probably do something similar with my parents' 35mm negs next time I'm home, just to get them digitized with reasonable-ish quality in reasonable-ish time (for not much money). I think you can use an oil marker (someone correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC they don't have any of the potentially harmful acids in the ink) to write on the negative sleeve. You can do something like name the Printfile page "001" and give each frame you slide off a number from 1-12, for a final filename like "00106" for the 6th frame on the first ("001") sheet. For the next batch/page, name it "002" and do the same, then store the sheets physically in order. I have one of these for my negs and it's pretty awesome. Store the digital files in folders (named 001, 002, etc) and it should be pretty easy to match a scan to a physical negative, and vice-versa.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 11:16
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:I think it ended up a tad underdeveloped because the parts that are supposed to be clear are fairly grey still. This means you need to fix longer and/or with more agitation. How do the parts that are supposed to look black look?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 22:45 |
|
|
The blacks look fine. Nice and dark, not washed out or anything. But then again I have nothing to compare them to
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 17:14
|
|