|
I'll be in Japan in about three weeks, and I'm really excited about it. Less excited about the prospect of getting the film developed and then scanning it, though. Are there any special considerations for taking film in and out of the country? I'm bringing a bunch of slow slide film (Velvia 50 & 100) which I've read should be okay, but will my Portra 400 fare as well? I'll be keeping all my film and my camera in carry-on.
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 22:42 |
|
|
It will be fine. You can always load it in clear ziplock bags and ask screeners to check it by hand instead of putting it through the x-ray.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
The ME Super is here! Both the body and the 50mm lens were BGN condition from KEH, but I'm extremely impressed with the looks. The only blemishes on the body seem to be a little scratching around the Pentax logo, while the lens looks pretty much perfect except for the engraved number on the bottom. I'm in the middle of the first, "test" roll of film, which I hope to finish up tonight and tomorrow morning, then take it over to the Walgreens in the morning. Assuming the prints come back ok (no light leaks etc), I'll load up a fresh roll and try to shoot my fiance's birthday party that afternoon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:You gonna be down in Kyushu any on this trip? I'll be in Fukuoka Monday night and around most of the week.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 10:14
|
|
|
I got my first roll developed today. Mostly it was random bullshit taken to fill up the roll, but I got lucky on one particular attempt: a quick shot of my fiance, taken in my living room. She's in focus, the background is attractively blurred, and the lighting is about right. I'd like to get that picture, and possibly one or two other decent shots, onto the computer somehow. I took the film to Walgreens, so I have negatives and prints. I don't have a scanner or a DSLR. I do have a 10 year old digital point-and-shoot and my Nexus 4. What's the best way to get some rough digital version suitable for Facebook or something? I saw someone mention sticking the negatives on a monitor to grab with a point-and-shoot, but thanks to WaffleImages I couldn't see the results.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 05:11
|
|
|
Find a cheap film-capable flatbed scanner (backlight in the lid) on Craigslist or whatever, and use that. Epson's line-up from a few (7-10) years ago is fine for the task. I've got a Perfection 3170, it does the job, and cost me $20 a couple of years ago.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
Yeah I got an epson 4870 from 2005 for only $40 and it's amazing. Just keep an eye out and try to avoid settling for something lovely because you want instant gratification. I went through 2 film scanners before that and could not get anything remotely in focus out of them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
I went to buy some Arista Premium 35mm and learned that as of last fall there is no more being made due to the change of ownership with Kodak. As of then freestyle apparently had >100,000 24-shot rolls but they're sold out of the 36 shot already. Dunno what the deal is with other formats but supply is probably similarly limited.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 14:13
|
|
|
Spime Wrangler posted:I went to buy some Arista Premium 35mm and learned that as of last fall there is no more being made due to the change of ownership with Kodak. As of then freestyle apparently had >100,000 24-shot rolls but they're sold out of the 36 shot already. Dunno what the deal is with other formats but supply is probably similarly limited. Arista Premium is the only Kodak rebrand, the medium format stuff is all EDU which is Foma.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 14:38
|
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:I got my first roll developed today. Mostly it was random bullshit taken to fill up the roll, but I got lucky on one particular attempt: a quick shot of my fiance, taken in my living room. She's in focus, the background is attractively blurred, and the lighting is about right. If you use Walgreens, they can also burn your pictures onto a CD after developing, if I remember correctly. This might at least be an option in the beginning if you'd like to either share particular things or just have them on the computer either way, without having to go all-in straight away and start scanning them on your own.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
Hollow Talk posted:If you use Walgreens, they can also burn your pictures onto a CD after developing, if I remember correctly. This might at least be an option in the beginning if you'd like to either share particular things or just have them on the computer either way, without having to go all-in straight away and start scanning them on your own. That's a good idea. I didn't opt for the CD because I didn't expect any decent shots out of the roll, but in the end there's about 5 that I'm pretty happy with and the one that I really love. I took the camera to my fiance's birthday party yesterday and shot most of the roll there. I've seen mention in this thread of some system whereby you put your film in an envelope at Walmart and they ship it off to a processing company rather than do a 1-hour themselves. Is this any good, or is it better/more cost effective to send your film directly to a processor? I'd like to give this roll a fighting chance at being developed and scanned nicely since the photo content actually matters. Walgreens seems to have done OK on the last roll but I've seen enough horror stories in this thread about inconsistent 1-hour drug stores.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
Hey everyone, I'm taking a film class right now and this weekend will be my first assignment, the teacher said "Just go shoot poo poo". Is it cool if I post the results here? I'm actually nervous about developing, worried I'll botch the whole job.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
That's what this thread is for! I only recently developed my first roll as well. I thought I'd botch the whole thing, didn't have temperatures exactly right, etc, but it turned out pretty good anyway. I think B&W processing is fairly forgiving.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:That's what this thread is for! It's really really forgiving because a negative is not a finished image, it's the equivalent of a RAW file. Good algorithms can make something usable out of a pretty lovely RAW image and the physics of film are even more forgiving. The data in a really overexposed RAW is just gone, but there's an exponential "shoulder" on film that tends to compress high tones into a narrow but usable dynamic range. You have a lot of control over how the image on the film comes out through the development process, which you just can't do on digital (excepting things like the split-ISO pixel modes on some new cameras) You then "convert" the negative by scanning or wet printing, and both methods can get images off some really horrendous negatives. The techniques are actually totally analogous. Well-exposed negatives can be scanned in one go by properly setting the white/grey/black points on the histogram, analogous to standard graded printing (exposure plus grade/contrast). If you have a negative that is super-duper contrasty you can scan the highlights in one image and the shadows in another, which is analogous to split-grade filter printing. If you're willing to work at it a little you can get an image off basically any negative. This means that it's really hard to critically gently caress up the development process. I've trashed exactly one roll of film during development in my life, and that was by failing to properly clean the tank before development. I'm pretty sure some photo-flo residue was still in there and I got a foam pattern on my negative. And I've done some hilariously dumb poo poo in my time, like mixing the fixer at 1:3 instead of 1:7 and all kinds of other dilution/time/temperature/agitation mistakes, no big deal. The riskiest part is honestly loading the reels. It's not difficult to crinkle medium format film during the loading stage if your reels aren't fully dry or the air is really humid, I've messed up a few individual shots that way. By the way someone asked about finding Rodinal a bit earlier. Rodinal is an Agfa brand name and I don't think you will have much luck finding it directly (maybe in Europe). Lots of places carry the same chemicals under different brand names, for example I buy "Compard R09" from Freestyle and there's also "Adox Adinol", "Blazinol", etc. Same stuff. I'm not turning up any Amazon results either, unfortunately. I prefer Rodinal but if you can't find it Kodak HC-110B can be used in pretty much the same way. Beware, the bottles do tend to split at the seams after a couple of years. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Mar 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
I'll just leave this here... http://portland.craigslist.org/mlt/wan/4380586164.html
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
MMD3 posted:I'll just leave this here... Well, good thing I switched away from using a rangefinder, now I can blame my camera for my bad photos.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
Pec-12 is stupidly expensive here (like $35 a 4oz bottle from the only place nearby that stocks it). Anyone know of any alternatives to unfuck your negs after you brilliantly drop them on the wet shower floor?Shellman posted:What does everyone scan to format-wise when they scan their negatives? I'd rather have a more managable filesize than 110 MBs (but maybe that's normal for medium format?), but scanning as jpgs seems to give me some really bad artifacts that get worsened by any post/touch-up I do in lightroom. I use Vuescan to do a linear(ish) scan @ 4800dpi/48bit, downsized 2:1 and saved as 'raw' (which is really just a tif). 6x6 comes in around 150mb with a spotting and a color correction layer. But you could flatten it to get under a hundred, do all your lightroom adjustments and then jpeg it and 9 or 10. BrosephofArimathea fucked around with this message at 03:42 on Mar 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
What does everyone scan to format-wise when they scan their negatives? I'd rather have a more managable filesize than 110 MBs (but maybe that's normal for medium format?), but scanning as jpgs seems to give me some really bad artifacts that get worsened by any post/touch-up I do in lightroom. fake edit: guess my avatar is appropriate
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
Shellman posted:What does everyone scan to format-wise when they scan their negatives? I'd rather have a more managable filesize than 110 MBs (but maybe that's normal for medium format?), but scanning as jpgs seems to give me some really bad artifacts that get worsened by any post/touch-up I do in lightroom. Scan to giant TIFF and delete them when you are done. Unless by manageable you mean your computer will choke on large files, but my middle of the road Dell handles 500mb TIFFs with ease.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 04:54
|
|
|
So yesterday I decided to process a roll of film using metal reels. I took my time making sure I could get it right with a test roll lying around my school's darkroom, but after processing I was still greeted by those drat gray patches at the end of the roll. Those metal reels are the work of the devil, I swear it, but I will master those drat things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 06:15
|
|
|
Hewes brand metal reels are so much better, I don't understand how, but they are.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 06:52
|
|
|
 drat, you pay a premium for that, that's almost as much as a development tank at B&H. I was just there too, and I could've sworn they only had the plastic reels on the sales floor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
I don't know if they are Hewes but I have some stainless reels that look like that that a coworker gave me. If anyone wants them, I can go take some pictures tonight. I also have metal tanks to go with them, but I don't trust them. If someone wants them I'd let them go for the cost of shipping and packaging. I'm only posting this in case I do actually have something people want that is literally sitting unused. The tanks are pretty grimy and may not seal. I think the previous owner left them with developer in them. I have a set of Patterson ranks and reels that I use.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 14:01
|
|
|
well, if they're stainless they should just wash right out. I'mma wait for those picks tho and stalk the gear for sale thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
Keep an eye out on sites like APUG too. The 35mm/120 reels come up pretty frequently. Now what I'd really like is one of the fancy stainless Nikor 4x5 tanks, but those are rare and cost a pretty penny when they come up.  Yeah, stainless is inert so they should clean up fine. Try soaking them in an industrial degreaser (f.ex Purple Power), then rub it with steel wool. If it's super gunky try applying it straight. Either way use gloves or it'll do a number on your skin. Be careful if there's rubber seals anywhere, but from what I remember most steel tanks mostly just seal up with tight tolerances. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 18:22 on Mar 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
What's the benefit of stainless steel? I do fine with the plastic ones, apart from one horror experience where my hands got too sweaty and it took half an hour to get the film onto the reel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
deaders posted:What's the benefit of stainless steel? I do fine with the plastic ones, apart from one horror experience where my hands got too sweaty and it took half an hour to get the film onto the reel. They don't need to dry between uses, i.e. avoids the sticky film issue you mention. Overall easier to clean. Different method of loading, you may prefer one or the other. It's probably easier to load 120 onto steel reels than onto small-flange Paterson reels.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
BrosephofArimathea posted:Pec-12 is stupidly expensive here (like $35 a 4oz bottle from the only place nearby that stocks it). Anyone know of any alternatives to unfuck your negs after you brilliantly drop them on the wet shower floor? If it's really looking bad, I sometimes wash hosed up color negatives in B&W fixer. Seems to deaders posted:What's the benefit of stainless steel? I do fine with the plastic ones, apart from one horror experience where my hands got too sweaty and it took half an hour to get the film onto the reel. Understanding posted: They nerfed their darkroom section, but they still have everything... somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
 Short tank says Simmon Omega Made in Japan on the bottom, no cap. Tall one just says Made in Japan. No info on the reels. You guys get to see my ugly chemstained table! Also looks like I left fixer in my trays (haven't used the darkroom in a while).
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
So when Walgreens develops my film, they return the negatives rolled up tightly. This seems like a decent way to protect them against dust and scratching, but I'm wondering about long-term curving effects in the film. Is it better to just unroll it, cut into strips of 5, and stick in a binder? I got a CD of scans in addition my prints. Right now they have a $2 processing discount (code 6096, good until April 2) so the whole deal comes out a bit cheaper. Here are my favorites from this roll (my second):   The scans (and the pictures) look pretty grainy, but I prefer grainy to pixelated so I'm reasonably happy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:So when Walgreens develops my film, they return the negatives rolled up tightly. This seems like a decent way to protect them against dust and scratching, but I'm wondering about long-term curving effects in the film. Is it better to just unroll it, cut into strips of 5, and stick in a binder? In the end that's what I did. It's far easier for me to find a neg in a transparent sheet in a binder than going through rolls. Also, this way they're less prone to scratches. Good job with your second roll. I like the flowers pic, very chilled atmosphere with the people in background defocused and relaxed, although I would have tried to recover some highlights on the flowers themselves.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 12:44
|
|
|
So what are still "good" film cameras "these days"? I want to get one to toy around with... I was looking into the Nikon FM as there are a few for sale locally (one with a 135mm f2.8 for $125), but wasn't sure if there are better for cheaper, etc. I'll probably shoot mostly B&W film and only with prime lenses if it matters. emotive fucked around with this message at 21:05 on Mar 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
maxmars posted:Good job with your second roll. I like the flowers pic, very chilled atmosphere with the people in background defocused and relaxed, although I would have tried to recover some highlights on the flowers themselves. I really like the flower picture too. I didn't do any post-processing on that picture, just uploaded the image as it came on the CD. When you say "recover some highlights", do you mean doing something at the time of shooting, or by applying some post-processing?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
emotive posted:So what are still "good" film cameras "these days"? Canon EOS-1v  Serious answer: Pentax ME Super, Canon EOS5
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
emotive posted:So what are still "good" film cameras "these days"? Nikon FM/FM2, Nikkormats, Pentax ME/Super, Pentax MX are pretty much the top tier in my opinion. OM-4(Ti) is supposed to be pretty nice. Nikon F/F2 are pretty classy. The Pentax LX is nice, just way too expensive for what it is. Apart from the ME, which is dirt cheap, there's really not a whole lot of difference in cost between those models. You're going to pay around $75 for most of that tier of cameras. I don't know if I would take that specific deal, the FM normally goes for $60 and the 135/2.8 goes for $35 to $60 depending on version (with a 6 month warranty thrown in) so it's a middling to bad deal even if you wanted that particular lens. I'd get a 50mm and a wide first myself, or the 105/2.5 if you really want something long-ish.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Nikon FM/FM2, Nikkormats, Pentax ME/Super, Pentax MX are pretty much the top tier in my opinion. OM-4(Ti) is supposed to be pretty nice. Nikon F/F2 are pretty classy. The Pentax LX is nice, just way too expensive for what it is. Good info, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
So I'm looking at a cheap pair of Omega D2 enlargers tomorrow. Of course, if I have enlargers, I'll need somewhere to print... so now the question. I've got a spare bedroom that's being used for storage. It has two windows and two doors which tend to leak light top, bottom, and sides. With a little work I could probably black out the windows, and if I turn off every other light in the house (I live alone) I don't see any light coming around the door (at night). It also has one of those light switches that's lit when you turn off the lights, but since the light is faint and orange it would only be a problem for undeveloped film, not for paper. The other option is the basement. It's quite small and I don't really use it for anything:   ^ There's another window like that immediately to the right of where I was standing And there's some really outstanding wiring down there:  There's also a full-sized window at the top of the stairs. Unfortunately I don't have windowless rooms in my house. There are two walk-in closets in the master bedroom, and one is big enough (and empty enough) that I could probably fit a small desk in there. With the bedroom door closed, lights off, and the closet door closed, I can't see any light leaking around the door. Would I be poisoning myself with fumes if I work in such a small place, though?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:Unfortunately I don't have windowless rooms in my house. There are two walk-in closets in the master bedroom, and one is big enough (and empty enough) that I could probably fit a small desk in there. With the bedroom door closed, lights off, and the closet door closed, I can't see any light leaking around the door. Would I be poisoning myself with fumes if I work in such a small place, though? If you're worried, get a rotary development system. It works like film, you expose it in a darkroom, put it in light-tight tubes and develop in the light. e: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/unicolor/ Even if you can't see any light there may be a bit. It takes a bit for your eyes to adjust enough to notice. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 04:54 on Mar 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:So I'm looking at a cheap pair of Omega D2 enlargers tomorrow. Of course, if I have enlargers, I'll need somewhere to print... so now the question. I'd love to see some discussion on this because I'm in a similar situation - I have a cellar with a small window that I'd ideally like to black out and convert to ventilation in one go. I could have sworn that there was a printing thread but I can't find it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 22:42 |
|
|
emotive posted:So what are still "good" film cameras "these days"? Shameless plug: I am selling a good Nikon film camera and prime lens in the classified thread http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3125105&userid=83493&perpage=40&pagenumber=2#post427062649 Errr, it's not cheaper than an FM but it's better (F3 supremacy).
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 07:10
|
|