|
One stop more per decade is the Internet rule of thumb, more for faster film. I wouldn't put much more thought into it than that, since cross-processing slide film in C41 chems seems to do weird things to the overall scene contrast that will make overly careful exposure irrelevant.
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 05:26 |
|
|
Anyone try Rollei RLS developer? Curious about the most ideal developer to use with low ISO film
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
Baron Dirigible posted:I'm getting ready to start processing my own film, and I've decided to start simple with B+W stand development. Rodinal 1:100 seems the go-to solution, but just out of curiosity, why does my box of Ilford HP5+ stipulate 0+25 and 6? Is this referring to 6 minutes at 1:25 dilution? I'm assuming 1:100 would just slow down the process, and from what I've read anything from 20 minutes to an hour would yield useable results. Developer contains only organic materials and a few simple ions - nothing at all hazardous and it's quite alright to throw even concentrated developer down the drain. You can develop film with solutions based on coffee or lemon juice (there's a somewhat out-there artist who uses her own mouth as both camera and development tank, one frame at a time), it's less hazardous than what homes and businesses routinely flush down their drains. Fixer, as noted, is a different beast entirely and doesn't play nice with ecosystems or water treatment systems. Don't worry about what your Ilford box says, use the Massive Dev Chart
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:there's a somewhat out-there artist who uses her own mouth as both camera and development tank, one frame at a time I think it is important that you name this person
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
Looky what I found in the Weirdstuff Warehouse today: (It's that Polaroid video system)
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
So I developed some more film! And something broke! Did two rolls of Tri-x one was relatively new and the other was pretty old. The older one came out very faint, it was obviously as old as dirt so but is there any where to correct for the exposure or development for film getting old?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
When you're shooting, meter at a stop slower for every 10 years or so the film is out of date. On the development end, using a more concentrated developer or agitating more will increase contrast. I've got a bunch of expired Portra 400 NC from 2001 I've been shooting with pretty good reliability metering at 160.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
LargeHadron posted:I think it is important that you name this person You are correct! Ann Hamilton places a small pinhole camera in her mouth, which is not quite the same thing I mentioned, and Linday Seers actually places photographic paper in her mouth and purses her lips to form the pinhole, which is exactly what I was thinking about. And then there's this Annoyingly Trendy How-To page about it that might or might not have useful information buried under all those mouse-over popups.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Ann Hamilton places a small pinhole camera in her mouth, which is not quite the same thing I mentioned, and Linday Seers actually places photographic paper in her mouth and purses her lips to form the pinhole, which is exactly what I was thinking about. Neat, thanks!
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
Can somebody post the youtube link of the guy insulting your photography while also showing you how to color correct film scans using curves? I skimmed back a bunch of pages but I am not even sure if it was originally posted in this thread.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_qeZOWqchM
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
Thanks!
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
That should probably just go into the OP.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:That should probably just go into the OP. Good idea.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
Stupid question, how well does color film keep frozen? I stumbled across some Kodak 400 Ultra Color in the back of a freezer, so I'm a little curious before it gets developed.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
The Meat Dimension posted:Stupid question, how well does color film keep frozen? I stumbled across some Kodak 400 Ultra Color in the back of a freezer, so I'm a little curious before it gets developed. Freezing is good at preserving film. Is that Ultra Color or Portra UC?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 08:16
|
|
|
There's good advice there, but that guy sounds like he's trying too hard to pull the "loud and angry and constantly insulting you" bit. His soft voice and ums and you-knows undermine the whole thing, and I kinda wish he'd just delivered it straight. And it doesn't go into how to scan the negatives in the first place, other than to use 16-bit channels.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 09:32
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:Freezing is good at preserving film. Is that Ultra Color or Portra UC? Ultra Color, there's three of the larger boxes. 
The Meat Dimension fucked around with this message at 10:47 on May 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 09:56
|
|
|
404notfound posted:There's good advice there, but that guy sounds like he's trying too hard to pull the "loud and angry and constantly insulting you" bit. His soft voice and ums and you-knows undermine the whole thing, and I kinda wish he'd just delivered it straight. And it doesn't go into how to scan the negatives in the first place, other than to use 16-bit channels.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 10:55
|
|
|
The Meat Dimension posted:Stupid question, how well does color film keep frozen? I stumbled across some Kodak 400 Ultra Color in the back of a freezer, so I'm a little curious before it gets developed. It works great, just keep it in a baggie or inside the canister until it thaws so you don't get condensation on the film.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
404notfound posted:There's good advice there, but that guy sounds like he's trying too hard to pull the "loud and angry and constantly insulting you" bit. His soft voice and ums and you-knows undermine the whole thing, and I kinda wish he'd just delivered it straight. And it doesn't go into how to scan the negatives in the first place, other than to use 16-bit channels. That's the point - scanning as 16-bit positive is the only thing that you want to be doing when scanning. The rest is Photoshop syou fuckign noob.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
404notfound posted:There's good advice there, but that guy sounds like he's trying too hard to pull the "loud and angry and constantly insulting you" bit. His soft voice and ums and you-knows undermine the whole thing, and I kinda wish he'd just delivered it straight. And it doesn't go into how to scan the negatives in the first place, other than to use 16-bit channels. I made a meme picture but then realized that's a bad idea to post, but basically the guy's barely-audible "ranting" (yes, ok, you like Zero Punctuation or whatever) made me think of this guy: 
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:It works great, just keep it in a baggie or inside the canister until it thaws so you don't get condensation on the film. Thanks a ton. Of everything I read I only came across that point once and it seems pretty important. I could just be an incompetent googler, too.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
The Meat Dimension posted:Thanks a ton. Of everything I read I only came across that point once and it seems pretty important. Keeping film in the freezer is actually great. Once you get it down to ~50F the emulsion pretty much stops degrading, so that time basically "doesn't count" towards the expiration. Keeping it frozen is even better, but you get almost as much impact by putting it in the fridge. And it's also inside a metal box so it's less susceptible to picking up fog from background radiation. There's some specific exceptions to this. For example, you don't want to freeze Polaroid film, or even get it close, because it has little gel-packs containing the developer, and if they freeze they burst and the film is useless. You can pick up a small 2-5cu ft freestanding chest freezer for like $150-200, plus they cost like $25 a year in energy costs. The freezers are heavily insulated and since they open from the top the cold doesn't "fall out" when you open them, so they're much more efficient than a dorm fridge. It's a good investment and pretty cheap compared to letting film decay.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
It turns out that my friend has an Epson Perfection 3170 and the film holders. It can scan film, so that's a plus. It's also ancient in terms of tech. I looked into it a bit and it seems that I can actually still run it in WIn 7. Is it even worth using this ancient and likely slow as gently caress scanner, or should I start saving my $$ for a V6/700.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
dog nougat posted:It turns out that my friend has an Epson Perfection 3170 and the film holders. It can scan film, so that's a plus. It's also ancient in terms of tech. I looked into it a bit and it seems that I can actually still run it in WIn 7. Is it even worth using this ancient and likely slow as gently caress scanner, or should I start saving my $$ for a V6/700. Depends how much your friend wants for it? It's certainly good enough to upload stuff to show off on the internet.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 03:17
|
|
|
It's free, so no worries there. I was just really wondering if it was any good, I have a bunch of negs I wanna scan so the fact that it's free is cool, but I'd like it to not take forever/days to just get them all digitized. It's kinda silly I guess to throw down on a new scanner when I can get one for free, but the v6/700's do look pretty nice.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 04:54
|
|
|
I'm using an even older scanner at the moment (Epson Perfection 2450), and it's perfectly fine for posting stuff to the Web. If it's free and you don't have the means to get anything better, by all means take it.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 07:10
|
|
|
Yes. Maybe I should just save up for a drum scanner...by the time I have the funds film well be a footnote in history 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 09:03
|
|
|
If you have a decent digital cam and a macro lens, you can digitize them that way.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 09:06
|
|
|
That's a solid point. I've been thinking about an led light box to avoid the weird fluorescent banding. However a refurb v700 is only around $400. I should probably get a "modern" dslr at some point but...I'm poor...and shoot film it's a vicious cycle.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 09:24
|
|
|
dog nougat posted:That's a solid point. I've been thinking about an led light box to avoid the weird fluorescent banding. However a refurb v700 is only around $400. I should probably get a "modern" dslr at some point but...I'm poor...and shoot film it's a vicious cycle. I don't know if it applies to you, however if you only have 35mm film to scan, a brand new dedicated film scanner will cost you less and will have better output quality.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 11:26
|
|
|
dog nougat posted:It turns out that my friend has an Epson Perfection 3170 and the film holders. It can scan film, so that's a plus. It's also ancient in terms of tech. I looked into it a bit and it seems that I can actually still run it in WIn 7. Is it even worth using this ancient and likely slow as gently caress scanner, or should I start saving my $$ for a V6/700. I have that exact scanner. It's slow and clunky and clearly outclassed by anything newer, but it runs fine in Windows 7 and it gets the job done, for me. My scanning workflow includes browsing the forums in between putting film into the holder and tweaking the previews.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:It's slow and clunky and clearly outclassed by anything newer
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
maxmars posted:I don't know if it applies to you, however if you only have 35mm film to scan, a brand new dedicated film scanner will cost you less and will have better output quality. Yeah, unfortunately I have a bunch of 120 film, and just a handful of 35mm. ExecuDork posted:I have that exact scanner. It's slow and clunky and clearly outclassed by anything newer, but it runs fine in Windows 7 and it gets the job done, for me. My scanning workflow includes browsing the forums in between putting film into the holder and tweaking the previews. I'll just pretend I'm scanning in the so-called dark ages before digital cameras were any good.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
dog nougat posted:Yeah, unfortunately I have a bunch of 120 film
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:There's something wrong with you if you use "unfortunately" and "120 film" in the same sentence. Rejoice! 120 is awesome! And that scanner will get the job done on 120, too. That's why I got mine - literally plucked from a recycling bin. Valid point. I heart medium format, it's "unfortunate" that I can't get an affordable dedicated film scanner that takes 120.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
 window by PC-P, on FlickrMy first scan on the Plustek 8100. That thing is pretty nice, I think.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
Tony Two Bapes posted:My first scan on the Plustek 8100. That thing is pretty nice, I think. Hell yeah, wish my first scans were like that 
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 07:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 05:26 |
|
|
Yeah, that looks lovely. In other news I am trying rodinal semi-stand development, and I really dig it so far.  _DSC6687 by Stingray of Doom, on Flickr _DSC6686 by Stingray of Doom, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 10:06
|
|