|
deaders posted:Interesting, I guess that is part of why you have such a consistent look. Yeah I like consistency in look. But sometimes I do muck around with other films, like this one, when my friend asked how punchy colours from Velvia 50 are like...  Industrial Park by alkanphel, on Flickr
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 14:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 01:34 |
|
|
I choose lenses, films, and formats based on my interpretive goals. If color is important to a composition, then I'll use color film. If it isn't, or if the scene lends itself especially well to black-and-white, I'll use black-and-white. I apply the same thought process with square versus rectangular formats and wide versus long lenses. If I limit myself in any of those categories, I limit what I'll shoot, because it's rare that I set up a shot by considering what gear I have first. I like to ask what the scene needs and work back to the film plane from there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
Anyone knows how much Boots charges for their minilab services in London ? I'm looking for the cheapest dev+scan option I can find for a roll I don't particularly care about but I don't find prices listed anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
unpacked robinhood posted:Anyone knows how much Boots charges for their minilab services in London ? It was fairly reasonable when I lived in Scotland, why don't you just pop in or give them a call?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
unpacked robinhood posted:Anyone knows how much Boots charges for their minilab services in London ? Boots Dev+Scan in Ireland is like €8 so probably about £5
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
TheJeffers posted:I choose lenses, films, and formats based on my interpretive goals. If color is important to a composition, then I'll use color film. If it isn't, or if the scene lends itself especially well to black-and-white, I'll use black-and-white. I apply the same thought process with square versus rectangular formats and wide versus long lenses. If I limit myself in any of those categories, I limit what I'll shoot, because it's rare that I set up a shot by considering what gear I have first. I like to ask what the scene needs and work back to the film plane from there. What I am talking about is not a life-long commitment but a short term exercise to improve as a photographer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
My only suggestion is to do the one camera/one film with a camera you know you like already. I tried this with a 35mm Russian rangefinder and I just didn't follow through with it because I just didn't like shooting the format/camera, I just wanted to shoot with other cameras I liked far more.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
deaders posted:What I am talking about is not a life-long commitment but a short term exercise to improve as a photographer. I understand this. I'm questioning the value of the exercise. It sounds like you should just go take a bunch of digital shots in color and then do B&W conversions to see how each scene looks without it. As it stands, you're proposing to go through a lot of film and chemistry without solving the underlying problem, which has nothing to do with gear. If you have money to burn, though, and it tickles your fancy, go nuts 
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
Sounds like you should shoot Kodak Portra 400
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:Sounds like you should shoot Kodak Portra 400 Mods please rename thread to this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
Speaking of which does anyone still produce 100' rolls of decent quality color film or am I regulated to whatever Pro Photo has left in stock?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
Kodak still produces Vision film (the only reason Portra is alive) but I doubt you'll find a local vendor for it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
TheJeffers posted:I understand this. I'm questioning the value of the exercise. It sounds like you should just go take a bunch of digital shots in color and then do B&W conversions to see how each scene looks without it. As it stands, you're proposing to go through a lot of film and chemistry without solving the underlying problem, which has nothing to do with gear. Wtf are you even talking about. Thanks for contributing I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
deaders posted:Wtf are you even talking about. Thanks for contributing I guess. quote:Lately I have noticed that so many of my black and white shots don't quite convey what I was seeing because the detail or scene was too dependent on colour rather than just the light and composition.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
If he just continues to shoot color and doesn't spend any time taking composition and exposure for b&w into consideration it's not going to result any differently when he converts to b&w in post. The idea is shooting with forced limitations will help adjust your technique because you don't have the option of saying "welp that looks bad in color, better undo." Shooting digi color gives no actual hurdle or punishment for lousy technique.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 04:58
|
|
|
Wow, lots of negative (pun not intended) vibes here today. deaders that sounds like a good little project. I've never done anything like that but I can see the appeal. Now is a really bad time for me to do anything that isn't directly related to finishing my drat thesis (notice I'm procrastinating right now! by posting on a comedy website), or I'd be happy to play along. It sounds like a much more sophisticated form of the "shoot with only one lens for a day" idea. Other pointless ("You'll never improve as a photographer unless you do exactly what I did!") goon projects from the Dorkroom over the last few years include Yond Cassius's Astia-fest (send out lots of rolls, get back a few frames from each), my Camera-around-the-world project (currently stuck in Japan, having previously been stuck in New York and stuck in Norway), GWBBQ's Tech Pan 25 send-out, and the approximately-annual Print Exchanges. deaders posted:Has anyone ever done the experiment of limiting themselves to one type of film and one all-manual camera/lens combo for a few months? I'd like to give it a go when my bulk order of Tri-X arrives, anyone else interested in making it a challenge? While it could get boring being limited to black and white it would be good practice. Lately I have noticed that so many of my black and white shots don't quite convey what I was seeing because the detail or scene was too dependent on colour rather than just the light and composition. loving go for it, man. I'm very curious about the results and I'd love to see your work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
Yeah exactly, I think I will do it for a month then see how it goes from there. Set a goal to shoot X rolls per week (probably no more than 5, I do have a full-time job) of Tri-X on the OM1 with 50mm lens. With the caveat that if I see something amazing that has to be done in colour then I can use my MF camera with Portra. Which is limiting in itself because it's too bulky to be carried around all the time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
deaders posted:Yeah exactly, I think I will do it for a month then see how it goes from there. Set a goal to shoot X rolls per week (probably no more than 5, I do have a full-time job) of Tri-X on the OM1 with 50mm lens. With the caveat that if I see something amazing that has to be done in colour then I can use my MF camera with Portra. Which is limiting in itself because it's too bulky to be carried around all the time. Actually I came to post these here (cross posted from photo a day) because I have been using black and white just lately in an effort improve my shooting discipline.  FlowerPods by noonebutme2010, on Flickr FlatTop by noonebutme2010, on Flickr Rat Race by noonebutme2010, on FlickrI've got eight rolls of Tri X and BW400CN left, which with my work schedule will probably take a month to shoot. I'll be glad to play along on a 50mm challenge for a while. I could certainly stand to improve.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
This isn't exactly the right thread, but since we don't have a print thread anymore I figure this is the place: I recently bought a no name black and white enlarger for fairly cheap. It's quite ok built actually and came with a decent rodenstock lens, but it lacks a lamp. I live in Brazil so finding anything technical is hard and expensive. What kind of common bulbs can I use on a enlarger to print on multigrade paper?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
If you do have the lamp house and condenser or diffuser assembly, then I suppose a regular 100 W incandescent bulb would do. An LED bulb (proper phosphor-based white LEDs) or halogen might work too. Just don't try to use fluorescent (CFL) bulbs as they tend to ramp up on intensity over time, meaning your exposure timing will be inconsistent.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
It can be quite difficult to figure out which lamp you're meant to use, but it's probably worth figuring out which lamp it uses and buying a new one. It's my understanding that colour temperature and whatnot are fairly important when doing enlargements. A regular incandescent probably won't fit, and if the light is yellow, like most incandescents would be, your contrast on B+W will be off, and you might have to deal with weird colour casts if you're printing colour. Even no-name enlargers are usually descended from some sort of major brand that they have parts in common with. Could you maybe post a photo of the enlarger? Have a look at the plate where it tells you about the voltage and whatnot as well, the output voltage in particular. I think that's how I figured out which bulb went in my LPL, maybe other brands have that information there as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
Gargonovitch posted:It can be quite difficult to figure out which lamp you're meant to use, but it's probably worth figuring out which lamp it uses and buying a new one. It's my understanding that colour temperature and whatnot are fairly important when doing enlargements. It doesn't have any info written on it. The bulb socket is a standard socket. The "brand" is ampligraf, and I believe it was built in the 70s or 80s when almost nothing could be imported here, so it might be a knock-off of a better established product, but it would hard to tell. It's a very simple design reminiscent of the old fuji white-heads. The thing is that, even if I could figure out what kind of bulb it ideally takes, I couldn't find one around considering our market for film stuff, so I'm looking for a all-around, on-the-cheap solution until I have money for a decent enlarger...
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
Primo Itch posted:This isn't exactly the right thread, but since we don't have a print thread anymore I figure this is the place: Sounds like you need a totally standard Edison-base enlarger bulb, the frosted kind with the printing on the side. One problem with using household bulbs is that they are often printed on top, which creates a faint but noticeable spot on your prints. Similarly, a clear bulb will often leave a slight after-image of the filament. Other than that, any reasonably frosted bulb should work, though you may not get really predictable contrast results. You can always use a little solvent or fine sandpaper to remove the printing. Alternately, are you on 110V or 220V? I understand Brazil has both systems. I have a B&H order coming up, and if you are on 110V, I can send you, say, two or three bulbs for an equal number of 8x10 (or bigger, if you feel generous) prints? It doesn't make a lot of sense to ship less, and you may as well have a spare or two.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 04:27
|
|
|
I got a new roll of Ektar 100 back shot on one of my AE-1s, started scanning, and was this close (----) to selling all of my film equipment after a ton of user error that resulted in blown-out, out of focus photos that I was really excited about seeing. Don't ask how I managed to gently caress up the focus between these two shots because I have zero clue. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
For what it's worth, the first shot is the better one anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 13:10
|
|
|
So got my first roll of portra back and it is like the most beautiful poo poo ever. 0380944-R1-059-28.jpg by kgao1989, on Flickr 0380944-R1-029-13.jpg by kgao1989, on Flickr 0380944-R1-017-7.jpg by kgao1989, on FlickrHowever, I can't help but feel like the high res scans I got back are less sharp than the low res ones. The scanner they used was a Fuji glacier sp 2000 if anyone is familiar with that model. I got both the high res and low res scans on the same CD. low res  0380944-R1-027-12.jpg by kgao1989, on Flickrhi res  0380944-R2-027-12.jpg by kgao1989, on FlickrPay attention to the grass detail, viewing both at full screen. It seems like the lower res scan has much more detail and overall looks less blurry. I wonder if they scanned it twice and botched the scan focus on the high res one? lollybo fucked around with this message at 06:24 on Jul 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
I also got my first roll of Portra back and I have a dumb question. Some of the photos look like the grain is much more pronounced than other's. It's not a big deal, and grain was part of the reason I shot it on film, but it just seemed odd. I did some of the shots with a speedlight at -3 and some without, and some with the 50 and some with the 85, but otherwise everything was in the same spot with the same lighting. Could any of that impact the amount of grain in a final image, or is it just my imagination playing tricks on me? Also, we had a bit of a melt and didn't get to go out to the location I had spotted, so we had to do it in the back yard. But still came out with great color and such.  Two 1 by mattphilpott, on Flickr  O by mattphilpott, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
Huxley posted:
That's so cute 
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
Huxley posted:I also got my first roll of Portra back and I have a dumb question. Some of the photos look like the grain is much more pronounced than other's. It's not a big deal, and grain was part of the reason I shot it on film, but it just seemed odd. I did some of the shots with a speedlight at -3 and some without, and some with the 50 and some with the 85, but otherwise everything was in the same spot with the same lighting. Could any of that impact the amount of grain in a final image, or is it just my imagination playing tricks on me? The ones with more grain were probably underexposed compared to the ones with less, and the brightness of the scans were corrected so they otherwise look the same.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
lollybo posted:However, I can't help but feel like the high res scans I got back are less sharp than the low res ones. The scanner they used was a Fuji glacier sp 2000 if anyone is familiar with that model. I got both the high res and low res scans on the same CD. The lores one looks a little oversharpened to me though, dunno if that's from the lab or flickr.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
Some more darkroom-ish stuff: I've bought some direct positive paper for use in the LF camera I got recently, but it seems to be rather high contrast, at least when used to capture natural light scenes. I'm assuming it's fixed contrast paper, since multigrade wouldn't make sense for something sold as usable for direct exposure in camera. Does anyone have an idea for developing the paper for lower contrast? Should I try experimenting with higher or lower dilution developer? (Currently using Bromophen at 1+1.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
If you want to tame contrast a highly diluted developer is the reasonable way to go, but pre-flashing the paper would probably give you the best result.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
I shot a roll of cheapo film to make sure my new camera was in good shape, time to jump down the film rabbit-hole I guess. Is the V500/550 the entry level scanner of choice at the moment? I might invest in a MF camera at some point depending on how I get on so the flexibility to use it for more that 35mm film would be good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 14:03
|
|
|
Fedora Brandisher posted:Is the V500/550 the entry level scanner of choice at the moment? I might invest in a MF camera at some point depending on how I get on so the flexibility to use it for more that 35mm film would be good. Yes. It far exceeded my expectations for MF.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
Call me a creep, but I found a roll of exposed film sitting in a crusty old SLR at a thrift store today. Decided to take it and get it developed for kicks. Turns out only 2 or 3 shots were exposed on the entire roll, and they were very faded. Had to do some heavy processing on the scan to get anything out of it. Looks like it was taken some time in the late 80s or early 90s but honestly it's anyone's guess  
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:Call me a creep, but I found a roll of exposed film sitting in a crusty old SLR at a thrift store today. Decided to take it and get it developed for kicks. I do this anytime I come across a shot roll in a camera while thrifting. With $2.50 develop only fees and a scanner I figure it's no worse than occasionally slipping a dollar in a scratch-off vending machine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
In sad news the OM1n is going back to KEH because the meter doesn't work and it has light leaks... now I have to wait for the replacement. On the other hand, 50 rolls of Tri-X arrived safe and sound and I am loving this film so far. Instead of doing some kind of formal challenge the plan is just to use it as my go-to film for the next 5-6 months on either the Ricoh or (replacement) Olympus with a 50mm lens. A bit of colour here and there won't hurt though... Some Tri-x:      
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 15:36
|
|
|
So I FINALLY got some colour filters to use with my aerochrome IR film. I heard using a green filter will turn vegetation pink, can anyone confirm or deny?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
Yond Cassius posted:Sounds like you need a totally standard Edison-base enlarger bulb, the frosted kind with the printing on the side. One problem with using household bulbs is that they are often printed on top, which creates a faint but noticeable spot on your prints. Similarly, a clear bulb will often leave a slight after-image of the filament. Other than that, any reasonably frosted bulb should work, though you may not get really predictable contrast results. You can always use a little solvent or fine sandpaper to remove the printing. Hey, thanks man, but I actually found some bulbs hidden in a camera store that used to deal with darkroom things back-in-the-day, so I won't be needing it. Thanks for offer anyways
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 01:34 |
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:So I FINALLY got some colour filters to use with my aerochrome IR film. I think you want an orange or red filter to get the magenta vegetation, I haven't seen too many people use a green filter with the Aerochrome. Edit: And to get the real magenta colour, you'll need to do proper e6 processing, Xprocessing will give you red vegetation. If you're sending it out for processing make sure they know it's IR film, as a lot of the processors have IR sources in them for alignment/frame detection stuff that can usually be turned off. Spedman fucked around with this message at 00:10 on Jul 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 23:45
|
|