|
Casu Marzu posted:
Post the other one too!
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 01:58 |
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Cut your budget to $15 for the camera, spend the rest on film. I'm pretty happy with the zoom on my Rollei, but I only paid 2 bucks for it.  img011.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr  img009.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr  img005.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr img016.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr img029.jpg by MrDespair, on FlickrIt is gigantic, but it's f/3.6 on the wide end and has a snapshot (locks focus at hyperfocal) and timelapse (because why not???) mode.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Post the other one too! 
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 06:20
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
Been a while since I posted here, catching up. Good stuff from Spedman, Mr. Despair, Ansel Autisms! I really put the Minox and Rollei to good use during the last trip, they're a great combo to bring around when you don't want to / can't bring a whole bag. I shot this with a stack of pizza boxes in one hand and the Minox in the other:  Gallipoli by maxmars70, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 09:28
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:I want to get a $50-or-less p&s. What are some recommended models? I tried the ones in the OP but I guess lots of other people had the same idea because they're looking pretty pricey these days. The old Nikon L35AF is still my favorite cheap pick. AF, lens, size, handling are all good, no wacky batteries, you can trick the flash into popping up for fill. Filter threads and the AE eye is near the lens, great for B&W. It's got no controls on it, save a slider to force overexposure for backlit situations, and they made a ton of them so the price has stayed low.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 11:58
|
|
|
This thread has inspired me to want to go out and get a little film camera for myself. I've only ever done digital, aside from general camera use growing up before digital. Nothing in any serious sense though, no film developing or anything. And people have always told me it's too expensive, but I think this is the right combination of what I want to explore. Something I can carry around with me to be a little more serious than my phone but not have my whole DSLR. Tomorrow I'm going to head out to the thrift shops and see what I can find. I've read this thread now so I have a pretty good idea of what I'd want. And I guess I'll need some film too. Some portra 400 would be good? I'm not used to not being able to change ISO (but usually shoot with it low if I can), and I'm thinking maybe 400 will be a good balance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 06:22
|
|
|
DaJe posted:[..] And I guess I'll need some film too. Some portra 400 would be good? I'm not used to not being able to change ISO (but usually shoot with it low if I can), and I'm thinking maybe 400 will be a good balance. Well Portra is pretty forgiving, you can use it as a 200, 400 or 800 ISO film all in the same roll. Not exactly a D810 but still.. Looking forward to your pics!
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 09:57
|
|
|
maxmars posted:Well Portra is pretty forgiving, you can use it as a 200, 400 or 800 ISO film all in the same roll. Not exactly a D810 but still.. Looking forward to your pics! Think some 160 might be good then? I guess i just always go for the lowest grain, but I'm also used to digital grain (plus I shoot a lot outside). How dark of a situation can you really go with something like 160?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 11:02
|
|
|
I'd got with the 400, there's really not any discernible grain when you shoot at 400. Plus it means if you want to shoot darker situations, you have that option. I think I only ever shot Portra 160 once. If I'm using a slower film, I'll usually shoot Ektar 100 or some slide film.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 11:12
|
|
|
DaJe posted:Think some 160 might be good then? I guess i just always go for the lowest grain, but I'm also used to digital grain (plus I shoot a lot outside). How dark of a situation can you really go with something like 160? Portra 400 and Portra 160 are very similar with regards to grain, in my experience. Here's a couple of pics, one is 160 and the other is 400. https://www.flickr.com/photos/jtakeuchi/10054059646/sizes/l https://www.flickr.com/photos/maxmarsiglietti/14835774311/sizes/l You can also shoot Portra 400 at 200 and get a tad finer grain. As for how dark of a situation you can go, it certainly depends on the lens. A nice lens like that of the Rollei 35 (especially Sonnar) or Minox can be used at 2.8 without problems. Assuming you don't want to shoot below 1/30th, it's eight stops from sunny 16, which means you can shoot from dawn to dusk.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 14:21
|
|
|
The problem with 160 is that most point-and-shoots don't recognize it and default to whatever the base ISO is (usually 100 but it could be even lower on some). 400 speed would be perfect for a P&S, imo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 14:56
|
|
|
Do you guys buy your film from B&H or locally? A single roll of portra 160 costs $13.50 here in Canada and ektar 100 costs $11/roll 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
For new film, The Film Photography Project. For expired and/or other-market/other-brand, eBay stores like Film Festival For I-found-this-in-the-back-room, random eBay auctions. Edit: I'm in Canada, too. Shipping from the US is often way more expensive than it should be because so many Yanquis don't know about Postal Agreements between our two countries. And others just don't want to send across a border. Also, Freestyle isn't too bad if you buy enough to spread out the shipping flat rates, likewise Maco Direct, especially for things like developing chemicals (Freestyle, and many eBay sellers, won't ship liquids internationally, but Maco knows what's what and is happy to do it). Again, shipping falls into categories by weight so once you pass some threshold (e.g. bottles of chems) you can pile on lots of relatively light-weight film without increasing the shipping cost. ExecuDork fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Aug 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
Whoa, yeah. The Film Photography Project has way better shipping rates than anywhere else I've seen. What are import fees like when you order from them?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
I don't like their site, I couldn't find my previous orders but I found the email confirmation they sent the last time I bought something from them. I also can't figure out their forums, I tried to post a reply to a thread once and it just utterly failed. But whatever. Back in April I bought some film, cost was $71.96 and shipping was $15.15 (10 rolls of 35mm plus a pack of Impossible Project instant for my GF's 600). Customs didn't do anything to it at the border, so import fees were zero. My experience with buying stuff in general from the USA is that most stuff sails through customs unmolested, but more valuable items, like my K-5 I bought last year from KEH (for about $500) get hit with whatever the standard tariff is (something like 8% I think) and once, about 10 years ago, a bunch of books I bought from a game company were opened and investigated, and I was charged about $15 for the privilege of Canada Customs "Protecting Your Safety and Freedom" (i.e., they cut the box open, pushed everything around, and left a note to that effect before clumsily taping it all back together. Jerks) on top of the tariff. That was right around the time of the lawsuit in Vancouver from that LGBT bookstore and that children's book about having two moms, so I was pretty surprised that CC was snooping on books. It's a gamble; sometimes they hit you with a charge, sometimes they don't. As a general rule, Canada Customs is pretty useless in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
Good to know, thanks. Also, when you guys talk about shooting film at other ISOs than the factory rating, do you process it yourself and do push/pull processing, or do you have local labs that do it? Or do you just get it processed normally and fix the exposure after scanning?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
Don't think of it in terms of ISO. Portra and other modern print films handle over/underexposure fairly well so your exposure doesn't need to be spot on for every shot. There's zero need to compensate in development or "shooting at other ISOs".
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:Good to know, thanks. As AA said you shouldn't worry about it, because C-41 is a process that always takes the same time (with exceptions, but let's just say right now they are not of interest to you) so it's not dependent on the roll ISO. When you talk about push / pull you're thinking b/w.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
It is actually possible to push/pull C-41 by modifying the dev time but finding a lab that's willing to do it for you isn't easy. There's also not much benefit beyond what you get just over/underexposing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
maxmars posted:Portra 400 and Portra 160 are very similar with regards to grain, in my experience. Here's a couple of pics, one is 160 and the other is 400. You're right on the grain, there's not really much difference, and 400 doesn't look bad at all. I just need to get myself a little more familiar with how to shoot film and what I can actually do with it. And I guess 400 also makes sense if I'm really looking to have something be more of point and shoot. I think I'm starting to get it though, can't wait to actually play around a bit and learn. I'm also still trying to get myself a little more familiar with things such shooting at a lower than rated ISO, or over or under exposing to get better detail or shadows or whatever I've seen people mention. Some of this is all new concepts to me. DaJe fucked around with this message at 23:59 on Aug 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
DaJe posted:You're right on the grain, there's not really much difference, and 400 doesn't look bad at all. I just need to get myself a little more familiar with how to shoot film and what I can actually do with it. And I guess 400 also makes sense if I'm really looking to have something be more of point and shoot. I think I'm starting to get it though, can't wait to actually play around a bit and learn. A good starting point could be using Portra 400, as it normally does not need over exposing. You will have a certain amount of badly exposed shots, but that's true also with digital, only here you don't get to delete them so the mistakes are more evident. Don't overlook them, rather try to understand what went wrong and you will improve your photography, whereas with digital you tend to rely more on delete and shoot again. Try shooting non-shiny stuff (plastic, metal.. You get the idea), because "shiny stuff" is best done on digital or slide film. People, trees, natural fabric, organic stuff, they all look better on film in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 09:03
|
|
|
I got some good results with portra, felt a bit silly using an old p&s around pro photographers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 08:14
|
|
|
holy poo poo the Olympus mju -II has spot focusing? i really should've read the manual before firing tons of rolls through it at a festival and hoping for the best
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 12:33
|
|
|
Understanding posted:I got some good results with portra, felt a bit silly using an old p&s around pro photographers. It's the pictures that matter, not the camera.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
True, I've seen some of the pictures on a few blogs, they all seem to be missing something. I still have to scan my second roll I took at the show. Changing rolls while getting thrashed around at the front was an interesting experience.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 12:04
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:Summer's coming up, Spring is almost here. Dust off your point and shoots in preparation! These are awesome and I would rather see this in all those nyc indie photo magazines than whatever is currently in there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
notlodar posted:These are awesome and I would rather see this in all those nyc indie photo magazines than whatever is currently in there. No offense to dorkasaurus (they are awesome) but what the hell indie photo magazines are you reading that don't look like this?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
notlodar posted:What is it like living in the 80s? This is the same content, except done by a good dorkroom poster.(they are good, keep it up)
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
quote:
Get it? The posts from the past are the reply.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
notlodar posted:What is it like living in the 80s? some of those are from Morocco so yeah that whole country looks like the 80s lol, i'd rather see them there too, *believe me*
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 03:19
|
|
|
Question for all y'all with flatbed scanners, how do you decide what to scan? I just got like 8 rolls developed and just the thought of scanning those 5 at a time is making my head hurt. Do you guys scan everything or guess at what's good and scan those? Or does everybody have a lighttable set up at home?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
5 at a time? My scanner does two strips of six 35mm negs at a time, not too bad. Just filter out the ones you don't want when previewing the scan.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
I got a Pakon F135 a little while ago and it has made scanning 35mm so much better than a flatbed. Uncut rolls of 36 scan in ~5min with ICE. It has color profiles for a lot of film so it get really great colors out of stuff like Gold and Superia. The scanner is also built like a tank--I think it cost something like 12 grand in 2004. You can get them for ~200-250 online since a lot of CVSes and other places are liquidating their film dev/scanning stuff. Check out the Facebook group if you want samples of what it can do. https://www.facebook.com/groups/PakonF135/
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
deaders posted:5 at a time? My scanner does two strips of six 35mm negs at a time, not too bad. Just filter out the ones you don't want when previewing the scan. Ooops, so does mine. But I'm still lazy so my point still stands, dammit  Here's a shot that I liked from the first roll in any case, it's the first roll I put through the XA2 I just got and I always forget to set the focus doohickey after closing the hood so this is slightly OOF I think:  cleave by Geektox, on FlickrChill Callahan posted:I got a Pakon F135 a little while ago and it has made scanning 35mm so much better than a flatbed. Uncut rolls of 36 scan in ~5min with ICE. It has color profiles for a lot of film so it get really great colors out of stuff like Gold and Superia. The scanner is also built like a tank--I think it cost something like 12 grand in 2004. You can get them for ~200-250 online since a lot of CVSes and other places are liquidating their film dev/scanning stuff. I might think about it, do you just look on eBay? I live in Vancouver and I dunno if we'll have any locally. Geektox fucked around with this message at 06:05 on Aug 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 06:00
|
|
|
I think a couple people here bought them from this site: http://www.aaaimaging.com/kodak-pakon-f135-film-scanner.html I really gotta get one myself (add it to the ever growing list of photography poo poo I *must* own), but luckily I have access to somebody who has one already 
BANME.sh fucked around with this message at 06:12 on Aug 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 06:06
|
|
|
That's the one that'll only run on XP, isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 10:51
|
|
|
 Wedding DJ by Isaac Sachs, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
 scan049.jpg by Geektox, on Flickr scan052.jpg by Geektox, on Flickr scan051.jpg by Geektox, on FlickrWhat is that red streak on this one? Development error or something with the camera?  scan054.jpg by Geektox, on FlickrSeems there's a red something in the sky of this one as well. Geektox fucked around with this message at 18:09 on Aug 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 01:58 |
|
|
Doesn't look like anything that happened to me while processing rolls.. If I had to take a guess, I'd say something happened to the film while it was in the camera. Flare?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 17:04
|
|