|
Sludge Tank posted:
Uh, maybe the Impossible Project films can work, but not sure. It will probably be expensive to shoot.
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 16:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 09:22 |
|
|
Sludge Tank posted:
No, that takes type 80 film. Apparently you can convert them to use type 100 pack film http://www.instructables.com/id/Packtasticor-How-to-use-100-Series-Film-in-an-/
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
I shot my first roll of Portra 400 last week. Took some live band shots and ended up worrying that I wasted such a pricey (for me) film on flash shots.  I'm very surprised and happy with how my shots came out in the end, even if I went without flash in a dark as hell stage. Now if I can only remember my flickr password 
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 07:39
|
|
|
Snagged a full box of slightly expired Velvia 4x5 this morning for $20, a hard plastic 5x120 holder for $15, and a $10 instant pack film pinhole for $10 at a swap meet this morning.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 08:30
|
|
|
Spedman posted:Snagged a full box of slightly expired Velvia 4x5 this morning for $20, a hard plastic 5x120 holder for $15, and a $10 instant pack film pinhole for $10 at a swap meet this morning. You loving stole that Velvia bro, nice find.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 08:54
|
|
|
They had a water damaged box, an opened box and a nice clean box for sale, got me the nice clean one, pays to get there early.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 09:36
|
|
|
Spedman posted:They had a water damaged box, an opened box and a nice clean box for sale, got me the nice clean one, pays to get there early. Never buy opened boxes of 4x5 from strangers: 
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 10:08
|
|
|
found this along with a 40 years old bottle of ilford fixer in the attic Is there something missing on the reel ? I don't see how I could wind film correctly on this. Still unsure about developing on my own though. We've got a lab here that processes b&w overnight for 8€ and scans for an extra 5 but I'm still curious about trying this, especially with old stuff i already own.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
What sort of binders do people use for their sleeved negs? I have a hard plastic one that's annoying to open and I feel like there's probably another option.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
unpacked robinhood posted:found this along with a 40 years old bottle of ilford fixer in the attic Since Paterson tanks are so cheap, there's basically no reason to try and figure out how to use some old crusty one you found in the attic. Developing at home is also incredibly easy and not at all time consuming. I hate having to drop off my film at a lab, and then schedule a time to pick it up later. Part of the reason I'll soon be doing my own C-41 at home in addition to BW.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:Developing at home is also incredibly easy and not at all time consuming. I hate having to drop off my film at a lab, and then schedule a time to pick it up later. Part of the reason I'll soon be doing my own C-41 at home in addition to BW.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
unpacked robinhood posted:found this along with a 40 years old bottle of ilford fixer in the attic 2. Use that crusty old attic find! Get yourself a dark bag (or stuff towels & whatnot under the bottom of the bathroom door and make it perfectly dark) and figure out how to wind film onto that reel. Trial & Error! It will be fun. 3. Save yourself some aggravation and get a new kit (or do what I did, and find somebody selling a lightly-used kit locally for much less), learn the basics of film developing with that, then tackle that crusty old attic find. 4. Safely dispose of that old fixer. It's done.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:Cool thing is C-41 is actually even easier than B&W because the process for a given temperature is completely standard. My main worry was that I'd struggle to maintain temperature accurately enough without a fancy water bath, but if you fill your sink with water a few degrees above the desired temperature and leave your bottles of chemicals in for 20 minutes while it cools down it's super simple. I also do a 30 degree dev rather than 37 because that gives you a little more leeway. Never had a problem yet. If you want to be super lazy, get the Rollei c41 kit, they've got times for doing the process at room temp, I never had problems getting decent negs with it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
ZippySLC posted:What sort of binders do people use for their sleeved negs? I have a hard plastic one that's annoying to open and I feel like there's probably another option. http://www.printfile.com/black-metal-edge-box-binder.aspx Lots and lots and lots of these
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:http://www.printfile.com/black-metal-edge-box-binder.aspx i do something like this, only i kinda make my own. i use one of these for the box and take the mechanism of a 3 ring binder and attach it inside.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
Development tanks are actually really, really cheap, so cheap that i got everything in this picture for 30 bucks: the old Paterson tanks have such charm! there was film in the bulk loader, but it was also labeled as "exposed" so i've got lots of film to gently caress around with. 2 rolls of 1991 Tri-x Pan 400 iso film, a roll of Agfachrome 200 RS pro and a roll of Kodachrome 64 that'll get to sit on a shelf and look pretty. the other three will get shot promptly. lots of reusable film canisters too, which is always a nice thing to have, and that also means i've finally got a complete bulk loading setup. what film should i get, some arista whatever?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 08:18
|
|
|
Frobbe posted:what film should i get, some arista whatever?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:I love Ilford, especially Delta 100 and HP5+ 400. Per-roll those films are too expensive for me, but I see 100-foot rolls on eBay all the time for reasonable prices. Fomapan 100 is also good, being a slow film and all. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
How do you guys store your film? Would just putting it into a Rubbermaid container and then putting it in a fridge be ok or should I also load up on dessicant?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
Containers I use for freeze storage of film are not air tight as film usually comes packaged in air tight containers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
I have a Rubbermaid in the freezer, but the rolls are all unopened in their original tubes so it doesn't matter I think.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
Is it okay to store in the fridge or should I keep it in he freezer? My fridge goes down to about 6-7c, freezer below 0c.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:Is it okay to store in the fridge or should I keep it in he freezer? My fridge goes down to about 6-7c, freezer below 0c. Chemically, theirs nothing that should really go wrong with it at lower temperatures, I just use a plain ziplock plastic bag in the freezer. Stuffing it in a bag with desiccant when thawing would be a good idea to help prevent moisture from accumulating. Only exception is Polaroid since it will burst the packet containing the developer its refrigerator only. Frobbe posted:what film should i get, some arista whatever? Id say get a few rolls of different ones and try them, so far I've tried tri-x, Illford FP4+, and Artista EDU Ultra and they all have some subtle differences to the final result. Shrieking Muppet fucked around with this message at 02:51 on Aug 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
Frobbe posted:what film should i get, some arista whatever? Order everything Macodirect will sell you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 06:54
|
|
|
more heavy attic findings what do I do with this ?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
unpacked robinhood posted:
1. Get a bulk loader 2. Load that poo poo onto many, many rolls 3. Keep 1/2 the rolls for yourself, shoot that poo poo. 4. Sell the rest of the rolls to other Dorkroom goons so we can shoot that poo poo, too. I don't know what the hell that is, but it's 35mm so I want to put it in my cameras. It says it's safe in red light, so it's probably black-and-white, and the "Dup-positiv" part of the name suggests it's intended for slide duplication. Does anyone know how to develop B&W slide film?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:I don't know what the hell that is, but it's 35mm so I want to put it in my cameras. It says it's safe in red light, so it's probably black-and-white, and the "Dup-positiv" part of the name suggests it's intended for slide duplication. It's probably intended for use with a very strong light source, so it's likely a very slow film. I'm guessing it's probably a microfiche film. I can't find this particular film stock, but Agfa currently makes a COPEX positive microfilm duplication stock that might be a good starting point. I couldn't immediately dig up an ISO number but they also make a COPEX Rapid that has an ISO of 50, so less than that. I'm guessing something in the ISO 5-10 range. ExecuDork posted:Does anyone know how to develop B&W slide film? Ilford published a procedure for reversal-processing standard B+W negative stock. http://www.ilfordphoto.com/applications/download.asp?n=1179&file=FINALPDF_Reversal_processing_Factsheet.pdf
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
if that spool is full, that's a poo poo load of film
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
tbh it's probably ruined by now, the cover poped when I removed it from a pile of junk and it took me a few seconds to realize it was actual film inside  If there's an easy way to check how hosed it is I'm interested though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:I don't know what the hell that is, but it's 35mm so I want to put it in my cameras. It says it's safe in red light, so it's probably black-and-white, and the "Dup-positiv" part of the name suggests it's intended for slide duplication. More likely it's 35mm cine film intended for making positive prints from work-negatives, especially at that length. To check how badly you got it fogged, open it again under safelight, cut some from the very end and develop the gently caress out of it, then fix, see how transparent or not it is. Then take a few windings of the film away and cut a snip from further into the roll and do the same thing, see if that's also fogged. Then compare the sprocket holes with regular 135 film to check if it's cine film or not. Developing the gently caress out of a film: Mix a small cup of 1:25 Rodinal, put film snippet into it, stir constantly for 3-4 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
I don't know the first thing about developing but I was considering buying some chemicals and poo poo to try this at least once, so it might be the nudge I needed. Hypothetically, if I was to buy the absolute minimum beginner chemicals I'd need to develop commercial B&W (I'm thinking Ilford HP5 ?), would I be able to go with nielsm's procedure, which I assume uses regular chemicals (unlike what's on the Ilford procedure Paul MaudDib posted) ? Considering I really wasn't in full light when the reel cover poped and if it's actually 5-10 iso the stuff might still be useable ? There was barely enough light to read the label. e:I'm also willing to share if the film appears usable and if there's interest. unpacked robinhood fucked around with this message at 21:05 on Aug 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
unpacked robinhood posted:Hypothetically, if I was to buy the absolute minimum beginner chemicals I'd need to develop commercial B&W (I'm thinking Ilford HP5 ?), would I be able to go with nielsm's procedure, which I assume uses regular chemicals (unlike what's on the Ilford procedure Paul MaudDib posted) ? My interpretation is that processing in normal chemicals should produce negatives, unless you're taking pictures of negatives. F.ex here's that Copex Positive film: quote:This microfilm features very high resolution for the duplication of microfilm negatives. The final result is an exact copy with a positive polarity (with negative processing). If it's really that dark it might be OK, particularly the stuff on the inner part of the reel. It looks like it's in a red plastic bag, which might help a bit. On the other hand darkrooms are really really dark, you'll see all the light leaking around door seals and stuff, so who knows. Even ISO 10 is only ~3 stops less sensitive than ISO 100.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
It's probably going to be weeks before I get all the stuff to develop at home. So I made this:  The idea is I send this to a eurodork (or wherever but it's going to take longer) who wants to shoot it and develop it, worst case scenario the film is ruined or it's 60s erotica and someone's wasted some chemicals. If the planets align some parts of it are usable and we get to try something cool. What do you think ?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
I'm down for this experiment - it will give me the kick I need to develop some of the film sitting in my freezer! I'm moving at the end of the month, so I'm down for it after September 1. I love shooting random weird old film.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
I'd suggest trying it in Rodinal 1:100 for 1h, that produces normal development on pretty much any film. You'll probably want to throw as much light at it as humanly possible - I'm betting a single-digit ISO number, and a long exposure will start hitting reciprocity failure. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 00:48 on Aug 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
I'd definitely take a roll or two of that to try out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 06:56
|
|
|
Execudork, we'll get in touch when you're done moving then. Nielsm: if it's ok with Execudork I can send you the roll he claimed today. You can contact me at email. unpacked robinhood fucked around with this message at 15:51 on Aug 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 07:58
|
|
|
unpacked robinhood posted:It's probably going to be weeks before I get all the stuff to develop at home. Actually, looking at this again, those sprocket holes are definitely cine film. Sending you a mail.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
Send that film to anybody, I make no claims upon anything at this time. How much of a problem would the different sprocket holes for cine film be for a typical 35mm still camera? Either P&S or SLR. Would something built out of brute-force designs and the simplest of mechanical engineering, such as my Pentax MX, be more able to deal with this than, say, my everything-is-automatic Olympus AF-1?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 09:22 |
|
|
I checked my Nikon F90x, FM2 and F50, they all have the same size small sprockets on the transfer spool (?) by the takeup spool. I think some late-90s cameras do detection stuff with the sprocket holes and they might get confused by smaller holes, but older cameras probably work just fine, the pitch between hole centers should be the same on 135 and cine 35mm, just the actual hole shape and length that's different. I'll probably shoot it in the FM2 just to feel safe from motorized winding loving up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 18:22
|
|