|
ExecuDork posted:Send that film to anybody, I make no claims upon anything at this time. Not a problem.
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 15:52 |
|
|
Frobbe posted:Development tanks are actually really, really cheap, so cheap that i got everything in this picture for 30 bucks: If you don't intend to make prints with an enlarger, you should PM me about that timer and easel. I got a Pentax K50 a month back, now I need to rig up the DSLR "scanner" thing. Prints are super cool but difficult to share via email or Facebook. Edit: crap, now I don't remember where that DSLR negative-shooting rig was in the last 350-odd pages. Anybody? Pham Nuwen fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Aug 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:Edit: crap, now I don't remember where that DSLR negative-shooting rig was in the last 350-odd pages. Anybody? It's easy enough to fashion something usable with stuff you can find around your home. I did it with some picture frames, a cardboard box, an iPad (for the backlight), and a tripod. It's only good for B&W; don't try to scan color film that way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
LargeHadron posted:It's easy enough to fashion something usable with stuff you can find around your home. I did it with some picture frames, a cardboard box, an iPad (for the backlight), and a tripod. It's only good for B&W; don't try to scan color film that way. I actually have a lightbox, so maybe I can get away with some sort of cardboard holder for the negative (wedged into the negative-holding strip at the bottom of the lightbox) and a cheap tripod for the DSLR. I think there's a little too much curve in the negatives to really get them held in flat using just the lightbox.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:I actually have a lightbox, so maybe I can get away with some sort of cardboard holder for the negative (wedged into the negative-holding strip at the bottom of the lightbox) and a cheap tripod for the DSLR. I think there's a little too much curve in the negatives to really get them held in flat using just the lightbox. I had used picture frames to keep it flat. Does that not work in your case?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
Here's what I rigged up to dslr scan my photos not shown: the desk lamp i set up after would recommend shooting tethered, and using more lighting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:Here's what I rigged up to dslr scan my photos I, too, enjoy making photographic apparatus out of random crap I have lying around. Whenever I get a hankering to sell stuff on eBay I cut up a box to make myself a softbox for object photography and then light it with clamp lamps or Tensor lamps. For "DSLR scanning" specifically you might want to look into a slide duplicator rig, they were used to "scan" slides onto other slides in exactly the same fashion. Nowadays no one copies slides so they can often be had for a song.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
 untitled by PC-P, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
I just shot a contrasty sunset scene using Astia since that's what was in the camera, is it gonna turn out ok?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 06:36
|
|
|
Genderfluid posted:I just shot a contrasty sunset scene using Astia since that's what was in the camera, is it gonna turn out ok? It's ruined, sell the rest of your Astia to Mr Blandaverage. He knows how to use it responsibly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 06:51
|
|
|
Sometimes I loving hate Ilford's bottles: If you're gonna make the safety feature pressing while turning, at least make the bottle robust enough to handle pressing down on it without crumpling like a little bitch.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 13:51
|
|
|
Anyone ever heard of a film called Ortho? My landlord was digging around the basement of my house that I am about to move in to and found 3 bulk rollers loaded one with Plus-X, one with Tri-X, and one with one named Ortho. I wanna play around with these and see if it is possible for me to even get usable shots out of it but I have never heard of Ortho before and have no idea what iso to even attempt to use it at. I think it's an iso 25 film. The rollers are dusty as hell so they have been sitting in that basement for who knows how long.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
Ortho is a general term/shorthand for Orthochromatic, i.e. film sensitive to blue and green but not red. I suppose there was a period where orthochromatic film was more common or cheaper than panchromatic (full spectrum-sensitive b/w film) so that could be a thing. Ortho film is usually duplication film (that Agfa film found by unpacked robinhood above is also an ortho film) useful for darkroom work, e.g. making slides from negatives. It also tends to be very high resolution so it's useful as a document film (photographic copying). The downside is that you usually need a special developer if you want regular contrast from it, normal developers tend to produce a high-contrast image from ortho films. But who knows what brand that ortho film is, processing will be a mystery. The big advantage of ortho films is that you can develop it by inspection under red safelight. Enjoy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
It's probably very similar to the old style emulsions Adox still makes, so to get an idea on how to shoot/dev go check out their Ortho 25 film. I've had good results processing with Rodinal: Smokies by mr_student, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
Cocks, tried doing the DSLR scan thing with just a negative holder and my kit lens, but the lens is unable to focus while close enough to the negative to get a good-sized shot. Guess you really do need a macro lens... this is probably something I could have figured out without trying it but whatever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
Just get cheapo extension rings.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 06:03
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Just get cheapo extension rings. This. Ten bucks. You won't need auto anything anyways...
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
Spedman posted:Sometimes I loving hate Ilford's bottles: I'm mentally picturing the Hulk cramped in a darkroom trying to develop film.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
Primo Itch posted:This. Ten bucks. You won't need auto anything anyways... It will work, but the results won't be as good as your depth of field will be razor thin, and your negatives will have to be absolutely flat and parallel to the film plane. Also extension rings will make any lens imperfections more visible, so when I have tried this method all my corners were a blur, with only the center being sharp. Having a crop body will help with this as you won't need as much magnification.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
Genderfluid posted:I just shot a contrasty sunset scene using Astia since that's what was in the camera, is it gonna turn out ok? Depending on your metering, you'll probably lose some of the highlights or shadows. Dynamic range isn't Astia's strongest suit. I've usually found that it fails relatively gracefully (for a slide film), though, so it might surprise you. Putrid Grin posted:It will work, but the results won't be as good as your depth of field will be razor thin, and your negatives will have to be absolutely flat and parallel to the film plane. Also extension rings will make any lens imperfections more visible, so when I have tried this method all my corners were a blur, with only the center being sharp. Having a crop body will help with this as you won't need as much magnification. I've found that reverse-mount rings are an acceptable mid-range solution there. The depth of field is still very small, but you get more benefit out of stopping down. The tradeoff (there's always a tradeoff) is that you lose pretty much all focusing ability. You focus by moving the camera back and forth, and the focus ring makes only very fine adjustments. That can be a dealbreaker for a lot of things, but for indoor experiments and DSLR scanning, you should be fine. Cassius Belli fucked around with this message at 22:50 on Aug 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
 1 minute 30 seconds is clearly not enough development time to ensure even agitation. Tray development sucks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
 clasp by PC-P, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
Spedman posted:Sometimes I loving hate Ilford's bottles: I had this happen, too, ages ago. I really need to clean the old Blix and whatnot out of the brown narrow-mouth Nalgenes I have in the lab and just transfer all my chems into those. Stupid 32-ounce Yanquis, though, that's *this much* less than 1 nice round litre. C'mon Nalgene, get with the times!
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
I got lazy and used some old fixer instead of mixing a new batch. The strip is looking pretty yellow in colour. If it looks like the images came out fine despite that, is there any other reason to re-fix them?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
try it with a lime posted:I got lazy and used some old fixer instead of mixing a new batch. The strip is looking pretty yellow in colour. If it looks like the images came out fine despite that, is there any other reason to re-fix them? Yes, if you want the negatives to stick around.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
Yond Cassius posted:Depending on your metering, you'll probably lose some of the highlights or shadows. Dynamic range isn't Astia's strongest suit. I've usually found that it fails relatively gracefully (for a slide film), though, so it might surprise you. Oh man, I really hope it comes out well. It was an unusually beautiful scene.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
365 Nog Hogger posted:Yes, if you want the negatives to stick around. Will they fully disappear over time or just fog?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
try it with a lime posted:Will they fully disappear over time or just fog? They'll fog
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 06:02
|
|
|
Genderfluid posted:Oh man, I really hope it comes out well. It was an unusually beautiful scene. I find Astia has the best dynamic range of the slide films I've tried so far, but it really depends on what you metered for. I shot this sunset scene on Astia as well, pretty much turned out how I wanted it to look.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 07:02
|
|
|
The shelf above my desk which held all of my cameras was fastened to the wall with admittedly poorly self-installed wall anchors. This morning, the shelf came loose and a bunch of cameras fell off the shelf and landed on my desk. It wasn't a very bad fall, but they knocked over my coffee and it spilled on my Canon AE-1 as well as my Konica C35. Luckily no coffee got inside the lenses, but I think some got inside the battery compartment of the AE-1 which then leaked inside the shutter mechanism. The shutter was much, much slower - I mean like it took over a full second when it was set on 1/125. I cleaned up as much of the coffee as I could, and I think what little coffee that got inside has dried up and the shutter speeds *sound* normal, but I have no way to be sure. Is there a way to test shutter speeds? Does anyone know if they are controlled mechanically or electrically? If they needed adjustment, is there a way to adjust the shutter speeds on an AE-1? I did a google search but not much came up. The Konica C35 seems fine, but some coffee got into the viewfinder so now I have to figure out how to take the top off and hopefully it'll be easy access.  Edit: I know AE-1s are practically a dime a dozen, but this was my parent's from the early 80s and it was in pristine shape. I would really love to keep it rather than just finding another. BANME.sh fucked around with this message at 18:14 on Aug 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
I've been reading about ways to develop black and white film with household ingredients (instant coffee, stuff like that) and I was wondering if anyone had experimented with that in the past, and also if processes like that work on colour film - I'm not interested in developing their colour, I was wondering if the same process developed the film as if it were b+w, if you get my drift. I'm already aware this is a ridiculous way to develop film that will have drastically worse results, I'm just interested in the process and sort of intrigued by doing things in a more ghetto method.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:Luckily no coffee got inside the lenses, but I think some got inside the battery compartment of the AE-1 which then leaked inside the shutter mechanism. The shutter was much, much slower - I mean like it took over a full second when it was set on 1/125. I cleaned up as much of the coffee as I could, and I think what little coffee that got inside has dried up and the shutter speeds *sound* normal, but I have no way to be sure. Is there a way to test shutter speeds? Does anyone know if they are controlled mechanically or electrically? If they needed adjustment, is there a way to adjust the shutter speeds on an AE-1? I did a google search but not much came up. Can you just shoot a roll of film and see if it develops properly? I do seem to remember reading something somewhere about testing shutter speeds but I don't recall what it was 
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
I got one of these for shutter testing my LF lenses: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/251596874435 Seems to work pretty well. There's an app for iPhone but if like me you don't have one you can just as easily use any other sound recording app or your PC (if it has a 4 pole audio input). e: Hbomberguy posted:I'm already aware this is a ridiculous way to develop film that will have drastically worse results, I'm just interested in the process and sort of intrigued by doing things in a more ghetto method. big scary monsters fucked around with this message at 19:23 on Aug 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:Actually I've seen really nice results with B&W "caffenol" dev, although I haven't tried it myself. Try this: http://www.caffenol-cookbook.com/ I don't see why it shouldn't work just as well with C-41 process film. Thanks, I'll give it a shot with a test reel I took today. I found my granddad's old camera, a Zenit E. It's a wonderfully tactile thing that I feel the urge to take up and use. I barely knew him but apparently after the war he really fell in love with photography and used to have reels hanging from all over the place. It would be nice to use it in projects.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
I've tried caffenol and "winol" (red wine-based) for developing paper prints, with decent success. They both developed the image just fine, but more interestingly they dyed the paper. The coffee turned the paper a light brown, which looked quite good, while the wine turned it rather too dark. I'm not sure if it's really worth it except for the gimmick value.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:Can you just shoot a roll of film and see if it develops properly? big scary monsters posted:I got one of these for shutter testing my LF lenses: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/251596874435 Yeah I ended up finding the iphone app and it seems to work okay for speeds under 1/60 using the audio method, but looks like I'll need to invest in (or make) a little device to capture light for more accurate readings.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
Here's a test I did with Superia 200, keeping under 32 sec. so that color shift and reciprocity are kept in check. It was overexposed 1 stop.  Cascate del Doccione
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
Removing the top cover on my Konica C35 to clean out the coffee soaked viewfinder was really easy, now it's even cleaner than when I started. I also noticed that the shutter wasn't opening anymore but I poked the back of it with a q-tip from the inside, and it magically started to work again. I hope it doesn't gum up again in the future. The AE-1 has fully dried and I think it's working normally again. The shutter actually sounds a bit better than before. I wonder if the acidic coffee removed some grime buildup inside? Who knows. Again, I hope it doesn't cause problems down the road. Just for good measure, I was thinking of applying some oil to the shutter mechanism like what you see on youtube for fixing the "canon squeak". Thank god I didn't put any sugar in my coffee this morning, otherwise I might have had more problems. I'm also getting my cousin who is big into electronics to help me build my own shutter speed tester, just because. If it turns out any good, I'll post pictures.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 06:36
|
|
|
For some reason I can't find many people comparing Portra 160 and Provia 100F and I'm pretty much a novice when it comes to color films. I think the most important things to me are not losing details in shadows and preserving huge dynamic ranges, so what are my options? It sounds like Velvia is out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 15:52 |
|
|
If you want shadow detail and dynamic range just shoot Portra 400 at 160. Slides are not a wise choice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 20:14
|
|