|
nielsm posted:Rodinal goes under many names today, but not the original one. I think the most common is R09, you might also see Adonal. You are correct: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/849867-REG/Rollei_AGFA_9725_Compard_R09_One_Shot.html
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 18:04 |
|
|
ExecuDork posted:. Even if you have to cut it to 35mm wide with sprokets yourself, you'll be able to get film in 10, 20, 50, and 100 years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:Even if you can get the film, would you be able to develop it? RIP Kodachrome I would expect that future developments in film will lean more toward things which can be processed in the home rather than requiring big lab setups. I'd love a color film that I could develop and print using my black and white equipment... it wouldn't have to look amazing, just be simpler than C41.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:Even if you can get the film, would you be able to develop it? RIP Kodachrome Kodachrome was ridiculously difficult to develop - there's a reason it was superseded by E-6 films quickly. In the past color films were mostly simple emulsions with complex development processes, now we have complex emulsions with simple development processes. I don't think it's too far of a stretch to imagine someone mixing their own C-41 compatible developer but it's definitely a stretch to imagine someone creating their own K-14 magenta coupler.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:Even if you can get the film, would you be able to develop it? RIP Kodachrome He was working in a fully-equipped lab and not a spare bathroom, but Stephen Frizza in Sydney managed to reverse-engineer K14 and hand-develop Kodachrome a couple years ago. He says it's prohibitively expensive, completely impractical (20 steps, including several re-exposure steps), and not guaranteed to be as archival as the original Kodak formulations, but it can be done.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:Kodachrome was ridiculously difficult to develop http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-14_process#Steps 
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
One of the labs in Portland was telling me most labs actually had a full-time on-site chemist if they developed K-14.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:I've finished my move and I'm still quite happy to give this weird old film a shot. Maybe a piece from further towards the center of the spool is less flashed/damaged? text me email removed unpacked robinhood fucked around with this message at 09:25 on Sep 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 12:28
|
|
|
Edited the film barcode with a key and some nail polish to shoot 10+ years old 400ISO film at 200 in a full auto p&s: Foster St., 2014 by voodoorootbeer, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
Canon AE-1 issue: as of exposure 12 on a 36 shot roll, the rewind crank has not yet turned when I work the advance lever. There's basically a 0% chance that it's actually advancing the film, right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
voodoorootbeer posted:Canon AE-1 issue: as of exposure 12 on a 36 shot roll, the rewind crank has not yet turned when I work the advance lever. There's basically a 0% chance that it's actually advancing the film, right? Right.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
Took some double exposures in Amsterdam and Seoul with some cheap dutch Hema film 200 and my Canon slr. Amsterdam-Seoul Double Exposures by Nestor's Blurrylife, on Flickr Amsterdam-Seoul Double Exposures by Nestor's Blurrylife, on Flickr Amsterdam-Seoul Double Exposures by Nestor's Blurrylife, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
 _DSC7793 by Stingray of Doom, on FlickrStress marks are sexy, right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 08:44
|
|
|
Got some questions for color film folks. Just to feed my curiosity, do you guys develop your own rolls or take 'em to labs? C-41 seems simple enough for me to want to give it a go. And a more serious question: Do you guys print your color photos? It seems to me that printing a scan would be the easiest way to go about printing color photos. RA-4 printing just seems like a pain in the rear end.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
I use a lab and print from scans.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 06:00
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:I use a lab and print from scans. Same.  Mirrors by Isaac Sachs, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 07:01
|
|
|
krnhotwings posted:Got some questions for color film folks. Just to feed my curiosity, do you guys develop your own rolls or take 'em to labs? C-41 seems simple enough for me to want to give it a go. Don't bother with RA-4 printing, unless you've got a great darkroom to work with and a lot of patients. But if you don't have a good lab near you or a an expensive one, C41 is a pretty easy process to get constant results from.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 08:06
|
|
|
I'm looking for a developer that does well pushing standard grain films several stops and also keeps forever in non-dilute syrup form. I'm using Rodinal right now but from what I've read pushing isn't really it's specialty, and I get really gnarly grain doing box speed non-stand dev with it. Really what would be nice is a chart with more easily accessible information on developer characteristics that doesn't involve digging through APUG or the massive dev chart. Anybody aware of anything like that?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
Ilford Microphen is one to look at, but it is a powder
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
HC-110 in accordion bottles?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:HC-110 in accordion bottles? HC-110 in any bottle. I have had syrup keep in the Kodak bottle for 7-8 years no problem.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
Spedman posted:Ilford Microphen is one to look at, but it is a powder I've had mixed Microphen stock last at least a month in half-full glass bottle. You should get a 1 L pack of the powder and try it out. You can probably get upwards 12 films developed from one liter of stock, depending on how much you dilute it. And if you like doing stand development, HC-110 works just as well for that as Rodinal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 07:47
|
|
|
krnhotwings posted:Got some questions for color film folks. Just to feed my curiosity, do you guys develop your own rolls or take 'em to labs? C-41 seems simple enough for me to want to give it a go. C-41 is a lot easier than it seems at first. I even stopped using submerged heaters. It's on par with b/w as far as processing time and tools are concerned, the differences being a) on some kits the developer and bleach are separated stages, but they are shorter in time so nothing much changes b) the developer can have a much lower shelf life than b/w. I use the Digibase kit and it lasts me one year in non diluted form, two weeks after mixing it up for processing. Bottom line you can do it, but you need either to buy a small kit or shoot a lot (welp I shoot a lot). I like to scan myself the images. If you happen to non trivially post process your images it's almost non negotiable, because sometimes you're happy with a low res, low color depth scans and sometimes you need all the resolution and flexibility you have access to.  Obligatory sample pic 8th-snype posted:HC-110 in any bottle. I have had syrup keep in the Kodak bottle for 7-8 years no problem. Same. Have started using a bottle passed on from a friend (bottle itself was couple of years old) and still using it after one year with no quality degradation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 08:41
|
|
|
 How do I shoot/rate this stuff with the filter I have? Would the filter be 4 or 5 stops? Not sure... The film box says to develop at 200 ISO with the filter... still accurate?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 09:01
|
|
|
Sludge Tank posted:
Related to IR film, a friend of mine gave me a roll of Ilford IR film, am I right in thinking I need a deep red filter for it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
maxmars posted:b) the developer can have a much lower shelf life than b/w. I use the Digibase kit and it lasts me one year in non diluted form, two weeks after mixing it up for processing. Bottom line you can do it, but you need either to buy a small kit or shoot a lot (welp I shoot a lot). Looks like I'll also need to get a new scanner. I have an Epson 4490, which is alright... It does 35mm and 120, but I'd like to get into 4x5 within the next year or so. Is the V700/750 series of scanners the go-to option? Or is there a better bang-for-your-buck scanner?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
Sludge Tank posted:
Can you do anything stupid like sacrifice a single sheet, cut it up into strips, tape into a holder, and try a few times?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
Well the stuff was kinda expensive (here) so I thought rather than waste a sheet I would consult the oracle. But ok.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
Sludge Tank posted:Well the stuff was kinda expensive (here) so I thought rather than waste a sheet I would consult the oracle. I'm interested as well, as a contribution my wild guess would be to expose it at 2 ISO when using that filter and process it for 200 ISO like the box says. 2 ISO would be 64 ISO (because of the black, as in non-red, IR filter) minus 5 stops which I am guessing it's the stopping power of the filter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 08:30
|
|
|
krnhotwings posted:Is the V700/750 series of scanners the go-to option? Or is there a better bang-for-your-buck scanner? Yeah get the V700 if you want to scan all those formats, it comes with all the necessary film holders. Don't bother with the V750, it's not necessary at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
krnhotwings posted:I'll probably just shoot and develop in batches using Unicolor's 1L powder kit. Dunno if there's any good reason not to go with powder, but at the rate I shoot it would be more economical for me to go with that kit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
I just picked up a Epson 4990 for $40, pretty drat pleased with that, all night 8x10 scans here we come.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 06:49
|
|
|
Spedman posted:I just picked up a Epson 4990 for $40, pretty drat pleased with that, all night 8x10 scans here we come. How do you guarantee the flatness of the sheet? Do you put it flat against the glass? Wouldn't that give you newton rings?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 13:33
|
|
|
I got that anr glass from better scanning that seems to work pretty well
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:How do you guarantee the flatness of the sheet? Do you put it flat against the glass? Wouldn't that give you newton rings? I'm no expert but I've been scanning 8x10 directly on the glass of my V700 (as it is designed to do - the "holder" is just a thin plastic guide to place your sheets on the glass) and I haven't noticed any newton rings. I also haven't had curving issues - smaller films seem to bend more readily. I've never really had a curled 4x5 sheet and I haven't had any 8x10 sheets that weren't dead flat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:I'm no expert but I've been scanning 8x10 directly on the glass of my V700 (as it is designed to do - the "holder" is just a thin plastic guide to place your sheets on the glass) and I haven't noticed any newton rings. Pretty much this, I've done 4x5 scanning with my v500 by placing the neg directly on the glass and had no issues, other than having to stitch the bloody thing together in Photoshop. Sheet film plays nice as it's never curled in a roll or in a holder.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
The real issue with scanning directly on the glass with scanners that aren't meant to is that your lens is focused at the height of the holder. The V700 has two lenses - one focused at the film holder height and one focused at the glass height.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
Portra 800  91880036 by Dingus Falcon, on Flickr  91880026 by Dingus Falcon, on Flickr  91880016 by Dingus Falcon, on Flickr  91880015 by Dingus Falcon, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 18:04 |
|
|
Kodak UltraMax, Scratching that small format itch.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 01:18
|
|
