|
Love me some Ultramax. Looks like you got pretty good detail in the shadows though, how did you meter it?
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 05:00 |
|
|
Anybody know why those marks appear when developing? I had this happen some time ago to one roll but forgot about it, and now it happened again, but only to the last 3 or 4 expositions in the roll. Since it's closer to the end of the roll I'm thinking slightly strong agitation (I spin the spinny thing for agitation). Or something else entirely?  DSC08355 by Hernando Rosa, on FlickrIt's HP5+@1600 on rodinal 1+50 for 24 minutes, if that matters.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
That looks like bent film, to me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
Yeah that's what it looks like when you crease the film loading it onto the reel.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
Oh, it did happen by the end of the roll. Mistery solved them  . Thanks guys.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
Primo Itch posted:Oh, it did happen by the end of the roll. Mistery solved them if it's any consolation, I actually like how it looks in this case
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
deaders posted:Love me some Ultramax. Looks like you got pretty good detail in the shadows though, how did you meter it? Metered normally at ISO 400, I think I gave it +1/3 or +2/3 though, because I was shooting into the sunset glint of the building. Also this Ultramax is fresh, so that probably helps, too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
Dumb question. I have some random rolls of 100 ektar lying around, that haven't been refrigerated for the last... lets say 2 -3 years. That stuff still good to shoot at box speed?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 06:09
|
|
|
It should be fine. Shoot the first roll at 80 and see what happens.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 06:59
|
|
|
Given that Ektar is slow negative film, I doubt that you need to do anything special with it. I just got some decade-old, unrefrigerated Portra 400 NC back that I shot at box speed, and it didn't appear to care at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
Putrid Grin posted:Dumb question. I have some random rolls of 100 ektar lying around, that haven't been refrigerated for the last... lets say 2 -3 years. That stuff still good to shoot at box speed? Definitely.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 19:06
|
|
TheJeffers posted:Given that Ektar is slow negative film, I doubt that you need to do anything special with it. I just got some decade-old, unrefrigerated Portra 400 NC back that I shot at box speed, and it didn't appear to care at all. Portra is sorcery, though, you could leave a roll of it on top of a cabinet for twenty years and it'd probably still be fine.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
mr. stefan posted:Portra is sorcery, though, you could leave a roll of it on top of a cabinet for twenty years and it'd probably still be fine. I'm starting to get the hang of Portra myself. 400 or bust though.  Umbertide (Rocca) by maxmars70, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
I underexposed by 5 stops once on Portra 400 (no battery in my camera...) and I still got a somewhat usable image 
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
unpacked robinhood, your weird old film has arrived!
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
mr. stefan posted:Portra is sorcery, though, you could leave a roll of it on top of a cabinet for twenty years and it'd probably still be fine. Yeah, this. I actually really like how mistreated Portra looks, so all my rolls are just hanging out on a shelf by the window. I can still shoot like 2-3 stops underexposed and get some great shots.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
Casu Marzu posted:Yeah, this. I actually really like how mistreated Portra looks, so all my rolls are just hanging out on a shelf by the window. I can still shoot like 2-3 stops underexposed and get some great shots. god drat, I can't wait to play with Porta film
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 03:19
|
|
|
I'm going to hold off buying a scanner (if I'm going to do it, I want to get a good one)....when you guys have a shop develop and scan your film, do you request it to be scanned in RAW? Seems to be the more expensive way to go, but obviously gives you some more flexibility.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 03:21
|
|
|
There's technically no such thing as a RAW scan. You just scan at 16-bit per channel and save it as a tif. VueScan has a RAW mode but all it does is put the tif in a dng container. You will get way better results scanning at home vs going to a low cost lab. You can get a decent used scanner for under $100
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:There's technically no such thing as a RAW scan. You just scan at 16-bit per channel and save it as a tif. VueScan has a RAW mode but all it does is put the tif in a dng container. The V400 or whatever? I guess it's obviously more rewarding going through the whole process yourself (and quicker).
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
I dunno about quicker. I've been scanning my 35mm at 3200 dpi with 16-bit channels, and it takes me a good 2.5 hours to get through one roll. I use the included Epson Scan software, and I take a few minutes to tweak the black/white points and stuff for each batch of negatives. I guess it's not too bad if you just put something on Netflix, or otherwise do something that can be interrupted every 15-20 minutes while you swap out negatives and make tweaks to the scans. Edit: I also use digital ICE on them. Don't remember how much time you save with it off, though I think I'd still prefer it to cloning out all the dust in Lightroom. 404notfound fucked around with this message at 07:44 on Sep 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 07:13
|
|
|
404notfound posted:I dunno about quicker. I've been scanning my 35mm at 3200 dpi with 16-bit channels, and it takes me a good 2.5 hours to get through one roll. I use the included Epson Scan software, and I take a few minutes to tweak the black/white points and stuff for each batch of negatives. It must be ICE then. I scanned one roll yesterday evening while watching "Rush", which is exactly two hours long. 7200 DPI resized to 3600 (which IMHO gives you the best compromise between grain, resolution and file size) directly in VueScan. Plustek OpticFilm 8100. I think you should be able to do it more quickly with a flatbed scanner (and ICE turned off?).
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 08:16
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:unpacked robinhood, your weird old film has arrived!  I hope you get something cool out of it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 10:02
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:more rewarding going through the whole process yourself (and quicker).
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 13:15
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Hahahaha no. Scanning film with a flatbed or drum takes loving ages. "Scanning" with a DSLR and a macro lens isn't so bad. That's what beer is for.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 15:47
|
|
|
If you are only gonna ever do 35mm, get a cheap dedicated scanner like a Minolta or Nikon. If you ever want to do med or large format then flat bed is the way to go.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:If you are only gonna ever do 35mm, get a cheap dedicated scanner like a Minolta or Nikon. If you ever want to do med or large format then flat bed is the way to go. yeah, I think I'd probably end up going down the medium format road since that seems to be the natural progression. I'd rather just buy once instead of ended up with a bunch of poo poo I won't use. I don't mind the time with scanning. It's not like you have to stare at it while the scan is happening.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:yeah, I think I'd probably end up going down the medium format road since that seems to be the natural progression. I'd rather just buy once instead of ended up with a bunch of poo poo I won't use. I don't mind the time with scanning. It's not like you have to stare at it while the scan is happening. Well then get a v500 with plans for a v700 if you find the quality of the scans lacking after you learn what you are doing, that's what most of us have done.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
If you're committed to film, just buy a V700. Even if you're just scanning 35mm it's appreciably better than a V500/V600.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:If you're committed to film, just buy a V700. Even if you're just scanning 35mm it's appreciably better than a V500/V600. yeah, that's my thought with the whole "I don't want to buy twice".
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
Are there any film scanners that use the sprocket holes on 35mm to automatically load the negatives? Seems like you could just feed in your strip of film and it could generally detect where each exposure starts/stops, although the user might have to help it get the first exposure lined up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:yeah, that's my thought with the whole "I don't want to buy twice". Then get a v700 or one of the older equivalent models. It's pretty much the best sub5k scanner you can get for multiple formats.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:Are there any film scanners that use the sprocket holes on 35mm to automatically load the negatives? Seems like you could just feed in your strip of film and it could generally detect where each exposure starts/stops, although the user might have to help it get the first exposure lined up. Comedy option: the Lomo smartphone scanner does exactly this. The results out of their app are terrible, but you can get good "feeling lazy, just need web resolution anyways" scans out of it if you work with it. Just take the pictures straight (or better, use a compact digital, preferably in RAW mode) and process the files like you would out of any other scanner. Think of it like a slide duplicator with an unreasonably tiny aperture.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
I've been shooting film for the first time in ages and I want to see what I've got but I'm scared my dev is probably no good any more. I have the Tetenal C-41 kit and I've used about half the rolls it's rated for but it's been mixed up for a good 4 or 5 months now, stored in plastic bottles with most of the air squeezed out in a darkish box . Any easy way I can check it won't gently caress up my beautiful Portra or should I just dev a sacrificial roll of something cheap I don't care about first?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:Are there any film scanners that use the sprocket holes on 35mm to automatically load the negatives? Seems like you could just feed in your strip of film and it could generally detect where each exposure starts/stops, although the user might have to help it get the first exposure lined up. The pakon f135 does that. We chatted about it a few pages back, but it'll scan a whole roll of 35mm with ICE in 3-4 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:The pakon f135 does that. We chatted about it a few pages back, but it'll scan a whole roll of 35mm with ICE in 3-4 minutes. Stop recommending this scanner, I'm afraid it will go out of stock forever before I get around to buying my own.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
I'd recommend the Better Scanning glass inserts if you're anywhere near as bad as me for getting bowed negatives. It turns out that properly scanned 35mm is way sharper than I thought it was.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
try it with a lime posted:I'd recommend the Better Scanning glass inserts if you're anywhere near as bad as me for getting bowed negatives. It turns out that properly scanned 35mm is way sharper than I thought it was. On the other hand I didn't notice a big improvement with flat negs. It ended up being a huge hassle because of the amount of dust that would get trapped between the glass and the negative.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
Been shooting a lot of film recently. 23740034 by kgao1989, on Flickr 4772000_4772000-R1-042-19A by kgao1989, on Flickr 23740013 by kgao1989, on FlickrHow long do you think small-format film is going to last? For me I think the biggest advantages of film are the smoother highlight transitions, and the ability to shoot full frame without paying a hideously expensive amount for a DSLR with full frame capabilities. I feel like the dynamic range of film and non-linear response to light are nice, but that advantage is going away as DSLRs get better. I love the all-metal, solid and compact construction of a well-built 35mm camera. To me the excessive buttons and techno-crap on plastic fantastic DSLRs don't even come close to the joy I get from the all-metal precision of a leica or even consumer grade 35mm camera. But it does make me very sad to see the amount of film labs dwindling. Of course medium and large format film will not go away in the near future, but what will happen to our beloved 35mm cameras?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 05:00 |
|
|
Mightaswell posted:The pakon f135 does that. We chatted about it a few pages back, but it'll scan a whole roll of 35mm with ICE in 3-4 minutes. Now I really want one of these. Can they scan the usual 5-exposure strips, or does it need to be a whole roll? Yond Cassius posted:Comedy option: the Lomo smartphone scanner does exactly this. I saw some reviews that had Lomo-quality (read: poo poo) samples, but others that had some relatively nice-looking scans from a Lomo smartphone scanner. But for $60, I might just be better off buying a used macro lens for the DSLR.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 21:01
|
|