|
BANME.sh posted:This is what I got myself after some more adjustments of my own. All I did extra in Photoshop was set the brightness to -60 and then the contrast to +60. and flip the image. I thought my brain was blowing up there.
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 20:31 |
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:and flip the image. I thought my brain was blowing up there. Yeah, oops. I scan all my negatives backwards so to avoid them touching the scanner surface and causing newton rings.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:Yeah, oops. I scan all my negatives backwards so to avoid them touching the scanner surface and causing newton rings. Well the scanner's focus seems to be off, it was very soft when I looked at it in 100% and couldn't really see any trace of grain. Did you check that the camera it set at the right ISO?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Well the scanner's focus seems to be off, it was very soft when I looked at it in 100% and couldn't really see any trace of grain. Yeah, none of my negatives are flat despite sitting them under books for days. And yeah, the ISO was set correctly according to the DX code.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
Helicity posted:Just a standard old film camera, or are there any interesting perks/downsides?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:This was shot on an F100 in matrix metering mode, so I'm surprised the exposure was so off. Meters aren't infallible, even averaging/matrix meters, and the readings they give will vary from camera model to camera model, even from the same manufacturer. Now that you know how the meter responds to scenes like this, use that knowledge to set some negative exposure compensation in the future. It'll probably help some.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:It's not the film, camera or scanner. It's overexposed coming out of the camera. Didn't you just post that you bought your first two rolls of film to jump on the bandwagon?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
deaders posted:Didn't you just post that you bought your first two rolls of film to jump on the bandwagon? I'm pretty sure I know how exposure works. Also, I'm not wrong. EDIT: Also, you seem like experimenting with film is a bad thing. If that's jumping on the bandwagon, fine. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:I'm pretty sure I know how exposure works. Also, I'm not wrong. bullshit man, i think you're wrong
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:bullshit man, i think you're wrong then what is it? The scanner or the film if it's not his exposure.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:I'm pretty sure I know how exposure works. Also, I'm not wrong. Experimenting with film is not a bad thing, you would have to be mentally retarded to interpret my comment that way. Most people wait until they know about something before giving advice, that's all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
deaders posted:Most people wait until they know about something before giving advice, that's all. Can someone that knows something about grad filters on rangefinders explain how the hell that combination works in theory and in practice?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 15:09
|
|
|
You might need to meter manually, as the built in meter on a lot of 35mm rangefinders is a little window on the lens barrel, unless your camera does TTL metering (Leica, Bessa), then you should be good to go.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
Helicity posted:Can someone that knows something about grad filters on rangefinders explain how the hell that combination works in theory and in practice?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
I found this, but wasn't really understanding how it helped: http://www.leefilters.com/index.php/camera-directory/camera-dir-list/category/rangefinder-blades
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
A round-up of film related news from Photokina 2014 on APUG: http://www.apug.org/forums/forum390/134632-report-photokina-2014-a.html
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
Since I started shooting film, I've begun to notice film being used in movies and TV more and more. Probably because I find myself looking at the color and grain more than before. I try to figure out if it's authentic or just a filter applied to digital. Anyway, I've been watching True Detective and I couldn't help but notice that a lot of the outdoor scenes look identical in look and feel to many of the Portra shots that get posted here. I know Portra is strictly for still photography, but they must have some kind of motion picture equivalent, right? Anyway I looked it up and found this: http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Publications/InCamera/HBO_s_True_Detective_Elevates_the_Television_Drama.htm quote:Why was 35mm chosen as opposed to another format? So there you go. Watch it if you haven't yet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
Portra is Vision 3 for C-41 instead of ECN-2. Kodak posted:What technologies were used to develop such an exceptional film?  New Kodak Portra 400 is Vision3 250D by The Brothers Wright, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
Hey folks, So my Nikon F3 that I got for 60 bucks on eBay came in. The TTL light meter is not functioning properly, indicating that everything is overexposed. If I wanted to get this fixed how much do you all think it would cost? I have not gotten a quote yet but according to this camera shop located near me (http://mouseclickconcepts.com/pro/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=49&products_id=284&zenid=2j06q238lu0mmc3u6rm76mfp65) I'm looking at about a 100 bucks to fix it. What do you guys think? Should I just invest in a light meter or use a light meter app? Or is this worth just fixing up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
hi liter posted:Hey folks, I would fix it. $160 total dollars isn't a great price for an F3 but it's not a bad one either. The F3 has a great meter, it's 80/20 centerweighted which is close enough to a spot meter to be great but not so much as to be limiting. You can probably do okay with a phone app though if the money is an issue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
I'm sorry. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
Well gently caress it, if oldy time folks didn't have fancy in camera light meters I don't either. I'm just gonna shoot on it and see how my first few rolls develop and re-evaluate after that. I'll probably get it fixed at some point but I wanna play with my new toy  Question time: I want to do some shooting tonight for Halloween, and have been reading up about pushing film. The general procedure I've read is to change the ISO/ASA dial on my body, but is that just for the in camera meter? Can I just mark on the roll/tube that I want it developed at 1600 instead of 400? Also is pushing Superia 400 to 1600 advisable? If this all seems like a lot/reckless, I plan on bringing a digital backup.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
Meter at 1600. You can tell your lab either to 'push two stops' or 'develop at 1600'. Portra 400 is your best bet for a 2 stop push as far as colour goes. Superia will work if you have it on hand but I wouldn't recommend it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
How does pushing C-41 work? The process is standardized across ISO, I developed a roll of 800 next to a roll of 200 in the tank the last time I did it, both came out fine. Do you just change the development time, and all film in the tank (assuming you have multiple rolls in the tank) get pushed by 1 or 2 or whatever stops? So a roll of 100 shot at 400 and pushed 2 stops in development comes out how you want it, and so does the 400 shot at 1600 in the tank with it, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Do you just change the development time, and all film in the tank (assuming you have multiple rolls in the tank) get pushed by 1 or 2 or whatever stops? So a roll of 100 shot at 400 and pushed 2 stops in development comes out how you want it, and so does the 400 shot at 1600 in the tank with it, right? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
Any goons have experience with Ilford Pan F Plus? I have 5 rolls in 120 of it coming to me, and of course, right after I buy it I get told that it's apparently difficult to work with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
Gargonovitch posted:Any goons have experience with Ilford Pan F Plus? I have 5 rolls in 120 of it coming to me, and of course, right after I buy it I get told that it's apparently difficult to work with. Not a whole lot, but keep in mind that it's quite high contrast. The negatives oddly look thin when inspecting them, but when you put them in an enlarger they aren't really, not sure about scanning actually. Either way, high contrast and high resolution, and I'd say that treating it with speedy/high concentration developers like Rodinal or HC-110 is doing it a disservice. Consider rating it as 25 instead of 50, that will let you get potentially even finer grain, and less contrast too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
Gargonovitch posted:Any goons have experience with Ilford Pan F Plus? I have 5 rolls in 120 of it coming to me, and of course, right after I buy it I get told that it's apparently difficult to work with. It's a pain shooting anything slower than 100 ISO, but since I assume you've made your peace with that, I think it and maybe FP4 are the best looking slow B&W films going. I shot it at box speed and processed in Rodinal 1+80 and it came out looking like what I'd describe as high resolution Tri-X.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Not a whole lot, but keep in mind that it's quite high contrast. The negatives oddly look thin when inspecting them, but when you put them in an enlarger they aren't really, not sure about scanning actually. Either way, high contrast and high resolution, and I'd say that treating it with speedy/high concentration developers like Rodinal or HC-110 is doing it a disservice. This. Insane contrast and density. I shot it at 25 or 12 and it looks great. One thing you should keep in mind is to develop promptly. Ilford and anedoctes say that you start to loose the latent image two weeks or even less after exposure. I used rodinal 1+100 for development. Still keep a few rolls around for any "I wanna use slow film" moments...
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
quote:Not a whole lot, but keep in mind that it's quite high contrast. The negatives oddly look thin when inspecting them, but when you put them in an enlarger they aren't really, not sure about scanning actually. This is fine by me, I like a hefty dose of contrast, myself. I also only print optically and never scan, which is why I've never actually posted photos here. I guess I could scan the prints, but I don’t even have a scanner at the moment. quote:It's a pain shooting anything slower than 100 ISO, but since I assume you've made your peace with that, I think it and maybe FP4 are the best looking slow B&W films going. I figure it'll be ok. I bought it to shoot with my RB67, which is pretty much permanently mounted on a tripod, so using slower shutter speeds and all that shouldn't be a problem. I usually shoot 100 ISO using Acros, but Acros is almost TOO perfect, you know? I wanted something slower with some character to it, similar to Tri X where you can tell right away that it's a certain film. I also bought five rolls of Delta 100 because apparently I'm on an Ilford kick, so I still have the 100 ISO option. I wouldn't go for ISO 50 on any of my 35mm cameras because I always shoot them handheld. I like a solid 400 ISO for that, so I usually stick to Tri X, but I bought a bunch of TMAX 400 to try out this time, in addition to my normal Tri X. quote:This. Insane contrast and density. I shot it at 25 or 12 and it looks great.  ) as well. Thanks for all the tips, folks! I'm pretty pumped to try this stuff out!
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 09:55
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:I'm sorry. That's cool.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 10:55
|
|
|
I came across an entire B&W darkroom setup today, for only $50. Included is an enlarger (Durst 609 - supports 35mm to 6x9 apparently, though only came with the 35mm film holder), easels, trays, tongs, extra dev tanks (though I already have my own Patterson tank), squeegees, thermometers, beakers/jugs, safelights, a timer, contrast filters, and some other crap I am not sure about. One thing looks like a dryer for prints maybe? It looks like this and has a temperature dial on it:  There's also these thin sheets of chrome plated steel that apparently are used for making glossy prints? Anyway, I've been wanting to make my own prints for a while and I already have two different enlargers, but they are missing attachments, and I've been too lazy/cheap to track down replacements. Looks like all I need now is photo paper and maybe some different chemicals. So I guess it goes without saying, are there any good absolute beginner guides that any of you would recommend?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 06:23
|
|
|
Gargonovitch posted:Any goons have experience with Ilford Pan F Plus? I have 5 rolls in 120 of it coming to me, and of course, right after I buy it I get told that it's apparently difficult to work with. It's fantastic. I love it. I posted a few pics of a few rolls I did with it several pages back. If it's 50 ISO, it's a bit challenging to work with, but I found that even at low shutter speeds, it came out really nice. Edit: page 356, my first post on there. Second is from my roll of Velvia 50 96cobraguy fucked around with this message at 14:25 on Nov 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 14:23
|
|
|
 Found this beauty at the local second hand shop today. it's pretty rare for me to get manuals and everything with the cameras i find, so i'm pretty chuffed with this score. Cost me about 5 bucks. only issue is that the shutter count seems to be broken, but i can live with that. adds a moment of danger to everything!
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
You have a nice Pen-ees. Thanks for sharing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
Developed my second roll of black and white film, turns out I made a balls of the first one, underexposing everything, because the yellow filter I was using reduced the light by more than I thought I did. No worries of that happening again as I dropped it, smashing it in the process. Most of the photos from this roll were overexposed though because I swung too hard in the other direction. Third time's the  
crap nerd fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Nov 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
 Musei Vaticani by alkanphel, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
Nice sack you got there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 10:24
|
|
|
unpacked robinhood posted:
So I know this is from a few pages ago, but I just got caught up on the thread. How did the film turn out? And do you still have the reel? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2014 13:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 20:31 |
|
|
Nielsm was able to develop some barely readable images from the roll I sent him, the film looked really damaged from the start. ExecuDork also has a few rolls to shoot with, the bits he received looked better to the eye than what nielsm got so I'm somewhat hopeful the results may be a tad better even if I'm not holding my breath. I still have the reel.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2014 14:35
|
|
