|
ExecuDork posted:Thanks for this. I tried to find an MSDS for Silver thiosulfate and got nowhere, despite that being described as the main ingredient in the product sheets for fixer I found. That's weird - normally you can buy ANY chemical that appears as an ingredient in something (food or not-food), and if you can buy it you can get the MSDS for it, which will describe disposal considerations. Would silver thiosulfate really be an ingredient in fixer? I mean, it sounds more like it would be a result of mixing silver halydes from the paper/film with sodium thiosulfate (which, incidentally, is Hypo). I've tried my sources and couldn't find a MSDS for it either, not even Sigma sells silver thiosulfate. Kind of weird, honestly. Thought we could maybe combine the MSDS from silver nitrate and from sodium thiosulfate to try to figure something out? Sodium Thiosulfate shouldn't be thrown in the sink since it can be toxic to fish, and the same can be said about silver nitrate (and I really doubt those effects are either thanks to the sodium or the nitrate). I think fixer is definitely on a "not very good to dump in the sink" category, but we'd have to considerate the concentrations and how diluted a couple of bottles would get in a sewer system to come to any conclusions... edit:  about chemistry might not be the best way to start a new page, but eh
Primo Itch fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Nov 23, 2014 |
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 14:48 |
|
|
My other concern is how many people are dumping "a few liters" down the drain. Yeah it's a drop in the bucket compared to major chemical companies but since I can recycle it why shouldn't I not dump any of anything that "might" be hazardous down a drain?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 05:52
|
|
|
Yes the only silver present in fixer is metallic silver extracted from the emulsion while it's working. It isn't part of the formulation, and afaik. the increasing concentration of silver as the fixer gets used is part of the reason it exhausts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 08:43
|
|
|
Anyone recommend any lesser used films that are interesting to use? As an exchange for that information...Film gear is 15% off right now on KEH if you use the code "film". Not sure how long it'll last. vxsarin fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Nov 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
Just scored an Epson 4990 for cheap, I'm turning into more of a film person every day (for better or worse).
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
Primo Itch posted:Would silver thiosulfate really be an ingredient in fixer? I mean, it sounds more like it would be a result of mixing silver halydes from the paper/film with sodium thiosulfate (which, incidentally, is Hypo). nielsm posted:Yes the only silver present in fixer is metallic silver extracted from the emulsion while it's working. It isn't part of the formulation, and afaik. the increasing concentration of silver as the fixer gets used is part of the reason it exhausts. I found some databases and did some digging, ending up deep in the Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, "Silver Compounds". This took me to a 50-page PDF that goes into more detail than almost anybody would want (though I'm sure a few of you spergs would appreciate it) about the entire process from film production to archival storage of film photography. The Encyclopedia is behind an academic paywall, find it yourself if you have access to a university or other institutional library. It's a big enough Thing (this encyclopedia) that I expect you could get the relevant chapters at a public library. Proper academic-style reference: Locker, David J. 2000. Photography. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. DOI: 10.1002/0471238961.1608152012150311.a01 Note the publication date of December, 2000 - the Economics section is highly optimistic about a continued dominance of all things Silver by the photo-processing industry, and dismissive of these new-fangled attempts to replicate silver's benefits for images with mere electronics.  The upshot of Fix is that fresh fixative contains no silver, just thiosulfate and buffers to maintain pH. During fixation, silver diffuses from the film into solution and forms argentodithiosulfate, Ag(S2O3)3-2, and argentotrithiosulfate, Ag(S2O3)5-3. These are stable complexes that keep the silver ions safely away from solution - Ag(I) is pretty nasty, but those complexes: Locker, 2000 posted:The discharged silver usually is bound in thiosulfate complexes, which are not detrimental to the essential microorganisms in sewage treatment plants. The silver thiosulfate complexes can be converted to insoluble silver sulfide and removed as a solid sludge. There is considerable talk of ways to recover silver from each step of the process and how it's a really good idea because, as a large factory processing millions of rolls of film per day, the recovery is highly economically favourable. For a home hobbyist with a few litres of partially-exhausted fix, it's probably more trouble than it's worth and the fix won't actually do any damage if poured away. There shouldn't be Sodium Thiosulfate in fixative, because of the well-known toxic properties of it, though the encyclopedia article says: Locker, 2000 posted:Most fixing baths are composed of thiosulfate ions formed by dissolving the corresponding sodium or ammonium salt in water. Other silver compounds are nasty, but are only involved in photography as industrial precursors to photographic products such as film or developing chemicals. Silver nitrate is the starting point for pretty much all industrial silver chemistry, the ore is processed to solid silver which is then treated with nitric acid under pure oxygen, resulting in AgNO3 that is a ready source of Ag(I) for any other reactions - such as producing AgBr, the main form of silver on film. 8th-snype posted:My other concern is how many people are dumping "a few liters" down the drain. Yeah it's a drop in the bucket compared to major chemical companies but since I can recycle it why shouldn't I not dump any of anything that "might" be hazardous down a drain? The encyclopedia mentions several methods, the easiest is probably electrolysis because you end up with metalic silver plated onto an electrode. You can scrape it off and now you've got a few milligrams of metallic silver to play with. Melt it, bury it, whatever, it's out of the water system.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
How do people feel about Ektar? Everyone here seems to go nuts over Portra but I find Ektar to have the most natural tones. It actually looks most the like digital than any other film I've seen. Maybe that's why I hardly see it getting mentioned? If it weren't for the few specks of dust I didn't clone out, I would have a hard time believing this came out of a 35mm film camera 
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:How do people feel about Ektar? Everyone here seems to go nuts over Portra but I find Ektar to have the most natural tones. It actually looks most the like digital than any other film I've seen. Maybe that's why I hardly see it getting mentioned? Ektar looks great when exposed correctly in direct sunlight. It's all the other times it kinda sucks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Ektar looks great when exposed correctly in direct sunlight. It's all the other times it kinda sucks. This. It looks great in the right situation, while portra will look amazing in spite of the situation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
That could explain why the indoor shots from the same roll as the above image look like poo poo!
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
I'm on vacation and my camera broke. I was packing light so didn't bring a backup camera. I'm going to walk into the Adorama in Manhattan and buy a Contax T xi ASP tomorrow morning to use for the rest of my trip unless you somehow talk me out of it. Are there any other small 35mm point and shoots I should be browsing instead?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
The Olympus P&S get lots of love around here. I've got an AF-1 / Infinity that I enjoy, lots of people have XA of various vintage. Buy something cheap that says Olympus on it, lots of film, be happy. Don't forget batteries.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
mulls posted:I'm on vacation and my camera broke. I was packing light so didn't bring a backup camera. Thats an APS film camera isn't it? I can't remember if APS is compatible with standard 35mm. But I would second a Olympus P&S, specifically the Epic Stylus/mju:ii.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
Spedman posted:Thats an APS film camera isn't it? I can't remember if APS is compatible with standard 35mm. Oh poo poo I think you're right. Their stock of Olympus point and shoots online is pretty slim, and I'm basically stuck with what they have in the store because I'm only in Manhattan another day in this trip. I think it'll have to be a less known brand, like Minox maybe.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
Everyone, and I mean *everyone*, seems to love Portra 400 - but I never see anyone talk about 160 or 800. What's the low down on those speeds?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 01:27
|
|
|
mulls posted:Oh poo poo I think you're right. Their stock of Olympus point and shoots online is pretty slim, and I'm basically stuck with what they have in the store because I'm only in Manhattan another day in this trip. I think it'll have to be a less known brand, like Minox maybe. I just checked Adorama, and they list all of 2 cameras in their 35mm point-and-shoot section. WTF? Go to a thrift shop, buy a $5 P&S, then go to Adorama and buy some film and a battery. Shoot like it's EDIT: Oh, that's their New section. I found their used section.  EDIT2: I am surprised at their prices. Am I the only one horrified at the list of $50 paperweights (non-functional cameras)? ExecuDork fucked around with this message at 02:17 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Ektar looks great when exposed correctly in direct sunlight. It's all the other times it kinda sucks. I've got some Ektar I played it fast and loose in Death Valley three years ago that looks like abject poo poo. Maybe I should just convert to B&W...  Helicity posted:Everyone, and I mean *everyone*, seems to love Portra 400 - but I never see anyone talk about 160 or 800. What's the low down on those speeds? Can't speak for 160, but regular Portra 400 pushes so well that I'm surprised they bothered to even formulate an 800.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
Helicity posted:Everyone, and I mean *everyone*, seems to love Portra 400 - but I never see anyone talk about 160 or 800. What's the low down on those speeds?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
Helicity posted:Everyone, and I mean *everyone*, seems to love Portra 400 - but I never see anyone talk about 160 or 800. What's the low down on those speeds? As someone who has shot all three (in medium format) extensively: Portra 160: Very fine grain indeed, greater resolution than 400. Slightly punchier palette, nicer gradation for some colors, but doesn't handle underexposure well at all. If you are face with a contrasty scene, overexpose it, which it usually handles fine with a slight loss of contrast. Can be hard to scan, as it captures a very great dynamic range indeed. 400 Compresses the scene more. Portra 400: The universal film. Personally I wouldn't like to shoot it much slower than 100-200, because I feel after that depending on other variables like flare, overall scene contrast etc. it will yield images which can get muddy. Grain at 200/400 is only a slight more visible than 160. It handles underexposure like a champ; 800 will basically not be noticeable, 1600 is fine and 3200 is certainly doable without a lab push. I have shot it at 6400 and 12800 as well. (Medium format) However depending on the level of underexposure it will start to push towards green/blue hues, due to how the layers of photosensitive materials are arranged. fluorescencts and "white" LED lighting exacerbate this. Portra 800: The oldest of the three. And it shows. Grainy but still okay at 800. It has a slightly different palette than the previous two. It doesn't like underexposure and will shift hues. When under exposed color saturation is also increased for primary hues. (CYMK not RGB! 400 doesn't do that.) However, I find that in certain situations it may give you about a stop more of grainy shadow detail than 400 underexposed. This however comes at the expense of overall resolution.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
VomitOnLino posted:Portra 400: I have shot it at 6400 and 12800 as well. (Medium format) Got examples of these? I'd be curious how it looked. 800 is indeed noticably grainy in 35mm if you push it even to 1600:  Untitled by Stabby McKnife, on Flickr and since we're talking crazy pushes, this is Delta 3200 pushed to 12800.  Untitled by Stabby McKnife, on Flickr I have a bad tendency to shoot nothing at box speed...
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
Helicity posted:Everyone, and I mean *everyone*, seems to love Portra 400 - but I never see anyone talk about 160 or 800. What's the low down on those speeds? Portra 800 is last generation technology and it shows. I'd rather just underexpose 400. I haven't noticed any practical difference between 160 and 400 at box speed other than, obviously, a stop and a half.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
Okay yeah, just chiming in on the I-Love-Ektar speak. stroll by Randuin, on Flickr I haven't really gotten the colors to perfect yet but this is some auto curving and it looks great to me
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
I like ektar, the colors are great, but you have to get your exposure perfect or it will look like poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
 Alley, Southwest by voodoorootbeer, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 04:19
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:I like ektar, the colors are great, but you have to get your exposure perfect or it will look like poo poo. Gotcha, so only real pros use ektar right? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:Gotcha, so only real pros use ektar right? The people who use ektar don't post here
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 05:58
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:The people who use ektar don't post here Good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
I spam this image a lot, but this is one of my favorite Ektar shots. Near sunset, lots of browns, err on the side of overexposure: 0018_19.jpg by Winston85, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
This is a crazy old image but Ektar looks pretty alright at night as well. Untitled by Dev Luns, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
Ektar is great; haters gonna hate. Eastgate by voodoorootbeer, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
You know what film I don't like much, Provia 400x, all I got was mud when I shot that. I think I've still got a roll in the fridge somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
Spedman posted:You know what film I don't like much, Provia 400x, all I got was mud when I shot that. I think I've still got a roll in the fridge somewhere. Provia 400x's only redeeming feature was being a slide film you could push to EI 1600, since most labs will on do 2 stops or less on E6 push processing. We just don't need that anymore with Portra 400 being baller and digital sensors owning ISO 3200 and up in color.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
Australian Antarctic Division Arts Fellowship is taking applications: https://www.antarctica.gov.au/art
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 08:03
|
|
|
Helicity posted:Everyone, and I mean *everyone*, seems to love Portra 400 - but I never see anyone talk about 160 or 800. What's the low down on those speeds? I've been shooting a lot of Portra 160 lately, as someone else mentioned it seems to be a lot less forgiving. If you underexpose it the grain gets pretty ugly and you miss the extra stop shooting hand held at the end of the day. Under good conditions I can't really notice a difference.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 11:18
|
|
|
Dumb question. You guys talk about shooting 400 speed at 200 or 800 and it being fine. If I was shooting Portra 400 at 200, would I need to do anything else? Is it not going to come out weirdly overexposed and blown out, or do I need to tell the lab I shot it at a different speed? Can I shoot a roll of 400 at 100-800 all over the place and just have it develop into properly exposed shots because film is magic?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
Huxley posted:Can I shoot a roll of 400 at 100-800 all over the place and just have it develop into properly exposed shots because film is magic?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
Huxley posted:Dumb question. You guys talk about shooting 400 speed at 200 or 800 and it being fine. If I was shooting Portra 400 at 200, would I need to do anything else? Is it not going to come out weirdly overexposed and blown out, or do I need to tell the lab I shot it at a different speed? Yes, Portra 400 is in fact magic. Yes you can shoot a roll of mixed ISO 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200 and have all pictures on the roll usable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
Sludge Tank posted:Australian Antarctic Division Arts Fellowship is taking applications: https://www.antarctica.gov.au/art AAD Arts posted:The Fellowship aims to foster understanding of the Antarctic environment and communicate the significance of Australia’s activities there through the work of people gifted in communicating through various media including (but not limited to) the visual arts, film-making, performance, writing, education, and music. Antarctica is awesome and I really want to go. This program is for non-scientists, I am a scientist and I'll figure out a different way to get there. Lots of you are artists, though, and should apply.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Yes, Portra 400 is in fact magic. Yes you can shoot a roll of mixed ISO 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200 and have all pictures on the roll usable. Someone should do this test.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 14:48 |
|
|
bobmarleysghost posted:Someone should do this test. http://www.twinlenslife.com/2010/12/its-our-favorite-time-of-light-new.html Near the bottom.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 20:55
|
|