|
bobmarleysghost posted:Someone should do this test.
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 22:57 |
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Did you cross-post this anywhere else? Given the list of signatory countries to the Antarctic Treaty and the Arts Fellowship program's mandate... Only posted in the dorkroom. I'm sure there's squillions of applicants, thought I'd let some of you talented film shooters have a chance should you choose.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:http://www.twinlenslife.com/2010/12/its-our-favorite-time-of-light-new.html Portra 400 is king. It's not like I didn't know that before, but every time I see a test it gets me excited.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:http://www.twinlenslife.com/2010/12/its-our-favorite-time-of-light-new.html I'm noobish as hell but how do you get a correctly exposed pic @ iso 12000 with a 400 film? Did he just set the meter to 12000 and shot away, got a really underexposed pic since he didn't push and brought the exposure back up in Lr?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 06:09
|
|
|
Grimarest posted:I'm noobish as hell but how do you get a correctly exposed pic @ iso 12000 with a 400 film? Did he just set the meter to 12000 and shot away, got a really underexposed pic since he didn't push and brought the exposure back up in Lr? I'm pretty sure that's just straight shot at 12800 and developed at 400. No lightroom trickery necessary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 09:46
|
|
|
The "lightroom trickery" would be using https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_qeZOWqchM to process it (you'd have a narrower band of color information) before taking it into any other program.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
Thegrul posted:I'm pretty sure that's just straight shot at 12800 and developed at 400. No lightroom trickery necessary. It still weirds me out that the shadows are that good. I bought two rolls today to test it out. Hail portra
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
Grimarest posted:Hail Satan
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 04:58
|
|
|
I've borrowed a 6x12 camera off a friend for the upcoming southern voyage. I have a bunch of velvia 50, 100 and provia. The 6x12 camera is built to be shot at infinity at f/16-f/22. Velvia 50 is going to be a bit slow to be shooting from the moving ship at those speeds... How well does it do pushed to 100? I have shitloads of 50 and not so much 100. On the note of the razzle, there was another member here that was asking about Dean saying they had an order with him or something and hadn't heard from him for a while. Can't remember who it was but I found out a few days ago that he sadly passed away a couple of weeks ago.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 09:18
|
|
|
Sludge Tank posted:I found out a few days ago that he sadly passed away a couple of weeks ago. That sucks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 10:31
|
|
|
Grimarest posted:It still weirds me out that the shadows are that good. I bought two rolls today to test it out. Yeah, after seeing that test I'm off to buy some, too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 11:26
|
|
|
I'm having a somewhat frustrating day developing film here. Rolls 5 & 6 - Ilford Delta 100 - are in the tank right now. Roll 1 & 2 - Ilford Pan F+ - came out very nicely. Rolls 3 & 4 - Adox CHS 25 - were a disaster. To start with, the film didn't want to go onto my nice wide-flange Patterson plastic reels, the first roll got crumpled and was sticking out of the spiral at about the halfway point of winding it on. I tried it on the other reel - they were both a bit damp from the previous round of developing - but it crumpled again at about 3/4. So I had the bright idea (not a bright idea) to switch to my Hawes stainless reels & tank. A bit of fumbling in the bathroom and I had both rolls on both reels and inside the Hawes. I'd spent some time looking up dev times and film handling; the Adox website for this film talks about temperatures and says not to use acidic stop bath, just water. I had what I thought was a decent plan for the process, and I started by rinsing the film in the tank. First slosh out was purple, second was blue, then in went the developer for 6 minutes. I'm using Ilfosol 3 at 1+14, which does not appear on the Massive Dev chart for that film. I find my film comes out a little on the low side for contrast, generally, so I though 6 minutes would be erring on the side of too-long, thus a bit higher contrast. None of that mattered. I rinsed for 10 minutes, added photoflo and waited another couple of minutes, then went to hang my film in the bathroom. The liquid that came off of the heavily crumpled rolls was blue, the rolls were a mess of film squished against film on the rolls, and basically it was a total failure caused by my inability to use those Hawes reels. I know other people love them, but I just can't do it right. Ugh. So I'm doing the next two rolls on the plastic because I'm trying to wash the taste of failure out of my mouth. So far, so good - and I'm leaning towards giving credit to Ilford for part of this. Ilford film is expensive, I think I paid around $7/roll for the Ilford but down near $4.50 for the Adox, and part of the difference is the quality of the plastic film used; I think the Ilford stuff is thicker and less prone to popping out of the plastic reels during spool-on. Given that a bad spool-on basically destroys the roll for me, I think I'll pay a couple of extra bucks to avoid this catastrophic failure mode. Also, a pre-develop rinse of the Ilford films results in clear water, not the bright colours of other films.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Also, a pre-develop rinse of the Ilford films results in clear water, not the bright colours of other films. The color that comes out is (usually) antihalation coating and it's totally fine and not something you need to be worried about. Also, why are you doing a prewash at all? It's totally unnecessary and, in fact, contraindicated for some film/developer combinations.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
Anyone play with those tungston films? They look fairly interesting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
/\/\/\ I am also interested in responses to this - I've got a roll of E-6 160T I need to shoot. I was planning to put it in my P&S and shoot a day or two of just indoors stuff.MrBlandAverage posted:The color that comes out is (usually) antihalation coating and it's totally fine and not something you need to be worried about. Also, why are you doing a prewash at all? It's totally unnecessary and, in fact, contraindicated for some film/developer combinations. Pre-wash is not mentioned in the instructions I have for my tank & reels, but the description for the Adox film says 120 and sheet should be prewashed, but nothing about 135 (which is what I was doing).  In any case, none of the details that normally matter for developing discussions were of any importance at all, given my terribly clumsy spool-on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
I had the same problems with some Adox 100 speed in 120 format the other week, it took at least 25min to get the drat thing on the reel. I very much think the plastic substrate Adox use is all to blame, thin and very bendable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
It's things like this that make me consider the idea of buying Adox and Foma and Shanghai film to be false economy. All of my B&W is either Ilford or Fuji Acros and I've never had any problems with development.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
Yeah Foma is loving garbage but for the life of me every time I think I have spooling any film in any format onto my wide-flange reels down, they find a new way to make my life difficult.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
I've only really had a problem with Foma and Adox's 120 films, and their ability to bend and crumple when loading onto reels. Foma's 35mm and 4x5 have been pretty solid for me, just be careful when they're wet and they're all good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
Spedman posted:I've only really had a problem with Foma and Adox's 120 films, and their ability to bend and crumple when loading onto reels. Foma's 35mm and 4x5 have been pretty solid for me, just be careful when they're wet and they're all good. I especially don't know why anyone would shoot Foma in 4x5. The emulsion is delicate as hell, and when one shoots at f/22 and beyond, needing a full stop of reciprocity correction by the time you hit 1s metered is an awful hindrance. It's not worth the aggravation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
I've never had problems with damaging the emulsion with 4x5 Foma, I've been using 8x10 X-ray film with double sided emulsion and had no problems with that either, using a HUGE changing bag probably helps.  I don't think I've ever tried long exposures with Foma, I like pushing it like you would push Tri-X, and it always comes out with really cool results, and a fairly thick negative to boot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 05:49
|
|
|
I have tried a couple of long exposures with foma. Have been pleasantly surprised. I've only shot foma sheet on 8x10 and have gotten bad scratching from the cl81, I now have some 8x10 ilford so will be able to see how the scratching compares between the two emulsions on this processing reel. But I hate hate hate hate loading 120 in plastic reels to the point where it puts me off wanting to shoot 120 at all because I dread developing them. Sludge Tank fucked around with this message at 07:33 on Dec 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 07:29
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:I especially don't know why anyone would shoot Foma in 4x5. The emulsion is delicate as hell, and when one shoots at f/22 and beyond, needing a full stop of reciprocity correction by the time you hit 1s metered is an awful hindrance. It's not worth the aggravation. I like that it's an old school, silver heavy, thick emulsion film and gives an interesting and decidedly different look from HP5. The 200 speed is at least, I picked up a box of the 100 speed stuff last time I put in an order just to have some super slow film to mess with, because you know that poo poo ain't ISO 100.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 08:15
|
|
|
Ive used Fomapan 400 a bit in 35mm, it's not bad not great. I am starting to realise that cheap film really is a false economy (at least in 35mm and MF). Say you pay $10 for a roll of 36 exposures and $6 for developing it costs you 44 cents a shot. By comparison the $5 roll of film still costs you 30 cents a shot after developing. With medium format it makes no sense to use cheaper B&W films when Tri-x is $5 a roll.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 08:28
|
|
|
deaders posted:Ive used Fomapan 400 a bit in 35mm, it's not bad not great. I am starting to realise that cheap film really is a false economy (at least in 35mm and MF). Say you pay $10 for a roll of 36 exposures and $6 for developing it costs you 44 cents a shot. By comparison the $5 roll of film still costs you 30 cents a shot after developing. How do you pay $6 for developing a roll of B&W film. Chemicals don't cost that much. Surely you can't be having a lab doing your film.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 08:49
|
|
|
Yeah I don't do my own colour dev, half an hour a free time to me is worth more than $6 and I already spend enough time each week developing black and white, not to mention scanning.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 08:57
|
|
|
Part of the fun of film: when you are scanning and the first three strips are pure poo poo then with 4 frames left some good ones pop up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 13:14
|
|
|
I know what you mean, a lot of the times I'll be scanning a roll and just waiting for that one to come up that was the keeper from that day 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 13:42
|
|
|
Forgot to post this after I got it back from Eric Hendrickson. He did an incredible job on it. Externally and internally it was a complete disaster. Now it looks fantastic and works like a dream. Can't recommend the guy enough now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
I know most people are developing their own black and white film but is anyone making prints or doing other darkroom techniques? I know near the start of the medium/large format thread there was a few people posting tintypes and other stuff. Here's the fruits of spending a couple of hours a week in a darkroom (I posted a scan of the negative in the thread already), good thing I've got free use of the materials so I'm not wasting my own money on my lovely prints.  There's only glossy paper, I've heard people go on about how much better matte fibre papers are but I guess that's not a big deal since I'm still in the "screwing around" phase.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
There used to be a wet printing thread, but the fell off into the archives, I have no idea if it can be resurrected.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
I've been assembling a darkroom setup for the past few months. I have everything I need right now I think, except for photo paper and the chemicals. I think I just need the multigrade developer, where as I can re-use the stop and fixer I already have from B&W film processing. I have an enlarger with a working bulb, 35mm holder, easel, trays, tongs, contrast filters, safelight, and other miscellaneous stuff. I need to get motivated and actually try it out BANME.sh fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Dec 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
Really cool. I have access to my university darkroom and we have free ilford multigrade pearl & matte paper. My pics are too poo poo though and just been messing with grade filters. You dodged the sky right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
I burned in the sky and the background a bit, it was an overcast day so there's no detail in the sky is all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:I've been assembling a darkroom setup for the past few months. I have everything I need right now I think, except for photo paper and the chemicals. I think I just need the multigrade developer, where as I can re-use the stop and fixer I already have from B&W film processing. I have an enlarger with a working bulb, 35mm holder, easel, trays, tongs, contrast filters, safelight, and other miscellaneous stuff. You don't want to use the same fixer for film and paper, thought. Don't forget a thermometer, you can't do poo poo without one (as I've recently discovered since I broke mine). I'd be up to colaborate with a new thread, been doing some learning and experimenting with wet printing...
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
Primo Itch posted:You don't want to use the same fixer for film and paper, thought. Don't forget a thermometer, you can't do poo poo without one (as I've recently discovered since I broke mine). Why wouldn't I want to use the same fixer? I don't mean reusing the same mixed batch that I do for film. I mean making a new batch using the same stock I already own. I also have a few thermometers, yeah. I would post in a new wet printing thread and it might inspire me to actually try all of this out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:Why wouldn't I want to use the same fixer? I don't mean reusing the same mixed batch that I do for film. I mean making a new batch using the same stock I already own. What you said. I meant it as don't use the same mixed solution for both film and paper... You can use the same type of fixer, just don't use from the same bottle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:Why wouldn't I want to use the same fixer? I don't mean reusing the same mixed batch that I do for film. I mean making a new batch using the same stock I already own. Yes something about paper emulsions leaving stuff in the fixer that's bad for film, and vice versa. Also sometimes you use fixer at twice the dilution for paper, probably mostly for the additional control, and I think it might make washing easier.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
What do you need to control when you're fixing paper? I thought it didn't matter so long as you didn't under-do it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 22:57 |
|
|
crap nerd posted:What do you need to control when you're fixing paper? I thought it didn't matter so long as you didn't under-do it. Overdoing it means very long wash times since you don't want any fixer left over in paper as it will degrade everything over time... Primo Itch fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Dec 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 23:32
|
|