|
polyfractal posted:Did you use this stuff, or something else? I have some dark, black velvet in a closet leftover from an old project...I'm wondering if I can just use that instead? Yup, used the proto star stuff. It was fairly cheap for what got sent to me, have enough to flock many more cameras. Not sure what results you'd get from using velvet.
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 23:12 |
|
|
unpacked robinhood posted:What's a decent place to order A4 negative sleeves with binder holes in europe ? Ebay doesn't seem to have lots of choices The alternative is a photo/negative storage box that will be whatever specific size based on fitting however many pieces of cut film (4 frames? 5 frames?) into some particular size. It won't be A4, it won't be 8.5 x 11 or 8 x 10, but it will be a good place to put your stuff so it doesn't get damaged. Probably fairly expensive, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
I'm using an Ikea KASSETT box to store my negative file sleeves. They have a size that fits very well, I think it's the 27x35 cm one. It also fits 8x10" and 24x30 cm prints neatly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
I use a big PrintFile binder and one of these slipcases. They hold a lot but I think I might need another one. It's well-built and archival, a bit spendy though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
Doing a day trip to NYC to hit up B&H (good excuse, right?) to pick up a bunch of film for my trip next week. I expect I'll come out with more than film.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Would there be any actual difference in the negatives if I developed my film at Costco instead of my local photo lab? I figure I could save some time and money on the scans since it's much cheaper there, and if I really have a problem, I can rescan it myself on my V600. But I don't really want to risk permanently hosed up negatives.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
I always got a very thin scratch along the entire roll, most likely because of the processing machines. I keep going back because $1.50 processing for a roll no matter the size can't be beat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
Chill Callahan posted:I always got a very thin scratch along the entire roll, most likely because of the processing machines. I keep going back because $1.50 processing for a roll no matter the size can't be beat. I got scratches at my local CVS minilab too, I pretty much assume it's the cost of doing business with any non-pro lab. If anything I'd guess Costco would be better than a regular drugstore.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
All the Costco's I've checked only do prints or scanning, none of then actually develop film anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 12:36
|
|
|
Just tried Rodinal stand dev the other day. It's awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
polyfractal posted:Just tried Rodinal stand dev the other day. It's awesome. High-fiving emoticon for stand dev. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
Got back the roll I had developed at Costco. I decided to just go ahead and do the scans myself as well so I could have a point of comparison. The Costco scans have a straight-ish line (but not perfectly straight) running across the top of all of them, which isn't there in my scans, so it's not damaged negatives. They don't seem to be using digital ICE (or they're really bad about cleaning off dust) because a couple of them have pretty prominent bits in the way. The colors and stuff are mostly satisfactory on most of Costco's scans, though a few (generally the ones with heavy shadowing) are significantly different from my own. The main thing I'm noticing is that Costco's scans are way sharper than what my Epson V600 is turning out. Even when taking oversharpening into consideration, and even after I scan with no sharpening and then sharpen in Lightroom later, the Costco ones simply seem to have more detail. Starting to feel some scanner envy here  Though I should probably look into those BetterScanning holders, I suppose.I wish scanning weren't so boring and time-consuming. I'd totally just go with my photo lab's scans, but for some reason a disc of TIFF scans costs 18 loving dollars when dev-only is like $5.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 09:51
|
|
|
Get a Pakon 135+. I can scan a roll of 36 with digital ICE @ 2000x3000 (real resolution, not interpolated) in like 5 minutes, unattended. The colors are gorgeous too, especially the skin tones. The prices have risen from $250 to $350 recently though, I think because of a Steve Huffman article on it. I would advise against it if you shoot a lot of slides or B&W that need careful tone post-processing. The 135 has a fixed blue filter on the sensor so you lose some dynamic range if it isn't color negatives. Also it uses DX coding to split frames, so it chokes with film without the coding.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
Chill Callahan posted:Get a Pakon 135+. I can scan a roll of 36 with digital ICE @ 2000x3000 (real resolution, not interpolated) in like 5 minutes, unattended. The colors are gorgeous too, especially the skin tones. The prices have risen from $250 to $350 recently though, I think because of a Steve Huffman article on it. I would advise against it if you shoot a lot of slides or B&W that need careful tone post-processing. The 135 has a fixed blue filter on the sensor so you lose some dynamic range if it isn't color negatives. Also it uses DX coding to split frames, so it chokes with film without the coding. I think I really need to get one of these. The quality of the scans for the MF negs on the v600 are great, but the 35mm scans aren't good at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
Flatbeds are pretty terrible for critical 35mm scanning, even a top-end one like a V700. Film flatness has been a huge problem for me, even if you discount the relatively limited resolution. If I were shooting a lot more 35mm, I would search out a dedicated 35mm scanner like this guy, but it's really just more reason to shoot 120.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
TheJeffers posted:Film flatness has been a huge problem for me, even if you discount the relatively limited resolution. I have one of those betterscanning thingies and that really fixed the flatness issue for me (especially for 120...it's a world of difference). It doesn't fix the fact that the resolution for 35mm is pretty bad. Anyone have any experience with the Plustek scanners? They look like they might do a pretty good job for 35mm.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
I also thought the resolution of 35mm was really lovely until I saw the Pakon F135 in action.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:I also thought the resolution of 35mm was really lovely until I saw the Pakon F135 in action. I should be more clear: flatbed scanners don't have enough optical resolution to pull all of the detail out of 35mm negs. Not knocking 35mm as a format (much.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
Chill Callahan posted:Get a Pakon 135+. I can scan a roll of 36 with digital ICE @ 2000x3000 (real resolution, not interpolated) in like 5 minutes, unattended. The colors are gorgeous too, especially the skin tones. The prices have risen from $250 to $350 recently though, I think because of a Steve Huffman article on it. I would advise against it if you shoot a lot of slides or B&W that need careful tone post-processing. The 135 has a fixed blue filter on the sensor so you lose some dynamic range if it isn't color negatives. Also it uses DX coding to split frames, so it chokes with film without the coding. How well do those work with film that's already been cut into strips? Would have been perfect for digitizing all my family's old negs (bit late now), but maybe someday.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:How well do those work with film that's already been cut into strips? Would have been perfect for digitizing all my family's old negs (bit late now), but maybe someday. It works with strips as small as two I think. You just have to feed them in one after another. It's incredibly nice not worrying about mounting curly negatives, etc. cause you can just feed whatever into the film track and the Pakon will run it through.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
If we're talking about scanning: Any tips on how to clean a slide duplicator glass? I've tried cotton swabs with water and dry lens cleaning tissue but it's stil dirty as gently caress and leaves A LOT of spots/dirt that I have to spot on PS. Maybe some rubbing alcohol? It won't harm the matte glass right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
You get some lens cleaning paper and then do the drag method with some clean solvents, we do this with lenses in our optics lab: http://www.thorlabs.hk/tutorials.cfm?tabID=26066 (Drop and drag)
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 04:03
|
|
|
 Not entirely sure why i kept buying development tanks, but at least it's a collection :v (these are being put up for sale locally)
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
I just got a small changing bag, and it seems that I just cant use it for loading my 120 film into the dev tank. Since its a light proof contraption it seems to trap all the humidity and moisture in that micro environment as well, and my rolls become soft and flimsy if I dont do it quickly enough. drat my plastic reels and this drat contraption! It took me about 30 minutes to spool one last night and it still didnt come onto the reel correctly. Also one of the reels seem to kink my film for no appearent reason... sigh... Are metal reels much better?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
 Untitled by Dev Luns, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 04:09
|
|
|
I pushed some HP5+ to 1600 in T-Max developer recently, and I think I kind of like it ...  
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 04:09
|
|
|
user ansel autism helped me develop my first roll of 35mm ilford delta 100 the other day, also scanned them because he's the best hallway by mydoski, on Flickrnothin' too interesting photo wise, just nice to experience the whole life cycle of negatives for once
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
Putrid Grin posted:Are metal reels much better? I absolutely suck at this, and I've ruined every roll I've tried to put through metal reels.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
Yep while metal reels avoid the damp film glue effect, they require a lot more technique to load. 135 reels usually have something in the center that grips in the sprocket holes, while 120 reels have a spring to hold the film end in place. With 135, if you have the leader hanging out of the cassette you can snap it onto the reel in light before rolling the rest of the film up, but with 120 you need to be able to fasten the film in the dark. Plastic reels are much easier to load. The only advantage steel reels have over plastic is the faster recycling time since you don't have to dry them completely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
Can anyone talk me through (or down from) picking up a Jobo tank for manual C-41 processing? I'm thinking that if I can get by with 270ml of chems for 2x 120 rolls or 6 sheets of 4x5, I'd be able to stretch a liquid Tetenal kit out to three solutions, so it could last longer as concentrate. (also less fixer, less chems for B&W, etc) Am I an idiot for even considering manual rotation? I've heard of using Unicolor motor rollers, but I have very limited space for development already, and a manual base would be ideal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 12:29
|
|
|
rohan posted:Can anyone talk me through (or down from) picking up a Jobo tank for manual C-41 processing? I'm thinking that if I can get by with 270ml of chems for 2x 120 rolls or 6 sheets of 4x5, I'd be able to stretch a liquid Tetenal kit out to three solutions, so it could last longer as concentrate. (also less fixer, less chems for B&W, etc) Is it much cheaper than send out? I was going to start doing my own color then discovered that after buying the chemicals I was only saving about a dollar per a 120 roll.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 14:06
|
|
|
There's only one place near me that does C-41 4x5, and they charge AU$6 a sheet. Even if I used each 270ml batch as a one-shot (which I might have to?), I'm looking at $44 for enough chems to do 18 sheets myself, vs $108 to have them done in a lab. 120 is also cheaper but not by as much.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
If you see yourself shooting lots of 4x5 in the future and not moving to 8x10 I'd say get the Jobo, or maybe look at the MOD54 Patterson tank insert.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
Spedman posted:If you see yourself shooting lots of 4x5 in the future and not moving to 8x10 I'd say get the Jobo, or maybe look at the MOD54 Patterson tank insert.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
rohan posted:Can anyone talk me through (or down from) picking up a Jobo tank for manual C-41 processing? I'm thinking that if I can get by with 270ml of chems for 2x 120 rolls or 6 sheets of 4x5, I'd be able to stretch a liquid Tetenal kit out to three solutions, so it could last longer as concentrate. (also less fixer, less chems for B&W, etc) I have a unicolor roller base, it's not huge. If you have space for a manual roller you have space for a unicolor. 8th-snype fucked around with this message at 01:15 on Jan 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
Tri-X might be just about the most miserable bullshit that is theoretically possible to load onto a reel. What a loving nonsense way to spend the better part of an hour.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
Uhhhh Tri-X has been a wildly popular standby for 50 years
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
Can't be as miserable as foma. At least tri-x is not the cheapest thinnest plastic film in the world.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
mulls posted:Uhhhh Tri-X has been a wildly popular standby for 50 years I think he voodoorootbeer means that loading it is finicky and hard, not that it's a bad film in and of itself. Personally, I can load a roll of Tri-X onto one of my Hewes reels and into the tank in about five minutes (faster for 120), so I don't know.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 23:12 |
|
|
Yeah, it's the loading. I guess in TYOOL 2015 I have to resort to unrolling a roll of 120 and re-winding it backwards on the spool before I put it on the reel like some kind of goddamned Neanderthal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 03:34
|
|