|
Helicity posted:I had problems framing things with the GW690 so I sold it to help finance a different MF system. Yuuup. I tend to approach shooting medium format very differently than 35mm and while the aspect ratio works fantastic for me in the latter, it's almost always too wide for MF and I end up having to crop everything back after I scan. I find with MF, I'm not necessarily trying to fill a frame so much as convey what I'm shooting in a more deliberate manner and the lack of vertical tension almost always kills it. burzum karaoke fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Jan 21, 2015 |
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 23:13 |
|
|
try it with a lime posted:Yuuup. I tend to approach shooting medium format very differently than 35mm and while the aspect ratio works fantastic for me in the latter, it's almost always too wide for MF and I end up having to crop everything back after I scan. I find with MF, I'm not necessarily trying to fill a frame so much as convey what I'm shooting in a more deliberate manner and the lack of vertical tension almost always kills it. Pshaw! Heresy....      Is it the most easy camera to frame with? No. Handholding slow speeds isn't that easy either... Do you need super sperg level framing to make good pictures? Again - I think -- no. Just ask all the other rangefinder photogs of old...
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 02:29
|
|
|
It's not an issue of the rangefinder. I shoot with an M6 almost exclusively and the GW690 is essentially just a larger meterless version. For me, it's very much a problem of the aspect ratio working against how I want to approach a scene, not the act of framing itself. Also, I really like the first two shots you posted a whole lot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
I'm fairly positive that I will only be shooting squares this year. Untitled by Dev Luns, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
try it with a lime posted:It's not an issue of the rangefinder. I shoot with an M6 almost exclusively and the GW690 is essentially just a larger meterless version. For me, it's very much a problem of the aspect ratio working against how I want to approach a scene, not the act of framing itself. Ah, that makes a lot more sense to me now - and I agree. Because 6x9 is kind of 'painful' for me, too. I'm definitely working harder to get good results -- and get less of them - compared to 6x6 or even 6x7, which is harder but not 6x9 hard. At the same time -- I feel that if I can somehow get good at using 6x9 it will lift my other photography as well. So I keep going at it. Also all that jazz about leaving your safe spaces and so on ... And yeah I like the first two the most as well. The last being a runner-up. The first one is one of those pictures, which despite their technical imperfections -- or especially because of them(?) seems to work very well for me. This kind pictures represents the intrigue and mystery of photography for me, something that makes it okay to step out of my aforementioned safe spaces.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
They're fast and loose and pretty spooky. I think it definitely gives them an edge over the others.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 04:59
|
|
|
I really think the best shots I've taken with the gw690 are in portrait orientation, is that something you guys have played with much?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 06:30
|
|
|
Scanning some of my grandpa's Kodachrome slides: Florida 1979 by Winston85, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 07:14
|
|
|
Spedman posted:I really think the best shots I've taken with the gw690 are in portrait orientation, is that something you guys have played with much? To be honest, not particularly much, no. I guess because my main shooting style was 1x1 aspect for so long, different orientations is not something that's intrinsic to my shooting. Also, Mightaswell, that shot owns owns owns. Though maybe you should spot the end of the tunnel, it's especially dusty.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 07:20
|
|
|
I use Ilfotec HC as my B&W developer and for some reason I always thought the highest dilution I could use was 1+31, but I got the massive dev chart iphone app and it tells me I can do 1+47 for certain films. I tried it with some HP5+ tonight and the grain is way way noticeably reduced. I was always kind of disappointed with how grainy HP5 came out, but this is really nice.Mightaswell posted:Scanning some of my grandpa's Kodachrome slides: 
BANME.sh fucked around with this message at 07:37 on Jan 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 07:30
|
|
|
I just developed a few rolls of Acros 100 I shot on my vacation, and I think I am in love... Always been a Kodak Tri-X man, but I think I might switch... unless I shoot in the dark.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 07:52
|
|
|
Putrid Grin posted:I just developed a few rolls of Acros 100 I shot on my vacation, and I think I am in love...
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 08:34
|
|
|
pootiebigwang posted:I'm fairly positive that I will only be shooting squares this year. That guy looks pretty hip to me
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 13:38
|
|
|
VomitOnLino posted:To be honest, not particularly much, no. I guess because my main shooting style was 1x1 aspect for so long, different orientations is not something that's intrinsic to my shooting. I really like other peoples use of the square format but I always feel like I end up with too much empty space at the top and bottom of the frame myself. Also, for everyone talking of going from Dublin to Iceland, you can get ~€120 return flights to Morocco with Ryan Air where I got by on <€20 a day while travelling about the place if you're looking for cheap holidays to cool places.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 14:00
|
|
|
rohan posted:Acros is my go-to long exposure film since its reciprocity failure is amazing (nothing till 2' metered). If you're handholding or pushing I can see Tri-X's appeal, though. Just placed an order for some Acros and can't wait to use it. I do a ton of long exposure work and Tri-X has a ridiculous reciprocity failure, up to 3 minutes off a 30" exposure, so it will be nice to see how this stuff works for me. deaders posted:That guy looks pretty hip to me https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzN3qO-qc8U
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
Scored an olympus AX yesterday for a whopping 5 bucks. The light seal is gone so I'm ordering a kit off eBay. Any other issues I should look out for? It meters and seems to take pictures just fine, but the battery check thing doesn't emit a continuous beep as the manual says it should. Also I need a strap for it, anyone have a spare?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
XAs go in jacket pockets and glove compartments.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
Frobbe posted:Also I need a strap for it, anyone have a spare? Use a shoelace.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
I used a shoelace for a Yashica once... Now it has big dent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
Use paracord you loving goofs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
pootiebigwang posted:I'm fairly positive that I will only be shooting squares this year. This is fantastic. deaders posted:That guy looks pretty hip to me So is this 
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:I use Ilfotec HC as my B&W developer and for some reason I always thought the highest dilution I could use was 1+31, but I got the massive dev chart iphone app and it tells me I can do 1+47 for certain films. I tried it with some HP5+ tonight and the grain is way way noticeably reduced. I was always kind of disappointed with how grainy HP5 came out, but this is really nice. Isn't Ilfotec HC supposed to be more or less equivalent to HC-110? I was under the impression that for solvent developers, higher dilutions lead to more grain because there's less developer to take solvent action. Of course that could be complete bullshit... I can't find consistent information on different developers, down to some people disagreeing as to whether HC is solvent or non solvent. I fully admit that I only barely know what I'm talking about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
voodoorootbeer posted:Isn't Ilfotec HC supposed to be more or less equivalent to HC-110? I was under the impression that for solvent developers, higher dilutions lead to more grain because there's less developer to take solvent action. Of course that could be complete bullshit... I can't find consistent information on different developers, down to some people disagreeing as to whether HC is solvent or non solvent. I fully admit that I only barely know what I'm talking about. I heard the exact opposite way back when I was researching, trying to figure out what I was doing. So I don't know haha But I know I like the results so 
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
Question for C-41 Development, how should I regulate the water temperature? I'm looking into a immersion heater but dropping over $100 on something that i will likely use for film and maybe strange cooking methods seems kinda excessive if i can do it for cheaper.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
I just use a big sink of water at around 45C and have the chems sit in there until they hit the right temp, easy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
Spedman posted:I just use a big sink of water at around 45C and have the chems sit in there until they hit the right temp, easy. what about the temp dropping while your developing?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
If you're using a Paterson tank put that back in the sink between agitations. The temperature won't drop very far at the standard process time of 3.30. I normally dev at 30 degrees to give myself a little more leeway and even in 8 minutes I never get more than a half degree drop. It's only the developer where the temperature is critical, blix step etc. are less sensitive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
The dev step is the only critical temperate step, the others have +\- 2 or 3C, so once you hit the 39C (or whatever) start processing, and between inversions keep the tank in the sink with the warm water to keep the temp stable. As the dev step is only a few minutes, keeping the tank warm in the bath does the trick. I really think building a temperature stable setup for C41 is overkill, when it's only the first and shortest step of the process that the temperature must be spot on. You can do C41 at room temp, it just takes a while.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
I got a giant pot, probably 5 gallons or more, and I fill it with very hot water to create a bath. Then I put my dev bottle and the Paterson tank filled with pre-soak water, and blix bottle in the pot and monitor the temp of the dev until it reaches 101 or 101.5, and I take everything out. This only takes a few minutes. The temp usually climbs to the required 102 outside the bath. I pour out the pre-soak water from the tank, and pour in the dev. In the 3:30 it takes for the dev step, the temp doesn't drop more than 0.5 degrees because the tank is already at 102 at this point. Like others have said the blix and stabilizer steps are way less temperature dependent and can be several degrees lower so letting them sit on the counter while you do the dev step is just fine. I've done ~20 rolls this way and they all came out perfect.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
Here's a bunch of shots from a bunch of rolls I developed yesterday, all shot of my new to me F100 (also dumped in the landscape thread) Port Melbourne by mr_student, on Flickr  Port Melbourne by mr_student, on Flickr  Port Melbourne by mr_student, on Flickr  Port Melbourne by mr_student, on Flickr  Port Melbourne by mr_student, on Flickr  North Melbourne by mr_student, on Flickr  Port Melbourne by mr_student, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 01:37
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:If you're using a Paterson tank put that back in the sink between agitations. The temperature won't drop very far at the standard process time of 3.30. I normally dev at 30 degrees to give myself a little more leeway and even in 8 minutes I never get more than a half degree drop. It's only the developer where the temperature is critical, blix step etc. are less sensitive. Spedman posted:The dev step is the only critical temperate step, the others have +\- 2 or 3C, so once you hit the 39C (or whatever) start processing, and between inversions keep the tank in the sink with the warm water to keep the temp stable. As the dev step is only a few minutes, keeping the tank warm in the bath does the trick. BANME.sh posted:I got a giant pot, probably 5 gallons or more, and I fill it with very hot water to create a bath. Then I put my dev bottle and the Paterson tank filled with pre-soak water, and blix bottle in the pot and monitor the temp of the dev until it reaches 101 or 101.5, and I take everything out. This only takes a few minutes. The temp usually climbs to the required 102 outside the bath. I pour out the pre-soak water from the tank, and pour in the dev. In the 3:30 it takes for the dev step, the temp doesn't drop more than 0.5 degrees because the tank is already at 102 at this point. Like others have said the blix and stabilizer steps are way less temperature dependent and can be several degrees lower so letting them sit on the counter while you do the dev step is just fine. I've done ~20 rolls this way and they all came out perfect. Ah ok I was under the impression that being more than one or two degrees off would ruin the whole process, My plan is to do a weekend of developing madness so just refresh the water-bath between batches and i should be ok?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
Found an Instamatic 154 and an unopened box of Kodak Kodacolor II, C110-20, ASA 100, expiration 1979. Kept in a dark cupboard since the 70's. There's really, really no hope for this, is there? It's gonna be nothing but dust when I open it up, I'm sure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
jackpot posted:Found an Instamatic 154 and an unopened box of Kodak Kodacolor II, C110-20, ASA 100, expiration 1979. Kept in a dark cupboard since the 70's. There's really, really no hope for this, is there? It's gonna be nothing but dust when I open it up, I'm sure. Only one way to find out! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
Trying something new. _DSC7982-Edit by Stingray of Doom, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 05:06
|
|
|
jackpot posted:Found an Instamatic 154 and an unopened box of Kodak Kodacolor II, C110-20, ASA 100, expiration 1979. Kept in a dark cupboard since the 70's. There's really, really no hope for this, is there? It's gonna be nothing but dust when I open it up, I'm sure. DJExile posted:Only one way to find out! Yeah, just load that poo poo and shoot. This roll of film was left in a crumbling house on the banks of the Youghiogheny River for a couple decades before I shot it (in a camera from the same house) and I got usable results. Yeah, obviously C41 is different than b&w but you can still stand dev in Rodinal if you're worried. Putrid Grin posted:Trying something new. voodoorootbeer fucked around with this message at 06:31 on Jan 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 06:29
|
|
|
try it with a lime posted:Yuuup. I tend to approach shooting medium format very differently than 35mm and while the aspect ratio works fantastic for me in the latter, it's almost always too wide for MF and I end up having to crop everything back after I scan. I find with MF, I'm not necessarily trying to fill a frame so much as convey what I'm shooting in a more deliberate manner and the lack of vertical tension almost always kills it. That's fully a factor of your shooting - 24x36 is the same as 60x90, more or less. At that point, it's all down to field of view and format depth-of-field. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 06:42 on Jan 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
Ezekiel_980 posted:Ah ok I was under the impression that being more than one or two degrees off would ruin the whole process, My plan is to do a weekend of developing madness so just refresh the water-bath between batches and i should be ok? Absolutely not. You can get away with absurd bullshit if you're remotely close. I guarantee Rodinal 1:100 for 60 minutes will produce usable results if you exposed normally. 1:30 for +1/2, 2h for +2.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 06:41
|
|
|
voodoorootbeer posted:
You might be right. I was working on it on an uncalibrated display, and now that I am looking at it on my workstation it could use a bit of global bump. I wanted it to be moody but not muddy. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 06:51
|
|
|
jackpot posted:Found an Instamatic 154 and an unopened box of Kodak Kodacolor II, C110-20, ASA 100, expiration 1979. Kept in a dark cupboard since the 70's. There's really, really no hope for this, is there? It's gonna be nothing but dust when I open it up, I'm sure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 23:13 |
|
|
Went ahead and did some black and white today, noticed these dark edges on the last two rolls i did, and only at the end i l first loaded into the reel. any ideas what might cause this? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 23:15
|
|