|
voodoorootbeer posted:split tonin like it's 1849 That is loving great. Really good motivation to get my poo poo in order so I can get back into it, my contact printing frame stares at me from the kitchen table everyday unused.
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 00:06 |
|
|
Somebody make an alternative printing thread already, please.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:Somebody make an alternative printing thread already, please. And bring back the wet printing thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
In other news, I got a new toy today 
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
I really want to try contact printing now
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
I'm quite new to this film thing, I've shot a roll thru my camera, it was Ilford something in ISO 100 and I was really happy with the results, but most of the pictures were bit shaken, so I'm looking for faster film. I can either get 1) 5 pcs of Ilford HP5+ 400 which apparently can be pushed bit higher (like 800 or 1600, I have a local lab that still does things properly) and I have shot something from the company and I liked it a lot 2) 10 pcs of Tri x Pan 400 which looks nice on the Flickr photostream thing, but I have no experience with it or the company so I'm kinda hesitant on it Which one to go for? Both cost the same sort of money.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
Spedman posted:That is loving great. Thanks! Honestly this is really the direction I'm being pushed in right now because the process lets me divide up my time investment into smaller manageable chunks as I continue to experiment and record data (as opposed to scouting locations and wandering around neighborhoods for hours at a time for my coal town project). I'll probably add darkroom printing to my repertoire once I have a little more free time in a few years. Having a newborn and a two year old means finding ways to make art on somebody else's schedule. Kivi posted:Which one to go for? Both cost the same sort of money. I'd go with HP5 because I find Tri-x to be a pain in the rear end to spool and scan. No idea why it has to be so curly. voodoorootbeer fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Feb 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
voodoorootbeer posted:
What's up, newborn and two year old buddy. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 00:46
|
|
|
HP5 is Tri-X Pepsi. They're pretty interchangeable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:What's up, newborn and two year old buddy. What's the word, 2.5 year old and 3 month old, both currently in their beds yelling at me. For content: Nearly every picture I've ever loved have been of my girls and shot on Portra. Huxley fucked around with this message at 01:52 on Feb 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
I gave up and now I just buy gear.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
My 2 year old is such a handful it caused me to take a break from anything I enjoy. Still haven't run a roll through my 500C/M that I've had for a few weeks  Also that black Canon is sexy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
I haven't shot any Tri-X yet because I've been really happy with HP5. That said, I just got a brick of Arista 400 (which supposedly is actually Tri-X) that I'm going to use.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:What's up, newborn and two year old buddy. Gonna change my name to Sam-I-Fuckin-Am is what's up. Don't tell me you don't like bacon (or meatballs or bananas or cheese ad infinitum) you are two and you are a terrible bullshit artist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
Understanding posted:a package of pictorico transparencies is only $21 at 8.5"x11", and even then, you'll probably get good results using less expensive kinds. Would you mind sharing the method used to find the tone curve? I have a huge pack of 13x19 transparencies that I'm dying to make contact prints with and that would be incredibly useful to do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 04:05
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:Would you mind sharing the method used to find the tone curve? I have a huge pack of 13x19 transparencies that I'm dying to make contact prints with and that would be incredibly useful to do. I'm looking over a pdf my professor made. Tony Gonzalez posted:Before I began printing out digital negatives, I first created a gray scale with wedges of varying percentages of black ink (from 2% to 100%) with the Epson 1400 printer on Pictorico OHP Premium Transparency Film. With the X-‐Rite Densitometer Model 331C, I measured each wedge to come up with a numerical value for the different percentages of black ink. Using the Densitometer, I also measured the eight steps on Stouffer 21-‐Step Transparent Guide that the Gum Bichromate process can print (from #2-‐#9) and came up with a numerical value for each step. Using that information, I identified the percentages of black ink that come close to steps #2-‐#9 on Stouffer 21-‐ Step Sensitivity guide (give or take .02) and created a gray scale with ink that was the equivalent to the gray scale with film. yes, he did all that. But he's trying to get a real precise method of printing. For our purposes, the first step of the 2-100% values as a contact print could work to make a sensible curve to input to photoshop.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 05:02
|
|
|
awwww yiss new glass because gently caress yes and new winder because it was cheap and gently caress it why not   135mm f/2.8 and a badass winder, both found on KEH, dig it 
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
Annnnnnnd the lens has to go back.  It's in gorgeous shape but it seems to be missing a spring or lever or something. One of the buttons you squeeze to attach/detach the lens from the body seems to have a spring or lever or something worn out, and problem is it's the one that also controls the locking mechanism to the body. I sent an email to KEH last night about 11:30PM and I had a response at 6:15 this morning, which was really impressive. They've offered to either do an exchange or full refund. Neat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
Kivi posted:I have a local lab that still does things properly Your local lab may be great, but don't send B&W to a lab for development. Do it yourself. Anything from Ilford, anything from Kodak, anything from Fuji. All other film is suspect. Rollei and Agfa have some fun cheapness, and you can get all sorts of weirdness from China.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Your local lab may be great, but don't send B&W to a lab for development. Do it yourself. Curiously, "Agfa" film now is made under contract by Fuji, and "Rollei" film is cut down from Agfa's commercial stock. It's a rat's nest. Adox has never let me down, and pre-bankruptcy Agfa is really very good when you can get your hands on any. I've found that they tend to have distinct "personalities" and aren't really as good for general-purpose shooting, but they're a lot of fun and I'll be very sad when I send out my last rolls.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Yond Cassius posted:Curiously, "Agfa" film now is made under contract by Fuji, and "Rollei" film is cut down from Agfa's commercial stock. It's a rat's nest. I would suspect that the film batches which don't pass Fuji QC end up getting rebranded as Afga film, but I don't have any evidence to back that up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 01:46
|
|
|
People that complain about Tri-X are weird. Maybe it's 35mm that's a pain to use, but in 120 it seems to load and dry just like any other film I have used. Untitled by Dev Luns, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
pootiebigwang posted:People that complain about Tri-X are weird. Maybe it's 35mm that's a pain to use, but in 120 it seems to load and dry just like any other film I have used. Tri-X in 35mm is perfect and I will fight anyone that says otherwise, with my fists.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 07:26
|
|
|
If you don't like Tri-X, you're actually retarded.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 09:52
|
|
|
I now prefer 400 Tmax for medium format at least... I still like Tri-X although it is notoriously annoying to get onto the reel for developing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 09:55
|
|
|
I didn't understand the attraction until I shot a roll myself, then it all made sense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 10:17
|
|
|
try it with a lime posted:HP5 is Tri-X Pepsi. They're pretty interchangeable. I've been seeing this statement around a lot, and can't wrap my head around it. From my personal experience these two emulsions behave rather differently. I wonder if its just due to the developing methods used...
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
I've used both, and really, the only factor that makes me chose one over the other is price. For my purposes, tri-x hasn't done anything I can't get with hp5 plus. Since I buy both in bulk, I lean to hp5 since it's like twenty dollars cheaper.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
Putrid Grin posted:I've been seeing this statement around a lot, and can't wrap my head around it. From my personal experience these two emulsions behave rather differently. I wonder if its just due to the developing methods used... Agreed, Tri-X tends to have more contrast which I find appealing, especially when pushed to 1600 or 3200. I love HP5 as well but they are definitely different emulsions. Tri-X is also cheaper in 120 due to being able to buy 5 roll packs of it for 24 bucks as opposed to having to buy single rolls of HP5 at 6-8 bucks a pop. pootiebigwang fucked around with this message at 22:44 on Feb 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
I shoot Hp5 in 4x5 (and some day 8x10 but $$$) because LF Tri-X is 320 and crazy expensive. I prefer the tonality and grain structure of Tri-X but I don't dislike Hp5.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
Just got back my first few rolls of processed C-41. Do you all just eyeball color correction until it "looks right", or is there a more scientific way to do it? My process so far is to add a curves layer and set the black/white point which roughly evens the color cast, then add a two more curves for color and luminosity independently for fine tuning/fiddling. Morning Fog by zacharytong, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
polyfractal posted:Just got back my first few rolls of processed C-41. Do you all just eyeball color correction until it "looks right", or is there a more scientific way to do it? My process so far is to add a curves layer and set the black/white point which roughly evens the color cast, then add a two more curves for color and luminosity independently for fine tuning/fiddling. Look at the video on the first post. It's how I do it and it seems to work well for me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
polyfractal posted:Just got back my first few rolls of processed C-41. Do you all just eyeball color correction until it "looks right", or is there a more scientific way to do it? My process so far is to add a curves layer and set the black/white point which roughly evens the color cast, then add a two more curves for color and luminosity independently for fine tuning/fiddling. After getting the b/w points set for each channel, I just eyeball it in playing around with the curves. The only technically important thing in color processing is getting a flat base layer that has as much latitude in each channel as possible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
Ok, cool. Just wanted to make sure there wasn't some scientific way of adjusting so that each film maintains it's personality, since it seems easy to completely change the color rendition with a few minutes of unrestrained fiddling.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
Anyone have examples of Portra with a polarizer? I'm curious how it affects the already awesome colors, but not curious enough to buy a polarizer for my film system yet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
Helicity posted:Anyone have examples of Portra with a polarizer? I'm curious how it affects the already awesome colors, but not curious enough to buy a polarizer for my film system yet. I rarely use my polarizer on my TLR, even though it's very cool and handy to use. (Geared mechanism so what you see is what you get.) Guess it's just a bit of extra hassle and Portra usually gives great results anyway. Here I turned the polarizer for the sky and to reduce water reflections to get more definition in the waves. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
Tonight I picked up a couple rolls of Sensia II 100 expired in 2000. Should I try overexposing 1.5 stops? Oddly the box came with little vouchers to give your lab that cover the cost of development, because I guess the price of the film included dev costs. There's no chance in hell any lab today would still accept those, right? (I plan to do my own E-6 anyway). Also I was under the impression that including dev in the cost of film was made illegal a lot earlier than the 1990s (though maybe that was just in the USA) BANME.sh fucked around with this message at 03:58 on Feb 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
I dunno about legalities, but the Sensia I shot (11 rolls, still have to scan a couple) all came with "Development Included!" coupons on the boxes. I went to my local shop (Don's Photo) and showed the employees the boxes, they shrugged and told me to contact Fuji Canada. I did so, and their response was a form letter that didn't answer my question - "Thank you for contacting Fuji Canada, we hope you enjoy our products" kind of empty boilerplate. They also suggested I talk to Fuji USA, who didn't reply to my emails except to say "You're in Canada. Talk to Fuji Canada". I had planned to develop them myself anyways, I was just curious about those weird coupons. I've never seen any other film with development included in the price, except for some film I bought back in 1998 when I first got my Minolta - the shop I bought it from (on consignment) had a deal where film cost $10/roll and included developing. That was something they were running in-house, and I think you could get a variety of films; I always got cheap consumer-grade Kodak, probably Gold. That was a good deal for them, it created a kind of customer-loyalty program and there was always going to be a few rolls that people pre-paid developing for then ended up getting developed somewhere else. I know I did that with at least one roll. My Sensia would have expired in the early 2000s, I don't remember exactly when. All of my shots came out a little underexposed, which could have been the developing or could have been the age of the film. Or could have been any number of other factors, such as my semi-competent photographic skills. In any case, I love Sensia, it the pictures came out really well despite the general darkness. Based on my experience, yeah, overexpose by 1 or 2 stops (or split the difference and do the 1.5 you suggest). EDIT: Where did you get the Sensia? Local? I can't find it on eBay without idiotic shipping costs tacked on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
I mentioned the legality because the Kodachrome wiki page mentions that including dev with film cost was made illegal in the usa back in the 50s or 60s. I bought it locally. Just two rolls for $10. The original price tag was still on the box - $28.99
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 02:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 00:06 |
|
|
 Fuji HR-U rated @ 100 in HC-110 dilution B for 3 minutes 15 seconds bellows lugosi fucked around with this message at 03:59 on Feb 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 03:54
|
|