|
As threatened, I made a wet printing/alternative processes thread, please post all the wasted photo paper you've generated: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3704285
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 14:51 |
|
|
Arrived in the mail today. I feel like a wealthy world traveler already.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
I loaded a roll of 220 in my GW690II and forgot to reverse the 120 pressure plate to the 220 side. So I figured I could open the back in a dark room, reverse it, and everything would be fine. But no. It reset the film counter and the GW690 won't let you press the shutter unless you advance the film a whole bunch. So now I've lost the first 3 or 4 frames. To make things worse, the GW690 automatically restricts how far you are allowed to advance the film based on the frame counter. So when you get to the end of the spool, it doesn't need to advance as far as it did at the beginning. So now all of my photos are going to be advanced a tiny bit extra between frames (or will the frames overlap a tiny bit?) I dunno. I screwed it up, so lesson learned.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 07:11
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:I loaded a roll of 220 in my GW690II and forgot to reverse the 120 pressure plate to the 220 side. So I figured I could open the back in a dark room, reverse it, and everything would be fine. But no. It reset the film counter and the GW690 won't let you press the shutter unless you advance the film a whole bunch. So now I've lost the first 3 or 4 frames. To make things worse, the GW690 automatically restricts how far you are allowed to advance the film based on the frame counter. So when you get to the end of the spool, it doesn't need to advance as far as it did at the beginning. So now all of my photos are going to be advanced a tiny bit extra between frames (or will the frames overlap a tiny bit?) I dunno. I screwed it up, so lesson learned. Uh, unless I'm missing something really obvious: 1.Take camera into your dark place again. 2. Take film out. 3. Rewind film manually (with your hands) 4. Take X shots in the dark place with the film starting from fresh, where X is the number of shots you've taken previously. Do X+1 if you feel that the previous shots are very important. 5. Profit. Tangent Edit: In my experience with old MF cameras having a fool-proof double exposure interlock system is a good thing. Optional double exposure is nice to have though!
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 07:26
|
|
|
I haven't actually taken any photos with it yet, I am just disappointed that I've advanced past the first several frames and the spacing of the frames will likely be screwed up. I can try to rewind it in the dark and start over.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 07:37
|
|
|
Just shoot the roll in the darkroom with the cap on, extract, re-roll, put it back in.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 07:48
|
|
|
More Tri -X Untitled by Dev Luns, on Flickr
pootiebigwang fucked around with this message at 08:04 on Mar 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 08:01
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Just shoot the roll in the darkroom with the cap on, extract, re-roll, put it back in. Careful with 120 for that. Keep in mind that the leading end of the film has the tape stuck on the backing paper, but the trailing end does not have any tape. If you aren't careful you'll misalign the film with the backing. It's probably better to take the roll out while halfway through the roll, then wind it back, to keep the tension on the far end of the roll.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 14:39
|
|
|
 _DSC5878 by Stingray of Doom, on FlickrTri-X and all that jazz. I think its time to stop sifting through old material and actually go out there in the sub-zero temperatures and shoot new material. I am growing bored of editing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 07:27
|
|
|
Weather in SF has been fantastic the last few days. Took these on Wednesday.     I still can't believe the bay bridge shot came out, I took it from the back of a moving cab.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
Putrid Grin posted:actually go out there in the sub-zero temperatures and shoot new material. I am growing bored of editing. This, one hundred million times I've actually done a shoot yesterday, shot a friend for some weirdo art project, then we swapped and she shot me. Dis gun be fun. Used a cheapo strobe light, and long exposures. Hopefully something will come out, cause I couldn't get enough light to work with. The Modern Sky fucked around with this message at 16:34 on Mar 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Careful with 120 for that. Keep in mind that the leading end of the film has the tape stuck on the backing paper, but the trailing end does not have any tape. If you aren't careful you'll misalign the film with the backing. It's probably better to take the roll out while halfway through the roll, then wind it back, to keep the tension on the far end of the roll. Your point is correct for 120, but in his case he was shooting a roll of 220 which actually has tape on both ends as the backing paper is only at the beginning and end of the roll. That's the reason 220 fits on 120 spools and requires a different pressure plate setting BTW.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
VomitOnLino posted:Your point is correct for 120, but in his case he was shooting a roll of 220 which actually has tape on both ends as the backing paper is only at the beginning and end of the roll. That's the reason 220 fits on 120 spools and requires a different pressure plate setting BTW. Yup I ended up removing the roll in a dark room, spooling it back up and loading it properly. No problem.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
I dig making contact sheets. I find them visually appealing.  _DSC8143 by Stingray of Doom, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 06:49
|
|
|
Putrid Grin posted:I dig making contact sheets. I find them visually appealing. Nice - I'm getting huge waves of nostalgia from that. One of the projects for a photography course I took in college was to make a contact sheet where we had to envision how each exposure would look next to the ones around it. Kind of a fun/easy way for people to think about sequences and themes without stressing about size, paper, etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
How lovely are those Soviet Leica ripoffs that pop up on eBay? I see these things called zorki, and fed. They range anywhere from 10 to 50 dollars. I'm betting that the lenses they come with are pretty poo poo, but I'm assuming they will take Leica screw mount lenses, so provided that the basic mechanics work and the rangefinder is in order, what's to stop me from having a camera that is functionally very close to something like a Leica M3 for me to gently caress around with, provided I spend a little for a decent lens? I like the red dot more than the weird cursive Cyrillic engraving, but for about 1/20th the cost, I'm willing to make the compromise. My plan would be to take it out into the woods for long hikes and camping trips, for landscape photos. My only film camera right now is an AF Minolta from the 80s, and I have my doubts about its ability to withstand the elements. Old Leicas are supposed to be pretty durable, no? Can anyone here attest anything regarding the reliability of their soviet clones?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
The shutter jams if you try to set the shutter speed without having cocked the shutter, and it basically can't be repaired once it's jammed, and there's like an 85% chance any Fed on eBay will be borked. I want one so bad, but I'm not willing to pay $300 for one checked out by a reputable collector and Craigslist doesn't have any I can check out in person before buying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
There's nothing stopping you from putting a $500-$1500 lens on a garbagecan camera, but you'd be better off just getting an Olympus or Yashica rangefinder if it's going to be a screwaround weekend camera. Keep in mind that the $10 Soviet cameras usually don't have coupled rangefinders. burzum karaoke fucked around with this message at 03:48 on Mar 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
My dad gave me his Zorki 4 back when I first started getting into photography. He used it all the time, didn't really service it. I used it a lot, didn't service it. Photos came out great (but boring) and the camera never jammed once. This is a personal anecdote, so ymmv That being said, nothing is stopping you from getting some equivalent Japanese cameras, they're great.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
Yeah, also recalling how your Minolta AF SLR died I'd have to say that basically no camera on earth will like the "extremely hot then extremely cold" treatment. It will cause lubricants to run, solidify and evaporate onto the lens and other fun things. I guess the closest thing that would survive such a thing would be a disposable Fuji or Kodak. That aside, yeah why not try a cheap but competent rangefinder from the 60-70ies era. I'm no fan of Yashica because while the lenses are good the quality of the bodies is usually somewhat lacking, and most of the Yashica Electros die with the so called "pad of death" which is a huge pain in the rear end to fix. I'd look for: Olympus 35RC, Olympus 35SP, Olympus XA1, Canonet QL of any sort, A Konica with the 38/2.8 lens All very solid and competently made rangefinders with good lenses. If it has to be Leica, why not get a Leica IIIf and some Canon or other lens for it. Of course with these cameras rangefinder and viewfinder are separate. But the RF is coupled to the lens at least. That said I don't really see any point in getting into Leica stuff lens first. Their lenses are what's the most expensive about them. You can get a usable beater M2 or M3 body for like 500-700$ but most Leica lenses worth their salt will set you back a grand at least.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 04:00
|
|
|
Got the prints back from my first black and white roll. Love the results.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
Recently got an XA myself and holy poo poo does this thing rule. It handled some expired HP5+ pretty well. Untitled by Dev Luns, on Flickr img477 by Dev Luns, on Flickr Untitled by Dev Luns, on Flickr Untitled by Dev Luns, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 05:43
|
|
|
Thanks for the tips. Yeah, I'm certainly not looking for just Leica or Leica copies, but since my Minolta started to get the LCD bleed, it's aperture base plate has also failed. (I ordered a new body for  because I apparently lack any sort of functioning memory) But I'm also looking to get something else. Something very basic and reliable, preferably a rangefinder-style, fixed-lens, primarily mechanical, metal frame. I'm not going to be using it in extreme drastic temperature situations (unless I leave it in the car again,) but I'd like it to be well-sealed and made of durable materials. I'll definitely check out the Olympus and Canonet models that were recommended. ... I need to do some more experimenting with film before I'll be ready to dive into the whole home development / high-res scanning world. Really, I need to get a better idea of what kind of results I'm going to get with good, working equipment. When I get a chance, I'd like to post some of my scans from the three rolls I shot with the maxxum. The super-high-res scans I got show some strange colors and weird light effects, and the pictures are very grainy. I don't know how much of this is due to the cheap fujifilm superia 400 I used, the plastic toy flash, the old-as-balls cheap sigma 75-300 that came with the camera, or some combination of all three.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 06:02
|
|
|
Get a Pentax ME Super instead.  It's the least bulky film SLR I've had my hands on
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 06:07
|
|
|
You spelled Olympus Om-1/2 wrong. But yeah seriously get a small late 70s/early 80s SLR, rangefinders are very over-rated in my personal opinion (having owned a Yashica Electro and Canon QL17 and used a friend's Leica).
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 08:33
|
|
|
deaders posted:You spelled Olympus Om-1/2 wrong. But yeah seriously get a small late 70s/early 80s SLR, rangefinders are very over-rated in my personal opinion (having owned a Yashica Electro and Canon QL17 and used a friend's Leica). Says the guy with a Mamiya 7. I'm kidding! Kidding... okay only half-kidding. I like rangefinders because they teach you to see, in my opinion. The banality of the view VS ground glass, or a SLRs viewfinder is instructive. Ideally it just draws some frame-lines on your reality and that's all you will do in your mind as well. I love my Rollei 35s for that reason, even though I'm not a 35mm man. No clutter no bullshit. Just photography.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 08:49
|
|
|
Yeah I should clarify that by saying 35mm rangefinders... although once I started shooting MF I mostly found 35mm film disappointing regardless of the camera.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 08:54
|
|
|
I find that rangefinders tend to allow me to contextualize a personal reality better than SLRs, which in turn lend themselves better to capturing a subject in itself. The differences in a prism vs. framelines seems pretty innocuous, but in practical use, the output becomes very different, especially on a smaller format where photos tend to be more reactive than analytic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 09:46
|
|
|
I've got some old USSR stuff, a FED-2, Zorki 4 and Horizont. They're pretty nice for the money. The FED-2 is a bit better than the Zorki ergonomically IMO. The winding knob on the Zorki 4 is smaller and right up against part of the upper shell and it's more annoying to wind. The viewfinder on the FED is smaller but more contrasty. Both have diopter adjustment. Just be careful not to put them up to your face with glasses on, they have little metal rims around the viewfinder that will scratch the hell out of them. The "shutter speed only after cocking or it will break" thing only applies to cameras with slow speeds or a single piece shutter speed dial. The later versions of the FED-2 have a 2 piece dial that doesn't have that problem. I can attest to it being pretty sturdy, mine fell from around 5 feet the other day and didn't even get scratched. With few exceptions all the old Soviet glass is good, just don't expect modern miracles like perfectly flare resistant coatings, a lot of those lens designs are pre-50's. They're fun for $50 but yeah, just buy a Japanese fixed lens RF or a Bessa if you have no patience for the peculiarities.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 10:32
|
|
|
The best all mechanical beastly camera you can get is the Minolta srT-102. It's not a rangefinder but it's all mechanical and very good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 13:12
|
|
|
try it with a lime posted:I find that rangefinders tend to allow me to contextualize a personal reality better than SLRs, which in turn lend themselves better to capturing a subject in itself. The differences in a prism vs. framelines seems pretty innocuous, but in practical use, the output becomes very different, especially on a smaller format where photos tend to be more reactive than analytic. I agree, especially on the smaller rangefinders. Medium format forces me to slow down and be very meticulous and analytic with my shooting, which is both a good and bad thing. I find the XA has kind of given me a freedom that I neither knew I wanted or had a chance to experience, but am now very glad to own. For example,  Untitled by Dev Luns, on FlickrI would have never even attempted to get this shot (not that it's a good one) on a medium format, or even a traditional slr camera. The XA almost makes me feel invisible, as I have had multiple people tell me they originally thought I was just holding a phone and the fact that it slides perfectly into a pocket means I always have it on me. I also was grateful to have a conversation with McNair Evans, and one of the things he harped on was to switch things up as sticking with just one format can become formulaic and boring and when things become formulaic the risk factor goes out the window, and you should always have some skin in the game if you are trying to make good pictures. pootiebigwang fucked around with this message at 16:02 on Mar 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
I'm gonna be in Palm Springs in a couple weeks and have a chance to get some really good landscapes while I'm there so my OM-1 is going along. Any particular 35mm film I should order before I go that works well for deserts, landscapes, etc? Right now I just have some basic Fuji and Kodak 200, and maybe a roll or two of basic Kodak 100. Just wondered if there was anything anyone particularly liked.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
DJExile posted:I'm gonna be in Palm Springs in a couple weeks and have a chance to get some really good landscapes while I'm there so my OM-1 is going along. Any particular 35mm film I should order before I go that works well for deserts, landscapes, etc? Right now I just have some basic Fuji and Kodak 200, and maybe a roll or two of basic Kodak 100. Just wondered if there was anything anyone particularly liked. All hail SATAN Portra 400.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
I might consider 160 for landscapes, especially the desert where it's gonna be extremely sunny.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
I think Fuji Superia has wonderful greens. Also Portra has wonderful blues. Portra 160 and 400 are both great but be warned that 160 doesn't have quite the same exposure latitude.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:I might consider 160 for landscapes, especially the desert where it's gonna be extremely sunny. I wouldn't bother. 160 loses the shadows like crazy and the high contrast of deserts makes it super obvious unless you meter it at 80.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
HP5, pull it to 200. I love Portra, but colour negative film feels kinda neutered on 35mm.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
Velvia would probably be pretty sweet for deserts/landscapes. Or if you don't want to go with slide film, Ektar.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 14:51 |
|
|
Good suggestions, all. Thanks guys! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 19:41
|
|