|
Green piss
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 05:33 |
|
|
aricoarena posted:Does the part, in the camera body, that detects your aperture have a generic name? I have an om-4 and it doesn't return to position after closing the aperture, so after going to f22 the camera always thinks it's at f22. It's hard to search for a fix when I don't know what to call the part. Aperture lever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Aperture lever. Thank you. Tab just got me stuff about lenses, sensor just got me DSLR stuff. Although "lever" is still bringing back mostly lens related problems. aricoarena fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Apr 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
bobmarleysghost posted:Oh hey, look at what I found  I got this just from 20s work in PS and I still think it looks a bit green. I also did Auto Tone on it and it looked much better. Calibrate your monitor plez.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
Guys, that was the edit I did 2-3 years ago, I didn't even try to edit this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
bobmarleysghost posted:Guys, that was the edit I did 2-3 years ago, I didn't even try to edit this. Wait so that's you in the video? You monster/thanks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
Haha no, not my voice. That video was created specifically because of me though, using my lovely photo, since back then I had no idea how to scan and process properly. I think forums user QPZIL (sp?) made it. I think?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
bobmarleysghost posted:Haha no, not my voice. That video was created specifically because of me though, using my lovely photo, since back then I had no idea how to scan and process properly. I just realized that he is swinging a badge or something and not, as I always thought, a lawn dart.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
I shot through a roll over the past month and let the lab scan to disk for me. But I wanted to see what kind of difference scanning positive and adjusting levels made vs what they gave me. One of these is out of my V500, the other from my local photo lab. Also I'm colorblind (which is why I barely trust to color correct my scans usually). Does one or the other look better, much righter, or much wronger than the other? Also, forgive dadpix.  
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
Bottom one is better, top is very green.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
Yea bottom is spot on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
Bottom one for sure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 05:56
|
|
|
Anyone have a shop recommendation for film development in San Diego? I just moved down from SF and miss my shop (Adolph Gasser).
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 06:23
|
|
|
LooksLikeABabyRat posted:(Adolph Gasser). Unfortunate name there 
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:Unfortunate name there I bought an LF lens from them on ebay and when I saw the paypal invoice a small part of me was concerned I just sent money to some kind of neonazi front.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
I got my hands on some Canadian Rodinal (sold as Blazinal here) and I want to try this 1+100 hour long stand development that everyone talks about. Are there different times for different films like normal development or does it all kind of even out when you do it this long? The massive dev chart doesn't really give me any specific info.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:Unfortunate name there It's pretty funny because they're some of the nicest people I've met, and the shop is just so unfortunately named.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:I got my hands on some Canadian Rodinal (sold as Blazinal here) and I want to try this 1+100 hour long stand development that everyone talks about. Are there different times for different films like normal development or does it all kind of even out when you do it this long? The massive dev chart doesn't really give me any specific info. Agitate for the first 30 seconds, tap to remove bubbles, agitate 10 seconds and tap at the 30 minute mark, works for pretty much anything The point of stand development is to 'exploit' fluid movement, the idea is that as the developer sits undisturbed it forms pockets of exhausted developer (exhausted because of the high dilution - the developer only has so much capacity to develop) around the highlights while the shadows continue to develop in areas with unexhausted developer, hence the whole 'compensating developer' thing
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
LooksLikeABabyRat posted:Anyone have a shop recommendation for film development in San Diego? North Coast is down there aren't they?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
nm posted:North Coast is down there aren't they? Looks like it yeah. I'll check it out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
In case any of you guys buy custom film sizes from ilford, the ordering window is open: http://www.ilfordphoto.com/pressroom/article.asp?n=202
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
Citizens Photo in Portland has reopened, if you don't have a local lab I highly suggest you look into doing mail-order through them. LF Dorkroomer Approved™
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:Citizens Photo in Portland has reopened, if you don't have a local lab I highly suggest you look into doing mail-order through them. Forever and ever, amen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:Citizens Photo in Portland has reopened, if you don't have a local lab I highly suggest you look into doing mail-order through them. Have you ever dealt with North Coast? How does the quality compare?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
Any of you guys bulkload 35mm? Got any brand recommendations for reusable cassettes?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
try it with a lime posted:Any of you guys bulkload 35mm? Got any brand recommendations for reusable cassettes? I watched this video recently on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Evk_oR7TO1o
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
I did the math, and I don't think bulk loading saves enough money to be worth the time. The big upside to bulk loading is being able to load short rolls so you don't have to burn 24 frames if you want to test a new camera or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
mulls posted:I did the math, and I don't think bulk loading saves enough money to be worth the time. The big upside to bulk loading is being able to load short rolls so you don't have to burn 24 frames if you want to test a new camera or whatever. I think in the video above, he says the savings by bulk loading with Ilford film is fairly substantial since their bulk film is pretty cheap. He also says that he doesn't get much savings with Kodak bulk film.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
I looked it up too and you can save like $1-1.50 per roll depending what film stock you go with. It makes sense for schools but you'd have to shoot a lot of 35mm for it to really be worth the hassle.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
The biggest benefit I see is making smaller rolls. I hate 36 exposures. I'd load them at ~20 or so.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
A friend gave me a bulk roll of tungsten balanced ektachrome with an ISO of 12 that I need to get out and shoot, might have a crack at x-pro as I've got some old C41 chems kicking around.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
try it with a lime posted:Any of you guys bulkload 35mm? Got any brand recommendations for reusable cassettes? I use those little metal reusable cassettes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:I looked it up too and you can save like $1-1.50 per roll depending what film stock you go with. It makes sense for schools but you'd have to shoot a lot of 35mm for it to really be worth the hassle. I shoot a lot of Tri-X. I don't go through the stuff like it's water, but I've definitely found my groove with it and have little intention to use much else when it comes to 35mm. It's been a while since I've shot any HP5, but I might run some test rolls given just how much cheaper it is in bulk.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
Looks like HP5 is $65 for a 100 foot roll, and it looks like the average roll of 36 has about 65" of film (including the leader and the end), so 18 rolls and a bit left over for $65 = $3.61 per roll plus your bulk loader and your canisters. Buying it is $5.59 per roll of 36. You're saving about $2 per roll. TriX is $127.79 for 100 feet, using the same calculations as above, that's $6.92 per roll, but you could buy it for $5.03 per roll. You're losing money. TMAX is $82.79 for 100 feet, which works out to $4.59 per roll, versus $5.39 per roll to purchase. Your savings are $0.80 per roll. All prices from Freestyle.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
My bulk roll of HP5+ lasted me two years and I imagine that my Tmax roll will probably last me just as long. I don't shoot as much 35mm as I do medium format, but I found the investment to be worth it, but then again my Tmax roll was a freebie. I will say that not having to rely on stores or shipping times and just being able to say "gently caress it I'm gonna shoot some 35mm today" is kinda worth the price. Wish I could bulk roll 120 film.  Untitled by Dev Luns, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:
This just does not make sense, but that's been Kodak's MO for a while 
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 13:44
|
|
|
pootiebigwang posted:
 Anyone ever done stand dev with Hp5+ pushed to 3200 and hc-110? I find a lot of info on T-max but none for Ilford products and it's all I got.  edit : VVV Thanks I'll try that out! Grimarest fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Apr 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
Grimarest posted:Anyone ever done stand dev with Hp5+ pushed to 3200 and hc-110? I find a lot of info on T-max but none for Ilford products and it's all I got. No, but a loose guess would be 2 hour semi-stand, agitate every half hour, for a 3-stop push from 400 to 3200.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 05:33 |
|
|
Dilution H, 38 mins. Agitate every minute. Suffer for your art. Or Dilution A @ 9 1/2 mins, but i haven't tried it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 16:16
|
|