|
Assuming proper exposure at time of shooting, what would cause a negative to come out underexposed? Testing out a new camera, I used a reliable light meter and took several test shots. After development, all of my shadows were clipped. I would assume it would be more common for an old camera shutter to have extended exposure times rather than shorter ones, wouldn't it? Anyway the film I used was a new roll of Fuji Acros 100 and I developed in Ilfotec HC at 1+31 dilution for 6 minutes at 18C as suggested on the massive dev chart. That temperature seemed weird because normally everything is listed at 20C. The developer is a bit old now, pushing two years, but I keep it in its original concentrated syrup and I try to squeeze out as much air as possible from the bottle when I store it. It's also kept in a cool basement.
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 09:14 |
|
|
What do you mean by "my shadows were clipped"? Here's a short list of possibilities:
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
Developing at 18 C is getting risky, since that's just about the low bound of when developers typically function at all. Too low temperature and the chemical process just stop. 5 minutes at 20 C would have been a safer bet. Here's Ilford's own chart from their tech paper: 
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:What do you mean by "my shadows were clipped"? The histogram was pushed pretty far to the left and raising the exposure in lightroom just brought out a bunch of noise. The shadows were already pure black pretty much. Not just in my controlled test shots, but a few random outdoor shots too. Normally I can boost them quite a bit without any problem when I underexpose a shot by accident. I was using a new (to me) Mamiya C220 and most shots were done at 1/60. It's possible that my developer is just beginning to show signs of age, and possibly 18C was too cold - I should have went with 20C. I have a few more rolls of Acros I can test with to confirm.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
re: Ektar chat from a little bit ago, I just had a roll developed and think the colors are pretty awesome but shooting with it was a huge pain so I probably won't again unless it's for a specific thing. ISO 100 + having to nail exposure every time is no way to live. Especially when it's raining all the time. Example of awesome colors/only one I've finished processing:  Coffee and Cigarettes by Nick Bremer Korb, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
I just ran some ektar through colorperfect and the results are   DSC_9266-Edit by rchan02, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
Is that dirt... Purple?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
Chitin posted:re: Ektar chat from a little bit ago, I just had a roll developed and think the colors are pretty awesome but shooting with it was a huge pain so I probably won't again unless it's for a specific thing. ISO 100 + having to nail exposure every time is no way to live. Especially when it's raining all the time. That is pretty much every shot for me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
 img487 by Dev Luns, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 05:57
|
|
|
So I've got a bulk roll of Tri-X, expired 12/2013, don't think it was refrigerated but was well kept. Should I compensate on the exposure, and if so, any ballparks on how much? (I'm guessing no, still fresh enough).
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
Just shoot it as normal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
Here's an article on a guy who shot some of the earliest colour photographs using a process called Autochrome in 1913. Pretty amazing stuff:  http://mashable.com/2015/04/23/autochrome-photos-ogorman/
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
The first photo could really have been taken today. (As the article also pointed out).
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
That 2nd one 
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
Some dead dude with archaic expermental equipment took better photos than me. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
I'd love to have a crack at the processes, dyed potato starch mixed with sensitised gelatine, an 8x10 autochrome transparency would be unbelievable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
He used glass plates. Would film hold up to the starches?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
bobmarleysghost posted:He used glass plates. Would film hold up to the starches? I'd use glass/plexiglass plates myself if I were to actually have a go. I'll do some research over the weekend and see what other people have done, and if there are any recipes floating about. There is this guy who coated some plastic films with a similar kind of emulsion and got some (what I think are) decent results: http://www.autochromes.fr/english/def.html
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
God drat, I brought my little Olympus 35RC to my coworker's wedding and shot five rolls (two Portra, three Tri-X), and it took almost a week to get it developed, scanned, edited, and processed. The worst loving part was dusting all the negatives  I think I'm gonna take a break from film for a while...  Untitled by khyrre, on Flickr Untitled by khyrre, on Flickr Untitled by khyrre, on Flickr Untitled by khyrre, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
Use a rocket blower on them right before you close the lid and don't be a disgusting goon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
404notfound posted:The worst loving part was dusting all the negatives Man I feel for you. When scanning so much stuff IR-based automated cleaning should be mandatory.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 08:34
|
|
|
So i recently was given these by my grandfather Any suggestions for a cheap reliable 110 camera to look for? Also how terrible is the lomography film since they are the only ones who are making 110?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 14:15
|
|
|
I have a mint condition Agfamatic Pocket 3008 that I'm trying to get rid of. I haven't tested it with film but it seems to work fine. I can post pics later if you are interested.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 14:32
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:Use a rocket blower on them right before you close the lid and don't be a disgusting goon. I do that and I'm not a disgusting goon and dusting is still a loving pain in the rear end. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
Ezekiel_980 posted:So i recently was given these by my grandfather Not really cheap, and apparently not at all reliable, but a Pentax Auto 110 looks loving awesome.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
Was it here that I saw someone bought a changing tent? Was it one of those $200+ ones?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 12:48
|
|
|
Saint Fu posted:Was it here that I saw someone bought a changing tent? Was it one of those $200+ ones? I have a Harrison Pup tent, which is indeed $200+ new (I got mine used). I know ansel autisms likes his KangRinpoche, which is a cheaper Chinese clone of the Harrison. I loving love my tent and it solved all of the problems I had with changing bags. I take it with me on any trip where I'm going to expose more than 10 or 20 sheets.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage also recommended one to me, I don't think it had a brand. It's a godsend for loading and unloading LF holders. I think I'd go crazy doing it in a darkbag.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
I know the topic of airports and film has been done to death here and elsewhere, but does expired film change anything? Specifically, I have a short interstate trip coming up and I'd like to use some of the 10+ year expired film I bought from MrBlandAverage, but I'm concerned even two more rounds of carry-on x-rays will be too much. (Also, any good strategies for shooting decade-old film? I'm thinking meter for 50, develop as normal?)
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
rohan posted:I know the topic of airports and film has been done to death here and elsewhere, but does expired film change anything? Specifically, I have a short interstate trip coming up and I'd like to use some of the 10+ year expired film I bought from MrBlandAverage, but I'm concerned even two more rounds of carry-on x-rays will be too much. I made 5 passes with 3200 speed film with no issues.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
Definitely carry on though. Dad with X-Ray, Light Leaks and Scratches by Nick Bremer Korb, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
I always carry on and I always ask for a hand check. It usually only takes an extra minute.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:I always carry on and I always ask for a hand check. It usually only takes an extra minute. Yup. Only problem is that some countries won't let you hand check it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:Yup. Only problem is that some countries won't let you hand check it. That just goes to show how long it's been since I've been out of the U.S. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
If anything, expired film will be less sensitive to x-rays.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
Does anyone know anything about Kodak Cosmos 400 film? I got 2 rolls of it today but searching online just gets me other people asking for information about it. Here is a quick and dirty picture of the two rolls next to a fresh roll of Kentmere 400 to show how Pink the Kodak film is. Could it be C41 black and white?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
aricoarena posted:Does anyone know anything about Kodak Cosmos 400 film? I got 2 rolls of it today but searching online just gets me other people asking for information about it. Here is a quick and dirty picture of the two rolls next to a fresh roll of Kentmere 400 to show how Pink the Kodak film is. Could it be C41 black and white? I think it's just a standard black and white film. Notice on BW400CN, the black-and-white C-41 film, Kodak marks the canister as such, while on Tri-X, it's marked "B&W", like on your cartridges. This closed eBay auction has some box information, too, and nothing about C-41 processing. The English/French packaging might be a clue, but I have no real idea about what, unless it's a Canadian regional offering... but then how did it wind up in the UK?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
Searching for Kodak CSY film, I came across thisquote:In 1995 I used a Kodak film #5055 CSY, B&W 35mm film and the name was COSMOS. It came in 12 exposures and the speed was 400. I developed it in Rodinal 1:25 for 7 min at 24°C. The negative was very nice with well balanced contrasts a bit grainy but not more than a Tri-X 400. Looks like yours has 20 exposures, which is weird.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 03:45
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:If anything, expired film will be less sensitive to x-rays. Xray exposure raises the fog level of the film and old film has a higher base fog so it would actually probably be worse.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 09:14 |
|
|
why would you ever check film?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 09:59
|
|
