|
akadajet posted:Then you'd complain about the colors being off. Yes, but at least then 404notfound would have the option of deciding whether he himself liked the photo better with the effect or without.
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 06:09 |
|
|
PDX krew believes you're doing it wrong unless you're shooting fresh 4x5 Portra 400. (I still love you guys.) Keep film fun! Also keep buying lots of it and try new things.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
404notfound posted:Huh? Is there something wrong with wanting to try cross-processing? I had the same thought come in my head when I saw you wanted to cross process Provia 100f, its such a nice film to process as straight e-6 it seems a waste to cross process. Get some expired Velvia, that will give you pretty full-on cross-processing results.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 05:00
|
|
|
Spedman posted:I had the same thought come in my head when I saw you wanted to cross process Provia 100f, its such a nice film to process as straight e-6 it seems a waste to cross process. Get some expired Velvia, that will give you pretty full-on cross-processing results. Yeah, this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 05:42
|
|
|
404notfound posted:Picked up a few rolls of Provia 100F while I was in Europe, and I think it's a good opportunity to try my hand at cross-processing for the first time. I'm assuming (based on VSCO Film 06 and various Google results) that I'm going to get greenish casts, but anything I should be wary of in terms of exposure? Yeah don't waste your money to ruin those rolls of Provia, cross-processing essentially destroys their beautiful colours. If you want to x-pro, get some super cheap expired film like Spedman recommends. Otherwise you're just doing the equivalent of cooking expensive fresh fish with strong curry sauce.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 06:17
|
|
|
Spedman posted:I had the same thought come in my head when I saw you wanted to cross process Provia 100f, its such a nice film to process as straight e-6 it seems a waste to cross process. Get some expired Velvia, that will give you pretty full-on cross-processing results. alkanphel posted:Yeah don't waste your money to ruin those rolls of Provia, cross-processing essentially destroys their beautiful colours. If you want to x-pro, get some super cheap expired film like Spedman recommends. Otherwise you're just doing the equivalent of cooking expensive fresh fish with strong curry sauce. Okay, that makes more sense. I'll see if I can find some cheaper stuff to experiment with.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 09:34
|
|
|
If I wanted to do some darkroom prints for nothing other than shits, giggles and the fun of it, where would I start?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
A lot more equipment is required than simple B&W film development. First you need an enlarger with all the working parts and pieces in tact. I am assuming you will buy something vintage. It needs a lens (50mm for 35mm film, 75mm for 6x6, 90mm for 6x7 and 105mm for 6x9), lens board(s), and depending on the enlarger, you might need different attachments for the condenser to accomodate different film formats. You'll need negative carriers specific to your enlarger for each film format you want to use. You'll also need multigrade filters so you can control the contrast of your prints effectively using modern multigrade paper. Not necessary if you find a stock of expired fixed grade paper. Again, the filters vary in size and you'll need the proper kind that fits in your enlarger. You'll need an easel to hold your photographic paper, development trays for the size of paper you're using, a grain focuser (not required but super useful), a timer, and a safelight. I recommend maybe finding a vintage Beseler 23C. It can print from 35mm to 6x9 without any extra attachments, except for obviously the required lenses and negative carriers. Built like a tank, lots of used ones around and parts are easy to find. If you are already doing your own B&W development at home, you can use the same stop and fixer chems. Just need to buy a specific developer. I am told you don't want to re-use stop and fixer chemicals between film and paper devs though, just FYI. So you'll need separate storage bottles. Edit: If you have medium format negs, you might want to start simply by making contact prints. No enlarger needed, just paper and a piece of glass and an even and diffused light source. Double edit: don't even think about doing color prints at home yet BANME.sh fucked around with this message at 23:02 on Sep 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:A lot more equipment is required than simple B&W film development. So contact prints........I may look into that just to start.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
It took me over a year to find everything I needed, but I was being extremely frugal. I went through maybe 4 different sets of enlargers before settling on a fully functional Beseler 23C, and many phases of "maybe I won't bother with prints, this all seems like too much". You'll often find people giving away old darkroom stuff for cheap or free, because there is so little demand for it. I ended up picking up several entire lots of darkroom equipment for free, keeping what I needed, and selling/giving away the rest. All in, I spent probably only $100 for everything. Paper will be your biggest expense. It's not something you really do for shits and giggles. I can spend 3 hours in a night and only end up with 1 or 2 decent prints.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
akadajet posted:Then you'd complain about the colors being off. You are dumb
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 07:28
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:If I wanted to do some darkroom prints for nothing other than shits, giggles and the fun of it, where would I start? Their site is being updated but last time I looked you can rent darkroom time at Full Circle Photo, up in Charles Village. http://fullcirclephoto.com/
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 14:27
|
|
|
aricoarena posted:Their site is being updated but last time I looked you can rent darkroom time at Full Circle Photo, up in Charles Village. yup, it's where I get my film developed too. I've asked about them maybe giving workshops on it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
Scanned some film but didn't do a good enough job with all the tiny dust. Sweet fancy moses, my hand hurts because of all the spot removing in Photoshop.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 14:51
|
|
|
Xabi posted:Scanned some film but didn't do a good enough job with all the tiny dust. Sweet fancy moses, my hand hurts because of all the spot removing in Photoshop. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rog8ou-ZepE&hd=1
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 15:05
|
|
|
I have a stupid question : Why when I hold on the aperture preview on my Fe2 at a smaller apperture, the focus seem to shift? Would refocusing with the aperture preview engaged give better results?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 05:36
|
|
|
When you focus normally you're seeing the scene with the lens wide open. Stopping down increases the depth of field so it looks like the focus has shifted but in fact you're just seeing how the final picture will turn out. That button is also called the DOF preview button for this reason.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 06:22
|
|
|
Yeah I understand that, but to be more precise, my nikon Fe2 has a split prism. When I focus without the DOF button pressed on a crossing line, it's fine, however when I press the DOF button the line will be ''broken'' when stopped down by the prism focusing despite not touching the focus ring on the lens.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
Grimarest posted:Yeah I understand that, but to be more precise, my nikon Fe2 has a split prism. When I focus without the DOF button pressed on a crossing line, it's fine, however when I press the DOF button the line will be ''broken'' when stopped down by the prism focusing despite not touching the focus ring on the lens. Some older lenses have focus shift caused by spherical aberrations - especially very fast (f/1.2 & f/1.4) lenses. Plane of focus changes when stopped down, so at close distance when you're stopped down a bit (f/2, f/2.8) it throws it off enough to matter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:Some older lenses have focus shift caused by spherical aberrations - especially very fast (f/1.2 & f/1.4) lenses. Plane of focus changes when stopped down, so at close distance when you're stopped down a bit (f/2, f/2.8) it throws it off enough to matter. Thanks for the info, that's pretty interesting. The lens I'm mostly using is a nikkor 50mm f1.4.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:spherical aberrations It's called plus-size people tyvm
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 08:00
|
|
|
unpacked robinhood posted:It's called plus-size people tyvm You aren't funny tyvm
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
Grimarest posted:Thanks for the info, that's pretty interesting. The lens I'm mostly using is a nikkor 50mm f1.4. That's exactly the kind of lens that is the worst for this (fast double gauss 50's) - not all the light focuses at the same place when wide open, which is what gives it that dreamy hazy low contrast look. Stopping down corrects those SA's, which moves the plane of focus a bit. If you stop down a bunch (f/4, f/5.6, etc) the DOF becomes large enough to overcome the shift, same as if you're shooting at a distance. But close up and only stopping down a little, it can throw you entirely out of the (very thin) DOF.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
I like shooting portraits at f2.8 with it, but I sometimes seem to miss the focus a bit on the eye even though I take my time to make sure it is. Thanks for the heads up!
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
I had some film developed and something strange has happened to the last photos on the roll. In fact, I didn't even get photos #33-36 and I didn’t realise this until I got back home. As you can see, the pattern is different in every photo so I guess that rules out a camera leak? What else can explain this (and perhaps the fact that the last photos didn’t even get developed)? The film is Delta 3200. I hope imgur links are ok: http://i.imgur.com/fAAHKIe.jpg http://i.imgur.com/mazC6X5.jpg http://i.imgur.com/JjiylvX.jpg
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:That's exactly the kind of lens that is the worst for this (fast double gauss 50's) - not all the light focuses at the same place when wide open, which is what gives it that dreamy hazy low contrast look. Stopping down corrects those SA's, which moves the plane of focus a bit. If you stop down a bunch (f/4, f/5.6, etc) the DOF becomes large enough to overcome the shift, same as if you're shooting at a distance. But close up and only stopping down a little, it can throw you entirely out of the (very thin) DOF. So would it be best to shoot these in dof preview ?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:So would it be best to shoot these in dof preview ? That seems like a hassle - probably easier if you just remember you need to go a little forward or back depending on the aperture and distance. Going in and out of DOF preview to focus and then shoot you'd probably end up throwing yourself off the focus just as much (if you're not on a tripod of course)
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
Xabi posted:I had some film developed and something strange has happened to the last photos on the roll. In fact, I didn't even get photos #33-36 and I didn’t realise this until I got back home. As you can see, the pattern is different in every photo so I guess that rules out a camera leak? What else can explain this (and perhaps the fact that the last photos didn’t even get developed)? The film is Delta 3200. Bad developer chemistry? No idea, splotches like that seems mostly like uneven development (although that would usually show as streaks), or perhaps some kind of exposure while the film is out of the camera. (Comedy option: You are Anime. In-universe there, white blobs appear on photos taken in a happy mood. Star of the show is a Rollei 35S.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:That's exactly the kind of lens that is the worst for this (fast double gauss 50's) - not all the light focuses at the same place when wide open, which is what gives it that dreamy hazy low contrast look. Stopping down corrects those SA's, which moves the plane of focus a bit. If you stop down a bunch (f/4, f/5.6, etc) the DOF becomes large enough to overcome the shift, same as if you're shooting at a distance. But close up and only stopping down a little, it can throw you entirely out of the (very thin) DOF. Except I've used every version of the older 50mm f1.4 nikkors and none of them exhibited focus shift. You are thinking of older f1.2 lenses (and the newer canon one lol).
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 08:46
|
|
|
Grimarest posted:Yeah I understand that, but to be more precise, my nikon Fe2 has a split prism. When I focus without the DOF button pressed on a crossing line, it's fine, however when I press the DOF button the line will be ''broken'' when stopped down by the prism focusing despite not touching the focus ring on the lens. Wait are you having focus issues on film or in the vf? Because dof preview will make the split prism inaccurate. You can't rely on it with smaller apertures due to less light hitting the thing, which is why people that shot super tele back in the day usually used a plain screen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 08:51
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:Wait are you having focus issues on film or in the vf? Because dof preview will make the split prism inaccurate. You can't rely on it with smaller apertures due to less light hitting the thing, which is why people that shot super tele back in the day usually used a plain screen. Old pic I posted in this thread shot with the 1.4:  Focus was done on the eye but it's on the left ear. I can actually focus with the split prism when the dof preview is pressed, the top part doesn't get too dark when stopped down. and uh, content.  
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
Grimarest posted:Old pic I posted in this thread shot with the 1.4: Did you focus and then recompose? My guess is this is you moving your camera and thus the lane of focus. You have to be very aware of that when shooting at f/1.4.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
Found some rolls of old 35mm film in my house. It's labeled 'Kodak 400' and probably about 14-18 years old. It's likely been kept inside a house, in the back of a closet for most of that time. What kind of results can I expect if I shoot a roll and have it developed at my local drugstore (that amazingly still develops film in-store)?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 05:59
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Found some rolls of old 35mm film in my house. It's labeled 'Kodak 400' and probably about 14-18 years old. It's likely been kept inside a house, in the back of a closet for most of that time. What kind of results can I expect if I shoot a roll and have it developed at my local drugstore (that amazingly still develops film in-store)? It'll probably have quite a bit of base fog and a ton of extra grain, but it'll work. Shoot it at EI 200 or 160.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 06:18
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Found some rolls of old 35mm film in my house. It's labeled 'Kodak 400' and probably about 14-18 years old. It's likely been kept inside a house, in the back of a closet for most of that time. What kind of results can I expect if I shoot a roll and have it developed at my local drugstore (that amazingly still develops film in-store)? I think I have read that overexposing 1 stop per decade of poorly stored expired film is the way to go, but I don't know. I shot some Kodak Gold 400 that was expired and stored poorly at 400 and it turned out fine if not a bit grainy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 14:36
|
|
|
Here's some examples. Both films were 10-15 years old and stored in a cabinet facing the sun. "Price Club 200" at 100:  Kodak Gold 400 at 200: 
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Kodak Gold 400 at 200: drat that's sexy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Kodak Gold 400 at 200: Dig the hell out of this I walked around the zoo with some film, first two are basic fuji 400   This is some 2-3 year old Kodak 100 
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
Well, in the camera it goes, then.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 06:09 |
|
|
yeah okay, glad I didn't cross-process this now
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2015 21:18
|
|