|
Pukestain Pal posted:Isn't Delta 100 pretty contrasty to begin with? Also with ilfosol isn't it just an agitation once every minute for 10 seconds or so? There are a few photos there that look like mine, but most have a far more reasonable level of contrast. All of my of my photos look like they were made with a deep red filter on the lens. Does that "once every minute for 10 seconds" agitation scheme apply to tray-developing or just tank? From what I've read the "once through the stack every 30 seconds" is the "best" method for developing in trays, regardless of developer. But since this was my first time using trays for film, there is a 100% chance of there being gaps in my knowledge and technique. If Delta 100 is just naturally super-duper-contrasty, then I may need to find something else. It's too bad they don't make Pan F Plus in LF. I love that stuff. 
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 18:50 |
|
|
That70sShirt posted:It's too bad they don't make Pan F Plus in LF. I love that stuff. Tape some negatives together.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
That70sShirt posted:It's too bad they don't make Pan F Plus in LF. I love that stuff. Not at all the same, but low-sensitivity stuff certainly exists. You could also try orthochromatic/technical film. Rollei RPX 25 Rollei Ortho 25
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
That70sShirt posted:There are a few photos there that look like mine, but most have a far more reasonable level of contrast. All of my of my photos look like they were made with a deep red filter on the lens. Pan F Plus is exactly what I think of when I think of naturally super duper contrasty film. If you want less contrast, how about Acros?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:Tape some negatives together. You jest, but I'm tempted.  nielsm posted:Not at all the same, but low-sensitivity stuff certainly exists. You could also try orthochromatic/technical film. I've actually tried ortho film (well, paper) before. It's what I was using prior to Delta 100. I liked what it did with foliage, but was not a fan of the way it makes skies into huge patches of empty whiteness. MrBlandAverage posted:Pan F Plus is exactly what I think of when I think of naturally super duper contrasty film. If you want less contrast, how about Acros? Perhaps I'm just looking back at my days using Pan F Plus through rose-tinted glasses, but it always seemed pretty perfect to me. I've been shooting digitally the last few years and have only recently gone back to analog, so maybe I've just gotten used to low-contrast RAW files. Acros is a definite possibility and one that was a contender with Delta 100 when picking a stock to use; the Delta eventually won because of price. If, when I finish off these couple of boxes and learn a bit more, the Delta still isn't to my liking I'll give Acros a shot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
That70sShirt posted:Perhaps I'm just looking back at my days using Pan F Plus through rose-tinted glasses, but it always seemed pretty perfect to me. I've been shooting digitally the last few years and have only recently gone back to analog, so maybe I've just gotten used to low-contrast RAW files. Acros is really cool and worth the price. Zero reciprocity failure to 120 seconds and +1/2 stop out to 1000 seconds means it's actually faster than HP5+ (the other B&W film I use) past 25 seconds  I've also gotten usable images out of negatives that were 7 stops overexposed:  Cloud Gate by Isaac Sachs, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Acros is really cool and worth the price. Zero reciprocity failure to 120 seconds and +1/2 stop out to 1000 seconds means it's actually faster than HP5+ (the other B&W film I use) past 25 seconds All hail Acros.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
I still use Flickr, sometimes: Untitled by Simon Chetrit, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 01:41
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:I still use Flickr, sometimes: What's going on in the top left corner here?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:I still use Flickr, sometimes: Are her legs sunburned?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
Thoogsby posted:What's going on in the top left corner here? It's a clip mark.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
Alright, I think I may have figured out what made my negatives look like photocopies in terms of contrast. All the exposures required lengthened times to correct for reciprocity failure, but I didn't decrease the development time. According to the chart in "Using the View Camera", I should have decreased the development time by close to 20% (assuming the Delta films act like other Ilford films). I didn't know such a correction was needed because back when I shot roll film I never did any kind of special development, so I never really looked into it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 02:08
|
|
|
That70sShirt posted:Alright, I think I may have figured out what made my negatives look like photocopies in terms of contrast. All the exposures required lengthened times to correct for reciprocity failure, but I didn't decrease the development time. According to the chart in "Using the View Camera", I should have decreased the development time by close to 20% (assuming the Delta films act like other Ilford films). I didn't know such a correction was needed because back when I shot roll film I never did any kind of special development, so I never really looked into it. Er no. I mean yes exposing for longer and developing for less time will reduce contrast in midtones but that's not standard practise for just developing something you compensated for recip failure on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
I'm guessing it's just that night scenes are really contrasty to begin with - our eyes deceive us in that respect.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:Er no. I mean yes exposing for longer and developing for less time will reduce contrast in midtones but that's not standard practise for just developing something you compensated for recip failure on. That's what I read elsewhere on the Internet and in "Using the View Camera". "Reciprocity failure is a slowing of the film's reaction to light - a decrease in the film speed. ... The high values in black and white film are relatively less affected by reciprocity failure, thus the increase in exposure time must be accompanied by a decrease in development time in order to obtain the same level of contrast in the negative." -p. 75
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 02:29
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:I'm guessing it's just that night scenes are really contrasty to begin with - our eyes deceive us in that respect. And the fact that delta 100 is high contrast anyways.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
That70sShirt posted:That's what I read elsewhere on the Internet and in "Using the View Camera". What they are describing is a technique called contraction by the zone system. Exposing longer opens the shadows and developing less reduces the highlight brightness. I assume they are suggesting it because like MBA said night shots are inherently contrasty. It's not a bad practise but it's not absolutely required anytime you run into recip failure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
HAI GUYS DID I MENTION I HAVE VELVIA50 AND ACROS100 8X10 THATS ALL I SHOOT VELVIA50 AND ACROS100 8X10VELVIA50 AND ACROS100 8X10VELVIA50 AND ACROS100 8X10VELVIA50 AND ACROS100 8X10VELVIA50 AND ACROS100 8X10VELVIA50 AND ACROS100 8X10VELVIA50 AND ACROS100 8X10VELVIA50 AND ACROS100 8X10VELVIA50 AND ACROS100 8X10VELVIA50 AND ACROS100 8X10VELVIA50 AND ACROS100 8X10VELVIA50 AND ACROS100 8X10VELVIA50 AND ACROS100 8X10VELVIA50 AND ACROS100 8X10 From my super secret yakuza contact in japan Sludge Tank fucked around with this message at 07:50 on Dec 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 07:23
|
|
|
what the gently caress posted:HAI GUYS DID I MENTION I HAVE VELVIA50 AND ACROS100 8X10 THATS ALL I SHOOT VELVIA50 AND ACROS100 8X10VELVIA50 AND ACROS100 8X10VELVIA50 AND ACROS100 8X10VELVIA50 AND ACROS100 8X10VELVIA50 AND ACROS100 8X10VELVIA50 AND ACROS100 8X10VELVIA50 AND ACROS100 8X10VELVIA50 AND ACROS100 8X10VELVIA50 AND ACROS100 8X10VELVIA50 AND ACROS100 8X10VELVIA50 AND ACROS100 8X10VELVIA50 AND ACROS100 8X10VELVIA50 AND ACROS100 8X10VELVIA50 AND ACROS100 8X10 some dude on LFF is doing a group buy on those exact films...
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 08:47
|
|
|
what the gently caress posted:HAI GUYS DID I MENTION I HAVE VELVIA50 AND ACROS100 8X10 THATS ALL I SHOOT VELVIA50 AND ACROS100 8X10VELVIA50 AND ACROS100 8X10VELVIA50 AND ACROS100 8X10VELVIA50 AND ACROS100 8X10VELVIA50 AND ACROS100 8X10VELVIA50 AND ACROS100 8X10VELVIA50 AND ACROS100 8X10VELVIA50 AND ACROS100 8X10VELVIA50 AND ACROS100 8X10VELVIA50 AND ACROS100 8X10VELVIA50 AND ACROS100 8X10VELVIA50 AND ACROS100 8X10VELVIA50 AND ACROS100 8X10VELVIA50 AND ACROS100 8X10 I get enough of that guy's posting on LFF, no need to replicate it here
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
That70sShirt posted:That's what I read elsewhere on the Internet and in "Using the View Camera". I'm sorry, but this doesn't really make sense to me. Reciprocity failure correction is the exposure you add to get your baseline exposure back to normal, so if you want to do Zone System-style contraction, you'd need to add additional exposure on top of the reciprocity failure correction and then underdevelop. I've done this by accident...
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:I'm sorry, but this doesn't really make sense to me. Reciprocity failure correction is the exposure you add to get your baseline exposure back to normal, so if you want to do Zone System-style contraction, you'd need to add additional exposure on top of the reciprocity failure correction and then underdevelop. I've done this by accident... I don't know, it makes sense to me. Reciprocity failure primarily affects the darker tones in a photograph, so when you add exposure to correct for this failure yes, you are bringing those darker areas back up to normal, but you're also over-exposing your higher values at the same time. So to get those higher values back to where they belong you develop for less time. I checked last night and there's a section in "The Negative" that agrees with my other sources, except Ansel takes it a step further and actually gives extended development recommendations for extremely short exposures as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
It's more important to trust your results and personal experience than what Saint Ansel wrote.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
 Bukit Batok by alkanphel, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
Thoogsby posted:What's going on in the top left corner here? Clip marks! Pukestain Pal posted:Are her legs sunburned? No, but yeah, I was eyeing 'em too. A bit much.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 04:49
|
|
|
 Precious Earth by Rohan Bassett, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 11:33
|
|
|
That70sShirt posted:I don't know, it makes sense to me. Reciprocity failure primarily affects the darker tones in a photograph, so when you add exposure to correct for this failure yes, you are bringing those darker areas back up to normal, but you're also over-exposing your higher values at the same time. So to get those higher values back to where they belong you develop for less time. I checked last night and there's a section in "The Negative" that agrees with my other sources, except Ansel takes it a step further and actually gives extended development recommendations for extremely short exposures as well. Well, look how it worked out for you, right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
I have been lusting after medium format for a while, but I am mainly a travel photographer and I just can't lug that bigass Pentax in the OP, as awesome as that would be. Any opinions on the Fujifilm GF670? It folds into a pretty compact package. It's expensive, selling for the low $1k on eBay. But it does have aperture priority which maybe in the long run will save me money on film because I won't ruin so much of it. Any similar cameras for less money??
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
Animal posted:I have been lusting after medium format for a while, but I am mainly a travel photographer and I just can't lug that bigass Pentax in the OP, as awesome as that would be. Any opinions on the Fujifilm GF670? It folds into a pretty compact package. It's expensive, selling for the low $1k on eBay. But it does have aperture priority which maybe in the long run will save me money on film because I won't ruin so much of it. Any similar cameras for less money?? There are quite a few older Fuji 6x4.5 cameras that can be had for very reasonable money. The GS645 folds up real small, the wide doesn't fold but is still small, and they can be had for $200 - $300, they are however manual only. The GA series is newer and has full auto mode, one of the models has a zoom. It's like a 6x4.5 Point and Shoot. The down side to all of these is the smaller 6x4.5 frame size, but hey more shots? The only other thing that comes to mind is the Mamiya 6. The lens mounts collapses into the body and it has AE and AEL modes. It is sill bigger than the Fuji GF but there are 3 lens. You can find it with the 75mm lens for less than the FUJI GF. Of course it is also older and difficult or impossible to repair depending on what breaks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 04:49
|
|
|
I feel like a broken record in here, but the GF670 is an amazing piece of equipment. I've had some amazing pictures from it. The huge negatives print beautifully and the enormous slides look great on the light box (still looking for a good deal on a medium format projector). I have no qualms about recommending it aside from the fact that it eats batteries -- the only advantage my Rolleiflex has over it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 06:00
|
|
|
Animal posted:I have been lusting after medium format for a while, but I am mainly a travel photographer and I just can't lug that bigass Pentax in the OP, as awesome as that would be. Any opinions on the Fujifilm GF670? It folds into a pretty compact package. It's expensive, selling for the low $1k on eBay. But it does have aperture priority which maybe in the long run will save me money on film because I won't ruin so much of it. Any similar cameras for less money?? You can usually get a Rolleiflex, Yashica Mat, or other TLR, for rather cheap. They're always 6x6 format, but in size or weight aren't much different from a typical DSLR with a small lens.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 08:29
|
|
|
nielsm posted:You can usually get a Rolleiflex[...] for rather cheap About that - prices have skyrocketed in the last few years unfortunately. Rolleicords are still awesome if you don't mind the features you lose.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
I really like the Mamiya c330 I picked up, got the body and an 80mm lens (normal field of view) for $200 and change from keh. Interchangeable lenses are great, though it is larger than the yashicas.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
Shellman posted:I really like the Mamiya c330 I picked up, got the body and an 80mm lens (normal field of view) for $200 and change from keh. Interchangeable lenses are great, though it is larger than the yashicas. I remember seeing a Mamiya C in a store once and thinking that it was absolutely gargantuan compared to a Yashica. But I personally had no other experiences with it, so I could have been misremembering.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Putrid Grin posted:I remember seeing a Mamiya C in a store once and thinking that it was absolutely gargantuan compared to a Yashica. But I personally had no other experiences with it, so I could have been misremembering. They are indeed a beast. Yashicas look compact compared to them, but my mat kept breaking in new and exciting ways, so I decided I wanted to upgrade to something more reliable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
JSW2 posted:I feel like a broken record in here, but the GF670 is an amazing piece of equipment. I've had some amazing pictures from it. The huge negatives print beautifully and the enormous slides look great on the light box (still looking for a good deal on a medium format projector). I have no qualms about recommending it aside from the fact that it eats batteries -- the only advantage my Rolleiflex has over it. I would rather get something as small and cheaper, but if this is the camera I may eventually end up upgrading to, I might as well get it from the get-go. Seems like a good camera and focal length. I'll do my research and studying so I know exactly what I will be doing once I get it, I do not wanna start by wasting a bunch of film.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
My cool new Bronica ETR and first MF camera is missing it's take up spool in the film back insert. Will this be a serviceable replacement :  ? I don't have it with me now to check how it looks inside. unpacked robinhood fucked around with this message at 20:34 on Dec 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
unpacked robinhood posted:My cool new Bronica ETR and first MF camera is missing it's take up spool in the film back insert. I have a half dozen sitting around at home, you'll get one every time you develop a roll. If there's a shop nearby that develops 120, they can probably give you a free one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:I have a half dozen sitting around at home, you'll get one every time you develop a roll. If there's a shop nearby that develops 120, they can probably give you a free one. Thanks, I'll ask next time I'm in town. Basically there's one of those things sitting in the middle of the roll , and they can be reused at will ? I was worried they might be camera specific. I've never ever handled 120 film 
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 18:50 |
|
|
Yup, the film comes on a spool. As you shoot it, it winds onto the take up spool. When you're done the original spool will be empty. You send the film in with the take up spool, and move the old spool which becomes the new take up. You might want to look up a video of loading your camera as it's not quite as straight forward as 35mm (though it's still very easy). There is a specific orientation (because of the paper backing) which might not be obvious, and there is a starting mark for how much to prewind the film.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 21:23
|
|