Medium + Large Format Thread Part 2! Because large format takes a long time.

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > Medium + Large Format Thread Part 2! Because large format takes a long time.

«‹›134 »

Hokkaido Anxiety: May 21, 2007; slub club 2013

Finally got around to scanning my 4x5 stuff recently. I hadn't noticed on the negatives themselves, but on a few of my color (C41) shots, I had some weird blue coloring show up--sometimes in all four corners, sometimes in only a few, sometimes across the bottom or top of an image. Does this look like a light leak? It isn't restricted to one holder, but I'm not seeing any signs of a light leak on black and white film that I've shot in the same holders.

fake edit: I did just realize that the leaky images were all shot on the same lens. Maybe I need to check that the lens board sits tight in the front standard?

Any thoughts?

# ? Mar 21, 2016 01:24

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 28, 2024 04:11

dorkasaurus_rex: Jun 10, 2005; gawrsh do you think any women will be there

So a pretty nifty Indiegogo met it's goal and we're getting new film:

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/cinestill-medium-large-format-film#/

CineStill 800T. And they're gonna make 800 speed color 4x5 film.

:aaaaa:

P.S. The image above is from a "beta" roll. Imagine being able to beta test film??

# ? Mar 22, 2016 02:58

Awkward Davies: Sep 3, 2009; Grimey Drawer

dorkasaurus_rex posted:

So a pretty nifty Indiegogo met it's goal and we're getting new film:

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/cinestill-medium-large-format-film#/

CineStill 800T. And they're gonna make 800 speed color 4x5 film.

P.S. The image above is from a "beta" roll. Imagine being able to beta test film??

This is the stuff that Adam Goldberg has been posting about for a while now. I was wondering whether it would ever actually be available.

# ? Mar 22, 2016 03:02

bellows lugosi: Aug 9, 2003

Are they still just trying to strip the antihalation layer off of Vision T film? Not exactly "new" film, just repackaged.

# ? Mar 22, 2016 03:03

365 Nog Hogger: Jan 19, 2008; by Shine

Also tungsten film was niche when film was dominant, I can't imagine the volume will be there for them... Also, judging by the name and difficulty of actually formulating a new film, it's totally just repackaged kodak (bought possibly before remjet applied to facilitate format change?)

# ? Mar 22, 2016 03:53

bellows lugosi: Aug 9, 2003

I've got like 300 sheets of Portra 100T I could sell to suckers in a different box

# ? Mar 22, 2016 04:12

Sludge Tank: Jul 31, 2007; by Azathoth

Plate holder is modular for 11x11, 5 1/2x14 and 11x14 plates.

# ? Mar 22, 2016 04:32

iSheep: Feb 5, 2006; by R. Guyovich

Have you been using that shutter release long? Pretty sure I have the same one and its total garbage.

# ? Mar 22, 2016 04:59

Spedman: Mar 12, 2010; Kangaroos hate Hasselblads

what the gently caress posted:

Plate holder is modular for 11x11, 5 1/2x14 and 11x14 plates.

Nice! Let me know if your still interested in my dry chems for wet plate

# ? Mar 22, 2016 05:47

Sludge Tank: Jul 31, 2007; by Azathoth

iSheep posted:

Have you been using that shutter release long? Pretty sure I have the same one and its total garbage.

It's just one of those cheap ones off ebay. I don't have a problem with them until they lose their little thumb-caps then they're annoying. If I can remember I try to glue together all the parts that can unscrew from each other so they don't dismantle themselves in transit.

Spedman posted:

Nice! Let me know if your still interested in my dry chems for wet plate

Should be... I just bought 3kg or ferrous sulfate and 6kg of hypo so I should be good for a while but I'll definitely take your silver, bromides and iodides.

Sludge Tank fucked around with this message at 07:41 on Mar 22, 2016

# ? Mar 22, 2016 06:08

k-zed: Dec 1, 2008; Fallen Rib

I'm planning to buy into a Hasselblad 500 system sometime soon, mostly for architecture/landscape purposes. I'll probably want a longer (than 80) lens as well.

Does anyone have any recommendations? What to look for, what to watch out for and so on?

# ? Mar 23, 2016 12:31

Sludge Tank: Jul 31, 2007; by Azathoth

k-zed posted:

I'm planning to buy into a Hasselblad 500 system sometime soon, mostly for architecture/landscape purposes. I'll probably want a longer (than 80) lens as well.

Does anyone have any recommendations? What to look for, what to watch out for and so on?

In my short foray with the Hassy 500 I really liked the 150 CF T and used that probably more than the 80.

# ? Mar 23, 2016 12:45

Spedman: Mar 12, 2010; Kangaroos hate Hasselblads

k-zed posted:

I'm planning to buy into a Hasselblad 500 system sometime soon, mostly for architecture/landscape purposes. I'll probably want a longer (than 80) lens as well.

Does anyone have any recommendations? What to look for, what to watch out for and so on?

Bronica SQ series of cameras are another option for a similar modular 6x6 for a fair bit cheaper, possibly means you can get a full set of lenses without blowing your budget.

# ? Mar 23, 2016 13:56

8th-snype: Aug 28, 2005; My office is in the front room of a run-down 12 megapixel sensor but the rent suits me and the landlord doesn't ask many questions.

Dorkroom Short Fiction Champion 2012; Young Orc

The hassie 150mm f/4 is both good and affordable.

# ? Mar 23, 2016 16:15

rohan: Mar 19, 2008; Look, if you had one shot
or one opportunity
To seize everything you ever wanted
in one moment
Would you capture it...
or just let it slip?

"THEIR"

8th-snype posted:

The hassie 150mm f/4 is both good and affordable.

And I happen to have one I'm not using, so if there's any interest I can put it up in B/S over the weekend.

# ? Mar 23, 2016 23:35

8th-snype: Aug 28, 2005; My office is in the front room of a run-down 12 megapixel sensor but the rent suits me and the landlord doesn't ask many questions.

Dorkroom Short Fiction Champion 2012; Young Orc

rohan posted:

And I happen to have one I'm not using, so if there's any interest I can put it up in B/S over the weekend.

This copy is particularly good, I assure any potential buyers.

# ? Mar 24, 2016 02:21

akadajet: Sep 14, 2003

ansel autisms posted:

Are they still just trying to strip the antihalation layer off of Vision T film? Not exactly "new" film, just repackaged.

Their little FAQ is extremely dodgy about what the film actually is.

quote:

Q: Is this just repackaged Motion Picture film, like the old films other companies offered years ago?

A: It is important to note that CineSill is NOT simply "repackaged" motion picture film. We utilize the same advanced technology in Motion Picture emulsion to create a still photography film which is modified for C-41 processing. This amazing material is converted to a different format and suitable for C-41 chemistry. Compared to the original motion picture stock, CineStill 800T C-41 responds with a slightly increased gamma yielding an 800 ISO Tungsten balanced negative, which is optimized for optical and hybrid still photography processes. Past companies who "repackaged" old unused motion picture stock, forced photographers to send the film back for makeshift motion picture lab processing, and generated a motion picture format negative that was compatible with motion picture printing. There are some advantages found in modern motion picture formats and processing e.g., anti-halation, antistatic, and lubricant rem-jet backing. However, the curves, lower gamma and base can prove problematic for traditional still imaging standards. CineStill Film is indeed motion picture film, which is modified then packaged for standard still photography lab processing. It harnesses the same outstanding performance and aesthetics found in many blockbuster films produced today, plus it is optimized for still photography workflows.

# ? Mar 24, 2016 02:59

bellows lugosi: Aug 9, 2003

I wanna see some response curves. I highly doubt they'll differ from Vision T.

# ? Mar 24, 2016 03:04

365 Nog Hogger: Jan 19, 2008; by Shine

akadajet posted:

Their little FAQ is extremely dodgy about what the film actually is.

That's clear as day to me: "Compared to the original motion picture stock, CineStill 800T C-41" "CineStill Film is indeed motion picture film". Yes it is simply remjet removed Vision T.

# ? Mar 24, 2016 03:21

bellows lugosi: Aug 9, 2003

CineStill example:

Peep the red lights - tons of flare. No antihalation layer, rearmost red sensitive layer flares. No surprises.

# ? Mar 24, 2016 04:11

VomitOnLino: Jun 13, 2005; Sometimes I get lost.

ansel autisms posted:

CineStill example:

Peep the red lights - tons of flare. No antihalation layer, rearmost red sensitive layer flares. No surprises.

Yeah, I remember we've been through this before.

The latest Portra 400 iteration also got a lot of goodies and know-how from Vision 500T V3, so I'm really not sure how much better this one would be. I've checked the data-sheets for both and the differences seem to be mainly a more sensitive blue (lol Kodak mislabelled their own tech-doc) forming layer and about an extra stop in the shadows.

The extra stop in the shadows is definitely nice to have, especially since the MTF curve is basically unchanged. But I'm not sure if it's worth dealing with the extra blooming and ghosts and this will introduce.

Edit: All said and done, if this comes to my local camera shops I might pick up a roll or two to sate my morbid curiosity. But seeing the price and how much I shoot that'll be likely it.

VomitOnLino fucked around with this message at 04:48 on Mar 24, 2016

# ? Mar 24, 2016 04:41

Thoogsby: Nov 18, 2006; Very strong. Everyone likes me.

Every CineStill example I've seen has looked like a poorly shot student film with a bad colorgrade.

# ? Mar 24, 2016 14:09

vxsarin: Oct 29, 2004; ASK ME ABOUT MY AP WIRE PHOTOS

This guy shoots it a lot with some good results. some :nws:

in here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/acristinziano/

# ? Mar 24, 2016 16:01

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

Thoogsby posted:

Every CineStill example I've seen has looked like a poorly shot student film with a bad colorgrade.

Man, you weren't wrong - see:

vxsarin posted:

This guy shoots it a lot with some good results. some in here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/acristinziano/

# ? Mar 24, 2016 16:19

8th-snype: Aug 28, 2005; My office is in the front room of a run-down 12 megapixel sensor but the rent suits me and the landlord doesn't ask many questions.

Dorkroom Short Fiction Champion 2012; Young Orc

It definitely a special effects kinda filmnot the second coming of film jesus that some people make it out to be. I like this:

Untitled by Brian Fulda, on Flickr
(I know it's not medium format but it is shot on cinestill)

# ? Mar 24, 2016 20:25

McMadCow: Jan 19, 2005; With our rifles and grenades and some help from God.

Yo eff your stilly gimmick color film. 8x10 paper negatives bitches.
I'm working on an ongoing project about early portraits and I had to ape me some David Octavius Hill.

Lenny the Deckhand by Jason, on Flickr

# ? Mar 25, 2016 03:02

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

McMadCow posted:

Yo eff your stilly gimmick color film. 8x10 paper negatives bitches.
I'm working on an ongoing project about early portraits and I had to ape me some David Octavius Hill.

Lenny the Deckhand by Jason, on Flickr

Nice.

# ? Mar 25, 2016 03:39

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

# ? Mar 25, 2016 07:03

Thoogsby: Nov 18, 2006; Very strong. Everyone likes me.

alkanphel posted:

This is cool. Reminds me of a photo by this Japanese photographer that I can''t remember but I'll look it up later and post it. It was in the tokyo issue of aperture.

# ? Mar 25, 2016 14:46

vxsarin: Oct 29, 2004; ASK ME ABOUT MY AP WIRE PHOTOS

I think this 200mm f/4 for the Pentax 6x7 just doubled the weight of it. I am going to need a dolly to lug this thing around now.

# ? Mar 25, 2016 15:13

Paul MaudDib: May 3, 2006; TEAM NVIDIA:
FORUM POLICE

vxsarin posted:

I think this 200mm f/4 for the Pentax 6x7 just doubled the weight of it. I am going to need a dolly to lug this thing around now.

Wait until you see some of the longer lenses. The non-EDIF lenses in particular are stupid heavy.

# ? Mar 27, 2016 04:49

The Claptain: May 11, 2014; Grimey Drawer

While browsing local classifieds, I saw this:

Linhof Kardan Color 45s, being sold for 150 EUR.

I do not know much about large format, I mostly shoot medium, so how good is this price for this camera?

I have only remotely thought about shooting large format, but this got me thinking, I might start investing in gear.

# ? Mar 27, 2016 22:38

nielsm: Jun 1, 2009

Doctor Bombadil posted:

While browsing local classifieds, I saw this:

Linhof Kardan Color 45s, being sold for 150 EUR.

I do not know much about large format, I mostly shoot medium, so how good is this price for this camera?

I have only remotely thought about shooting large format, but this got me thinking, I might start investing in gear.

Sounds like a very good price. But check, does that include bellows? Any film holders? Any lens boards?
You will almost certainly need to get one or more lenses with shutter and lens board, at the very least. Probably also a solid tripod.

# ? Mar 27, 2016 22:51

The Claptain: May 11, 2014; Grimey Drawer

nielsm posted:

Sounds like a very good price. But check, does that include bellows? Any film holders? Any lens boards?[quote]

Includes bellows, focusing screen and four holders. No lensboard as far as I can see.

# ? Mar 27, 2016 23:12

Primo Itch: Nov 4, 2006; I confessed a horrible secret for this account!

I present you guys, the ugliest 6x7 rangefinder ever

It's a mismatch of pieces from several cameras or accesories. The rangefinder, from a Polaroid, still to be installed and calibrated, thought I plan on doing it this week.

# ? Mar 28, 2016 01:22

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

Doctor Bombadil posted:

While browsing local classifieds, I saw this:

Linhof Kardan Color 45s, being sold for 150 EUR.

I do not know much about large format, I mostly shoot medium, so how good is this price for this camera?

I have only remotely thought about shooting large format, but this got me thinking, I might start investing in gear.

It's hard to tell from the photos alone since the holders are all lying at an angle, but it looks like that might be a 4x5 camera with a 2.25x3.25 back and holders. That would definitely be a question to get answered before spending any money on it.

Even if it's 4x5, in which case it'd be an alright price, consider that this is gonna weigh at least 3.5kg without a lens and it won't easily fit in normal camera bags. If lack of portability is not a dealbreaker and it is in fact 4x5, go for it.

# ? Mar 28, 2016 01:34

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

Primo Itch posted:

I present you guys, the ugliest 6x7 rangefinder ever

It's a mismatch of pieces from several cameras or accesories. The rangefinder, from a Polaroid, still to be installed and calibrated, thought I plan on doing it this week.

That's a nice Frankencamera.

# ? Mar 28, 2016 01:41

Cassius Belli: May 22, 2010; horny is prohibited

Keep my wallet and sanity in your prayers tonight, Dorkroom, for I have just placed an order with Hugo. :homebrew:

Cassius Belli fucked around with this message at 03:32 on Mar 28, 2016

# ? Mar 28, 2016 03:26

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

Yond Cassius posted:

Keep my wallet and sanity in your prayers tonight, Dorkroom, for I have just placed an order with Hugo.

What size?

# ? Mar 28, 2016 04:35

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 28, 2024 04:11

Cassius Belli: May 22, 2010; horny is prohibited

MrBlandAverage posted:

What size?

Just a 4x5 right now. I have some Fuji PA145 backs and not quite 50 packs of film for it, so the plan is to use it as training wheels before I go up a size again (note the absence of "if" in there - I know myself too well).

# ? Mar 28, 2016 04:47

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > Medium + Large Format Thread Part 2! Because large format takes a long time.

«‹›134 »