|
frogbs posted:What do you guys do with your developer/fixer when you're done developing film at home? Is it kosher to dump it down the drain or do you collect it and drop it off for disposal somewhere? Most developers are fine to dump in the drain in small amounts. Fixer can be worse, the best is to collect exhausted fixer in a container and have it disposed professionally, but if it's just 1 L solution every 3 months, it's probably not a real hazard either.
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 10:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 19:12 |
|
|
Yes. The problem of pollution is one of volume. A wastewater system can handle just about anything, provided it can be diluted down to a safe level. Considering that film development is much less widespread today than it was 20 years ago, I wouldn't worry too much about it. I'd imagine it was the big lab networks that really had to worry about disposal and mitigation. Does anyone here have an opinion on FP4 vs PanF+ (vs Delta 100, although I've used it and think I've got a handle on its characteristics it could ba a useful point of comparison)? Is the difference between fp4 and panF really just speed and resulting grain size, or are there other notable differences?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 13:55
|
|
|
I believe Pan F+ is higher contrast at 50 ISO than FP4+, but should soften up a bit if you develop it for 25 or 20 instead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 14:11
|
|
|
Fixer should definitely not, in my opinion, be dumped down the drain, since after it's been used it's got lots of silver in it. Just because there's fewer other people also dumping fixer doesn't mean you should. I take my fixer to a photo lab where they have a silver recovery system. edit: the other chemicals are much more inert/less harmful. MrBlandAverage fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Jun 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
Yeah, it really isn't that much work on your part to store the chems and take them somewhere for disposal. Don't dump them in the drain.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
I just got one of these little silver recovery module widgets, which is a low-rent version of the silver reclamation device that a photo lab will have. When the fixer is exhausted (takes more than twice as long as fresh fix to clear a test strip), you let the SMT-20 do its thing overnight. The silver plates out into the widget and the remaining solution is disposable. When the widget itself is full you mail it in to the company, and you can ask them to pay you for the silver if there's enough of it (there likely won't be enough of it unless you are some kind of Winogrand).
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Can't you just take it like colloidal silver, for the health benefits? Probably better than sending it in, as that's just the Fed trying to get valuable specie metals out of circulation so they can force us to use their worthless fiat money. (But really, that's good to know. What about blix?)
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
You can treat blix with the processor as well, but as you have to do some adjusting to the pH first. I think it needs to be slightly acidic, but I don't remember exactly (I don't do color work at home). I do have some notes on it somewhere, though, and I'll be happy to look them up if you're really interested. e: You need either to get the PH down to about 5, or neutralize the bleach by adding sodium metabisulphite. Otherwise you just come to a standstill as the bleach re-absorbs any silver you plate out. Cassius Belli fucked around with this message at 00:57 on Jun 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
I'm either a dumbass (most likely) or the Nikon FM craigslist find I posted a few pages back is a bust. I shot a roll of film while I was out in Phoenix for work and it came out blank. I haven't got the negatives back yet, but thedarkroom.com site just says "the roll of film submitted is blank or did not produce any images". I swear I had the film placed correctly and it was advancing. I checked the shutter and can see it opening up on bulb to 1/250, but beyond that I can't tell. I was shooting 1/500 most of the time cause it was super bright out there. Any other things I can check? I wasted another roll this morning on stupid poo poo and will send it in. Again, it seems to be working ok as far as I can tell. I left the back open for 5 advances just to see the film moving, which it was. I might have to buy Karl Banks's Nikon FA over in the buy and sell poo poo thread, cause I'm really digging this film junk. Choicecut fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Jun 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
You can still fire the shutter with the back open. And see the film advancing mechanism. Does it look ok on all speeds? I'd also suggest picking up some b&w film and developing yourself, and wasting a few rolls to test it out. Film dev is super cool. The FA is also super cool.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:You can still fire the shutter with the back open. And see the film advancing mechanism. Does it look ok on all speeds? Not sure on all speeds. I can see light up to 1/250 and bulb opens up fine, but beyond I can't tell if its opening. It clicks and moves, but my eyes can't see light. What all would I need to buy to develop B&W myself? Is there like a starter kit? I also don't have a darkroom, but I see people on here mentioning development bags or something. I'm guessing when I get my negatives back, if they really are blank, my dumbass didn't load the film properly or it didn't advance right. If it's black or weird looking the shutter is hosed up?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
The lab I used to use wouldn't charge me for blank rolls, not sure if that's the case for you. Might be worth it to run another roll through. I know when I was first shooting, I would sometimes not hook the film into the spool correctly and it wouldn't advance at all. I could always tell I had done that because when I went to rewind, I'd hear it flip back into the canister after 2 or 3 winds. I'd put your shutter speed at whatever the slowest the FM allows, I'm pretty sure it does at least a 1 second exposure. That should be obvious if the shutter is opening and closing correctly. Otherwise.... I mean.... the FA is pretty nice 
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:The lab I used to use wouldn't charge me for blank rolls, not sure if that's the case for you. Might be worth it to run another roll through. I know when I was first shooting, I would sometimes not hook the film into the spool correctly and it wouldn't advance at all. I could always tell I had done that because when I went to rewind, I'd hear it flip back into the canister after 2 or 3 winds. haha, I know, I keep looking at it, but my wife will kill me. Just out of curiosity, would you cut a deal on the FA with the 28mm AIS you have?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
If you have a lens mounted on your fm and open the film back, point the lens at a strong light source in an otherwise dim or dark room, and look at the shutter from behind, you should be able to perceive light coming though, if the shutter is opening properly at 1/500+. Alternatively, hold a piece of paper behind the open back and with the same setup watch for light to appear on the paper when the shutter fires (kind of like an eclipse-viewing pinhole). I've done this incessantly with old Soviet cameras to check the fast speeds. It should work with your Nikon as well. Best way is to hold a flashlight close to your lens and try to make a light seal around the lens + light with your hand. E: sloppy phone post SMERSH Mouth fucked around with this message at 01:39 on Jun 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
Choicecut posted:haha, I know, I keep looking at it, but my wife will kill me. Just out of curiosity, would you cut a deal on the FA with the 28mm AIS you have? Check your pms!
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:If you have a lens mounted on your fm and open the film back, point the lens at a strong light source in an otherwise dim or dark room, and look at the shutter from behind, you should be able to perceive light coming though, if the shutter is opening properly at 1/500+. Alternatively, hold a piece of paper behind the open back and with the same setup watch for light to appear on the paper when the shutter fires (kind of like an eclipse-viewing pinhole). I was able to see light on all shutter speeds but 1/1000. 1/500, what I shot the whole roll that's blank, has a very quick blip of light. I think my dumbass loaded the film and didn't ensure it was advancing properly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
I think I have consumed my photography-related luck for the rest of the year at least. Went for a portraits session with a reusable 35mm roll, only to find at the end that I didn't actually close it with the closing cap when I put film into it. I processed it anyway (just for the kicks) and.. Apart from the first four shots, everything else came out unscathed. :-O
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 09:55
|
|
|
maxmars posted:I think I have consumed my photography-related luck for the rest of the year at least. Last year I managed to disengage the film from the spooler while advancing a frame in my ME. Back home I could never get the whole film on the reel for processing so I eventually said gently caress it and cut the extra length. The cut was right past the last photo. unpacked robinhood fucked around with this message at 12:50 on Jun 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 12:48
|
|
|
Hope some of you experienced folks can help me out. I got the negatives back from the "blank roll", but they aren't blank. They have like a sliver of image on all the negatives. I confirmed that light is coming through when shutter is actuated, but does this mean it's not opening all the way on higher shutter speeds? If I select a slow shutter speed or bulb mode, I can visually see it opening all the way. Here is what all the negatives look like: Is it something I did or is the camera junk? I don't want to put any money into it since it was so cheap, so I'll probably just scrap it if it's hosed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
Choicecut posted:does this mean it's not opening all the way on higher shutter speeds? That's what it looks like - maybe the first curtain is too slow, so the second curtain is catching up to it well before the exposure is over.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
Suck. Is it something that's easily fixed or would you just buy something else?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
Choicecut posted:Suck. Is it something that's easily fixed or would you just buy something else? It would probably cost as much to fix as a good condition FM on ebay.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:It would probably cost as much to fix as a good condition FM on ebay. Hahahah..I knew you would be ready to pounce.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
Choicecut posted:Hahahah..I knew you would be ready to pounce. just offering my knowledge 
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
Would it show up if you used the slow motion mode on an iPhone with a strong light pointing through the front?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 03:58
|
|
|
I saw this happen with another FM before, i think it was the mirror wasn't going up all the way when shot. You could probably fix it by firing the camera a couple dozen times since it's gunked up from sitting probably.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:Would it show up if you used the slow motion mode on an iPhone with a strong light pointing through the front? I might try this just to see. Understanding posted:I saw this happen with another FM before, i think it was the mirror wasn't going up all the way when shot. I've put 2 rolls through it now. Waiting on the second to get developed. If it's hosed like the first one, I'll probably just set it on a shelf for display or something.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
just check it by inspecting the camera going off with the lens out, as long as you have no film in it. these old cameras do that from time to time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
I shot a roll of Ektar 100 in my Kiev 88. I got the scans back (my scanner is in a warehouse somewhere in Eastern Europe) and they look like this. I checked the negatives and the colours are hosed up on those too. What can I do? I tried loving about with channel mixing in Photoshop but I couldn't get the colours to be anywhere close to normal. Did they develop it with the wrong process? Is it salvageable? In happier news, I got the first roll back from my Horizon panoramic camera. It shoots a single exposure across two frames of 35mm film. The lens is in a rotating drum and the film runs across a curved track behind it.  untitled-56.jpg by Iain Compton, on Flickr  untitled-65.jpg by Iain Compton, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
Dude, those horizon pictures are awesome. Is a horizon panoramic camera something you made or something you can buy? I've never heard of one before. You guys are gonna make me buy all the things!
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
Choicecut posted:Dude, those horizon pictures are awesome. Is a horizon panoramic camera something you made or something you can buy? I've never heard of one before. You guys are gonna make me buy all the things! It's a Russian film camera. Mine is from 1970 and it's completely mechanical, there were some photos of it in the SovCam thread and a bit more detail. I put a short video on Instagram too. https://www.instagram.com/p/BFjfpqzBlWE/?taken-by=serialforeigner
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
get a widelux
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:It's a Russian film camera. Mine is from 1970 and it's completely mechanical, there were some photos of it in the SovCam thread and a bit more detail. I put a short video on Instagram too. gently caress yeah, that is bad rear end! BANME.sh posted:get a widelux lol, a grand. Newp!
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
lol, welcome to photography
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:lol, welcome to photography haha, It's terrible! I got the second roll of film back from the Nikon FM. I basically burned the roll on stupid poo poo, but it seems to be working an all shutter speeds but 1/500 and 1/1000. I would think the shutter would be an all or none thing. I don't want to sink any money into it, so I'll have to live with it until I can buy a better camera. Is the amount of noise on these pretty typical or is this because I'm shooting 400 speed film?  
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
Choicecut posted:lol, a grand. Newp! Get an xpan. But really, just ditch that fm and get an srt-101 or spotmatic or the like. You shouldn't need to spend more than 50-60 bucks to get a solid working manual 35mm camera and nice 50mm lens. I've been running with Minolta stuff for a while now and just recently went off on a Nikon tangent. After going hog wild on researching and trying out different lenses, I've found that: 1. Nikon 'F' cameras are generally pretty hardy and reliable. (Except in your case, so you can strike out that advantage on your list) 2. The humble Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 ais has some of the best wide-open performance of any 'fast' lens I own. 3. Nikon actually had some fairly decent manual-focus zooms, unlike (as far as I can tell) its contemporary competitors. 3. Nikon gear is expensive. 4. Old Nikon telephoto & macro lenses are good performers. Tilt-shift Nikkors are available for a fraction of the cost of modern T/S offerings. On the other hand, when it comes to Minolta: 1. The SRT-101 is a beast. I inherited one that was used throughout the 70's & 80's, then given to me. I used it to learn about photography back in high school, put it away, then recently dusted it off and started using it again, and it's always worked great without any maintenance. Also, the XE and XD were so nice that Leica licensed their platforms for the creation their own R-series cameras (although my beat-up XD doesn't function perfectly, its flaws are minor compared to missing fast shutter speeds). 2. The rokkor 24mm f/2.8 is better than the nikkor equivalent, and one of the best wide-angle lenses of its era. 3. You can get fast normal lenses for cheap. And they're good. The 45mm f/2 pancake and 58mm f/1.4 are widely available at bargain prices. 4. Minolta has some legendary specialty lenses; they're exorbitantly priced, but some even do things that no nikkor can. 5. You can get into a more fully-featured Minolta camera, and pick up a couple of lenses, for a good deal less than a similar Nikon setup would cost. I don't have any experience with Pentax (either m42 or k-mount) but there are definitely some very nice lenses in both lineups. M42 stuff is an especially good deal. This was not likely of much use to you. I just have to post about cameras. You should probably just go with Olympus.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
Nikon 50/1.8d is the sharpest lens I own and it cost $60.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:I shot a roll of Ektar 100 in my Kiev 88. I got the scans back (my scanner is in a warehouse somewhere in Eastern Europe) and they look like this. I'm surprised no one has commented on this, that is turbofucked. I have absolutely no idea what could have caused this. Do you have a digital camera you could take pictures of the negatives with? Put em in front of a white monitor with the brightness cranked up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
220 loaded backwards?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 05:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 19:12 |
|
|
365 Nog Hogger posted:I'm surprised no one has commented on this, that is turbofucked. I have absolutely no idea what could have caused this. Do you have a digital camera you could take pictures of the negatives with? Put em in front of a white monitor with the brightness cranked up. Here. With finger to show white balance is more-or-less ok.  It's definitely not 220 film, you can see the index marks and Ektar has never been sold as anything except 120, 135 and sheet film.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 09:25
|
|