|
Karl Barks posted:I had the hardest time with getting all the chemicals to the same temperature and staying there, but I've also only done it twice. I'm using D-76 which I think is pretty standard for tri-x. I've only ever done B/W, but I only bother with the temperature of the developer, and just use the fixer at room temperature, which is somewhere between 21-26 C depending on time of year. Cold tap water tends to be 10-14 C, when I use concentrated developer (like Rodinal, HC-110 etc.) I mix up a jug of 20 C water from hot + cold tap water, then use that for making up the developer. Temperature will change a bit over the course of development, but usually not a significant amount. For color development you probably do want some kind of active temperature control. I don't think sous vide immersion heaters are useful for that, doesn't sous vide cooking usually start at 50 C? An aquarium heater may work, although the only one I've seen (not looked hard) only went up to around 34 C, you probably want one that goes up to 40 C. FE:f;b
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 08:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 16:30 |
|
|
unpacked robinhood posted:I just carefully rewind when all the film is exposed until I hear/feel the leader leave the take up spool, then I stop. Just Hulk Hogan the canister open and pop the spool out, then wind it on the dev spool.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 08:44
|
|
|
Spedman posted:Just Hulk Hogan the canister open and pop the spool out, then wind it on the dev spool. I'm really not comfortable having a meter of film swinging around, especially when I can possibly have trouble winding on the dev reel. With my method I know I can safely wind it back in the canister and save it for later.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 11:25
|
|
|
unpacked robinhood posted:I'm really not comfortable having a meter of film swinging around, especially when I can possibly have trouble winding on the dev reel. With my method I know I can safely wind it back in the canister and save it for later. Ah, see, if you just pop the fucker open, if you have trouble just let it coil up and place it in your light-tight development tank until you're ready to come back to it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
You can get pretty good at not rewinding the film all the way back into the canister. It varies from camera to camera, but a rotation or two past the point where the tension gives up will leave you with with enough of a lead to work with without prying the canister open.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
burzum karaoke posted:You can get pretty good at not rewinding the film all the way back into the canister. It varies from camera to camera, but a rotation or two past the point where the tension gives up will leave you with with enough of a lead to work with without prying the canister open. They make a tool that goes into 135 canisters and retrieves the leader, they're like $5. You just insert them then advance the roll till it pushes back on the tool, close the tool and pull. Example: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/185975-REG/Samigon_35mm_film_retriever.html $3.15! There are a bunch of similar tools that work the same way. Then you can start the spool before going into the bag, and the only tool you need is a plastic letter opener to cut the tail off the cartridge and a piece of tape depending on the tank spool. $3.15 to never gently caress that up or cut your hand on a lovely Fuji Neopan 100 cartridge with its lovely sharp metal end caps (much rage) is a low price to pay. If you try to use/shoot frame 0 on your film (some people do), this may not work out for you very well. I've had it get partially exposed in the past.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
You just need a bottle opener to pop open the can, and then you toss the can aside and never deal with it again. I usually don't even trim off the leader and roll that poo poo right in. I also use D76 and Tri-X so who even knows.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
I've never tried to reel it with the leader still on, but thinking about where it always jams at the start I think that might work better. Interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
BlackMK4 posted:I've never tried to reel it with the leader still on, but thinking about where it always jams at the start I think that might work better. Interesting. Pro tip: trim the tips of the corners. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
Also some brands are easier to wind than others. Namely, foma is rear end
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
burzum karaoke posted:You can get pretty good at not rewinding the film all the way back into the canister. It varies from camera to camera, but a rotation or two past the point where the tension gives up will leave you with with enough of a lead to work with without prying the canister open. This is how I've always done it, but if you leave too much out the unspooled film leader can rub up against the shutter, or get caught in a blade if it's a metal, vertical travel variety. I'm pretty sure this is how I hosed up my FE2's delicate titanium (heh) shutter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
How do you guys dispose of your developing chemicals?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:Also some brands are easier to wind than others. What do you dislike about Foma? I find it pretty pleasant, just a bit easy to scratch. GrAviTy84 posted:How do you guys dispose of your developing chemicals? You only really need to worry about fixer, if you have a local lab they may have a silver reclamation system, otherwise take it to a hazardous waste dump.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:What do you dislike about Foma? I find it pretty pleasant, just a bit easy to scratch. Loading the film onto a spool. The results are just fine, it's just much more of a pain to handle than, say, HP5.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
^^^^ I like foma, but mostly just because I'm cheap. My favorite results have been with the 100, although I don't think I've ever developed a roll of it that didn't have at least one spot somewhere on an exposure that looked like someone had punched a hole in it with a pin. Not that there was actually a hole, just an irregular dark/light patch. I do use the Arista versions though, and maybe their QC is worse than the name brand. Does there exist a resource for reviews of different photo film stocks? Like a camera review site, or even a good blog, but for film? I think it would be pretty sweet if there was a place to go to get technical details and well-versed opinions on various films. Even better if it featured a test scene shot with different types of film, in the way that digital camera reviews do to for sensor comparisons. Typing 'film reviews' into google doesn't seem to give me any relevant results, just a bunch of stuff about movies  (Kidding, But I have looked and so far not been able to come up with much) SMERSH Mouth fucked around with this message at 02:36 on Jun 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
I have a 2 reel and a 4 reel (35mm) stainless steel nikor tank. Does anyone know if a stainless steel 120 reel would fit in either or both of these tanks?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
GrAviTy84 posted:I have a 2 reel and a 4 reel (35mm) stainless steel nikor tank. Does anyone know if a stainless steel 120 reel would fit in either or both of these tanks? 2x steel 35mm tanks fit 1 steel 120 just fine. Might have a tiny bit of wobble in there but nothing major.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
Yond Cassius posted:2x steel 35mm tanks fit 1 steel 120 just fine. Might have a tiny bit of wobble in there but nothing major. cool,, thanks
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
Anybody in thread push Portra 400 to 1600 or 3200? I shot half a roll like I do Tri-X 400 and erred to underexposed, but I just read something online that indicates you should err to overexposed with C41 negative process films. Wondering how hosed that roll is going to be.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 06:47
|
|
|
Always err on the side of overexposure with negative film.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 07:20
|
|
|
windex posted:Anybody in thread push Portra 400 to 1600 or 3200? Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights C41 =/= BW
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 07:21
|
|
|
burzum karaoke posted:Always err on the side of overexposure with negative film. Eh; my experience with Tri-X is that it blows out easily when push processed but the darks can be recovered almost infinitely (seriously, at least 3-4 stops, from a close enough exposure). The problem is I read underexposed C41 fogs badly when pushed which has more of an impact with color than B&W. The only time this trade is made is generally on images with the most light, e.g. with the sun behind the photographer. When DOF considerations preclude any adjustments but shutter speed on a partially exposed roll, you pretty much just pray you can recover the compromise made with your fancy film scanner. Hence the question, err to over or under exposed. (I pretty much never have my film traditionally projected to more than contact sheets, with rare exception.) Spedman posted:Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights I'll finish the roll like that and we will see what happens. I haven't shot color negative 135 format film for something like 24 years, and in 120 I used to shoot Portra 160 NC with a tripod and didn't push process. These days I am lazy and want motion stopping grainy bullshit so I push everything so I can maintain awesome shutter speeds because image clarity is kinda meh on my priorities list. (They are all bad photos anyway.) Thanks guys. edit: vvv thanks vvv windex fucked around with this message at 08:07 on Jul 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 07:55
|
|
|
Oh, I'm sorry. You're 100% right as always.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 08:02
|
|
|
windex posted:Eh; my experience with Tri-X is that it blows out easily when push processed but the darks can be recovered almost infinitely (seriously, at least 3-4 stops, from a close enough exposure). The problem is I read underexposed C41 fogs badly when pushed which has more of an impact with color than B&W. https://www.amazon.com/Negative-Ansel-Adams-Photography-Book/dp/0821221868
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 08:25
|
|
|
I've actually read that, it's just that I am mostly taking photos of people being vaguely interesting in public while moving. I get maybe 3-4 seconds to confirm focus zone/aperture/shutter speed before I hit go. Add to that I am shooting a Bessa T without an accessory viewfinder and most of my time is spent visualizing the shot. But hey I have fun and it gives me an excuse to hike all over Tokyo/surrounding areas.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 09:07
|
|
|
windex posted:I've actually read that, it's just that I am mostly taking photos of people being vaguely interesting in public while moving. I get maybe 3-4 seconds to confirm focus zone/aperture/shutter speed before I hit go. Have you tried using a camera with autofocus and autoexposure
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 09:13
|
|
|
windex posted:I've actually read that, it's just that... You can stop right there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 09:17
|
|
|
or maybe, if you're shooting from the hip, a Yashica T3 or T4 would enhance your photographic experience
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 09:27
|
|
|
burzum karaoke posted:You can stop right there. I'm sorry I use my cameras in a way you don't like. I'll go sell them right away. atomicthumbs posted:Have you tried using a camera with autofocus and autoexposure Eh. The problem is most film cameras until you get to modern SLRs don't do aperture priority, they do shutter priority. Also, I tend to not like AF when shooting bad photos because it's easier to visualize DOF than it is to wait for AF confirmation. I thought about buying a point and shoot (Contax T2 or similar) but never really found one that was in good shape and not hideously expensive or in need of repairs. atomicthumbs posted:or maybe, if you're shooting from the hip, a Yashica T3 or T4 would enhance your photographic experience Oh hey that is actually pretty awesome. I'll have a look, but in Tokyo, Yashica's are pretty rare in good condition and they almost always seem to need a lot of love. I had somehow missed the SUPER SCOPE. FWIW, half my lenses for my digital cameras are MF only or in the case of one AF lens almost only used in MF. But they have viewfinders, that I sometimes use. The Bessa T + Color-Skopar 35 is a pretty great combo, I do occasionally get images I like out of it, and my film keep rate is much higher than my digital.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 09:41
|
|
|
windex posted:I'm sorry I use my cameras in a way you don't like. I'll go sell them right away. the olympus om series is aperture-priority, as are good nikon SLRs. i think you were looking at canons for some unfathomable reason.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 09:52
|
|
|
What the gently caress are you developing Tri-X in that blows highlights at a 3-4 stop push? Is it piss? I bet it's piss.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 12:02
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:the olympus om series is aperture-priority, as are good nikon SLRs. i think you were looking at canons for some unfathomable reason. And pretty much every Pentax slr since 1980. If Windex had read and understood The Negative, we wouldn't be having this idiotic conversation. If you can't get a half decent exposure with Tri-X while following dev instructions from the Massive Dev Chart it's not the film/camera's fault.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 12:14
|
|
|
The poor workman blames his tools, or in this case is himself a massive tool.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 12:40
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:What the gently caress are you developing Tri-X in that blows highlights at a 3-4 stop push? Is it piss? I bet it's piss. T-Max RS was the first time I noticed it, then I blamed the short development times and me being slow maybe, tried D76 from powder, same outcome a few times. I tend to just send film to the lab at the moment, they use T-Max RS, same problem. This is a case where I'm a stop overexposed overall and the brightest areas retain no recoverable detail. I can resurrect shadows forever. If I take the same shot, one over, one under, the underexposed image consistently has better contrast and detail once its in the scanner, and the one over is much more likely to have blown out sections (particularly at edges of the frame, which is kinda expected given the meter design of this camera being weak on the edges) - even if I tone down the scanner brightness. I used to think this was a metering problem but the meter on the camera comes to the same conclusion as my digital cameras with equivalent settings, and the blowouts show up on contact sheets projected off the negative, so it's not my eyes or the scanner. I have no idea wtf is going wrong, I never had issues like this on 120 format trix variants, but they have apparently changed emulsions (and dev times) since then (2007) and I wasn't pushing it. So, I've just been running on observations, since I can't explain it and gave up caring. I still see this when I gently caress up, and I'm now through about 40 rolls of 400TX since I started up again. Worse, I don't see this problem with other 400 speed films shot the same way and developed +2 (Seagull 400, HP5, and now for giggles, Kentmere). If I didn't like the look of the pushed trix I'd stop shooting it. The current Portra/T-Max/Tri-X emulsions are said to have really similar characteristics due to identical cost reduction strategies applied to them, not withstanding the difference in grain and process between the three, so my concern was that I was going to see the same goddamned problem with Portra, but it seems like it maybe has an inverse issue. windex fucked around with this message at 14:11 on Jul 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 13:52
|
|
|
First of all, stop posting walls of text no one will read. Second of all stop using Tmax RS, it sucks. Use HC-110 (semistand in dilution H) or Rodinal (1:100 stand) to push Tri-X, anything else requires intense experimentation to get working properly. Of course the scanner likes the underexposed negs better, scanners read flat negs way better than contrasty ones and pushing Tri-x in a standard dilution dip-dunk (or furiously shaken by your jerk off hand in a patterson tank) is a sure fire way to get contrast. Either compensate for your deficient process or fix the problem.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 14:14
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:First of all, stop posting walls of text no one will read. Second of all stop using Tmax RS, it sucks. Use HC-110 (semistand in dilution H) or Rodinal (1:100 stand) to push Tri-X, anything else requires intense experimentation to get working properly. Of course the scanner likes the underexposed negs better, scanners read flat negs way better than contrasty ones and pushing Tri-x in a standard dilution dip-dunk (or furiously shaken by your jerk off hand in a patterson tank) is a sure fire way to get contrast. Either compensate for your deficient process or fix the problem. HC-110 has not been available in Japan for at least a year (at Bic), or at least every time I look it's sold out (at Yodobashi), the smaller stores are now just rolls of inkjet printers you can slap SD cards into, and the Amazon sellers are importing it from somewhere at a markup over the already crazy Japan price of about US$80 for the euro concentrate strength 1L bottle. The D-76 powder I had to haul back from the US. Tmax RS is pretty widely available - and cheap - because all the non-Fuji labs use it for B&W. I can get some of the Ilford developers, but none that seem equivalent. No Agfa Rodinal, no equivalents I know of either. Kodak itself provides times for Tmax RS on Tri-X pushed to 1600: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.pdf .. which is why I wound up with it. I did a roll of HP5+ in it at the times on the Massive Dev Chart for EI 1600 and it came out fine. So while yeah, Tmax RS sucks, it's not that easy to get away from, and still does not explain this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
japan+rodinal+google= http://www.graltd.com/products/detail.php?product_id=33 http://kawauso.biz/products/detail.php?product_id=937 I have no idea why you can't get HC-110 in your country sorry. Oh and Kodak tech pubs have literally never given an accurate development time, you would know this if you actually read The Negative. Further more Hp5 is a different film stock and 1600 is not a 3-4 stop push so I don't even know what the gently caress you are doing bring it up. If you are gonna haul powder from the US do yourself a favor and get Diafine next time, it's an easy 1600 speed low contrast develop for Tri-X.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:japan+rodinal+google= Since I was looking up Rodinal times, I just noticed the Kodak dev times for Tmax RS + Tri-x 400 are shorter than the massive dev chart. Shorter times should be less burn. The R09 one shot looks like poo poo (dark plus low contrast) from a quick GIS on google japan, but could be user error. When I said 3-4 stops I was implying that shadows retained good detail down 3-4 stops from the intended exposure, recoverable in my scanner output. Not pushing 3-4 stops. I pretty much only shoot ISO 400 films metered for 1600 (or 800 at night), and develop for 1600. The night photos work out great, its the daylight photos of subjects or scenes in direct sunlight that give me hell beyond reasonable expectations, and only with 400TX. FWIW, this is my film scanner, and I've never had an issue with high contrast negatives or it's ability to recover shadows or highlights that are present on the negative. It only gets weird with low contrast negatives, where things start looking washed out (to me) and are unrecoverable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
Your negatives are flat because you're overdeveloping them. You're free to ignore that advice like you ignore all the other advice you get. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 16:30 |
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Your negatives are flat because you're overdeveloping them. You're free to ignore that advice like you ignore all the other advice you get. That was never even a discussion topic. :P (Also, I listen to good advice but lets face it, my original question was about underexposed/pushed Portra 400 fogging and nobody said poo poo down that topic so  )
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 18:15
|
|