|
scanned my last big batch of 35mm with a macro lens on my gh4. very happy with the results compared to my neighbor's v750 I was borrowing. MF still looks better on the scanner, but I bet if I had a 30-40mp full frame digital I'd be totally satisfied.  Untitled Untitled
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 08:51 |
|
|
I gotta set up a macro "scanning" rig. I hate using my flatbed for 35mm
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
Captain Organ posted:scanned my last big batch of 35mm with a macro lens on my gh4. very happy with the results compared to my neighbor's v750 I was borrowing. MF still looks better on the scanner, but I bet if I had a 30-40mp full frame digital I'd be totally satisfied. Following on from my last post, I tried to get some 400 Tri-X developed in town and in one place they told me it would take at least two weeks, in another they said at least 4 weeks because it had to go to Germany  I had no idea, I thought it would take an hour like colour film  Does anyone have a recommendation for an online UK developer? It seems like everyone ITT just does it themselves but I'm still a big newb so idk about that just yet
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
it's not that scary to develop, and if you get good at it, then YOU can be the guy who takes two weeks to develop negatives for people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
Paperhouse posted:These are sick, really like them. How exactly did you shoot them? thanks much. those are tmax 3200 through my minolta x-570 at a venue with good lighting. I left the shutter at 1/100 for most of the night, focusing is mostly guesswork in the dark, but I got a few keepers off the two rolls I brought.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
how the gently caress did you take a picture amidst a crowd at a concert in TYOOL 2016 that didn't have a single cell phone in it 
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
Paperhouse posted:These are sick, really like them. How exactly did you shoot them? I'm in the same boat, I used http://www.bristolcameras.co.uk/ to get a couple of rolls developed. They were good quality and super quick.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
DJExile posted:how the gently caress did you take a picture amidst a crowd at a concert in TYOOL 2016 that didn't have a single cell phone in it i've went to a few punk/noise shows recently and almost nobody recorded video. it really depends on the crowd
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
Anyone know if some resource is available for shipping chemicals internationally? I brought 27 rolls with me to South America, and now I'm curious if any public darkrooms were available in Bogotá, Colombia. I'd like to get some hc-110 down here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
You could always ship chemicals in powder form
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:You could always ship chemicals in powder form I understand that shipping white powders from Colombia is a significant part of their economy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 10:15
|
|
|
Can anyone tell me how the average lab prints photos? Is there usually any adjustments being made or do they just stuff the negatives in and out come the prints? This might be a stupid question but I have no idea. I'm asking because I processed and printed some Portra rolls and the colours are all over the place.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
Xabi posted:Can anyone tell me how the average lab prints photos? Is there usually any adjustments being made or do they just stuff the negatives in and out come the prints? This might be a stupid question but I have no idea. I'm asking because I processed and printed some Portra rolls and the colours are all over the place. My local lab would develop the negatives, then scan them, clean the scans and print from those rather than the negatives directly. They didn't do a lot of processing on the scans, I guess whatever automatic dust removal stuff that was built into the software and some rudimentary colour/exposure fixing. I'm 99% sure that most labs will do it that way because why gently caress about with enlargers when you're probably already scanning the negatives for the customer anyway?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
I've seen people on APUG mention that bigger detailed enlargements can be had from scans than optical/photo paper prints. No idea if that's actually the case or not, and obviously results will vary depending on the quality of the printer. And it's unrelated, but what, if anything, should I do to compensate when shooting a 120 roll of velvia 50 that expired in 2014? I get that nailing the exposure is key when shooting slide film. The only other time I've used it was some 35mm velvia and exposing for undergrowth in a dark forest on a cloudy day produced blown highlights. It's not at all tolerant of loving around.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:I've seen people on APUG mention that bigger detailed enlargements can be had from scans than optical/photo paper prints. No idea if that's actually the case or not, and obviously results will vary depending on the quality of the printer. 2014 is hardly expired at all unless it's been sitting on your desk or something. It should be fine shot as normal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
Traditionally crashing on my mountain bike has done wonders for my photography. Several years ago a torn rotator cuff and smashed 10D resulted in a nice new 40D. A couple seasons later, a chipped hip and smashed 40D lead to a bomber 1DmkIIn. Fast forward to earlier this August, and cracked ribs (fortunately no broken camera this time) brought me a gently used Bronica ETRsi, plus a couple lenses. Add some HP5+, misc development supplies, and this thread (read in it's entirety over August)... BEHOLD!  flwr by Brian Kennedy, on Flickr The above is my first photo of the first roll. Due to some comedy I completely blew it in terms of following directions and still got a useable picture. A couple rolls later, getting more comfortable with the process:  3AUG16_r1_b_f01.jpg by Brian Kennedy, on Flickr Much smoother results. Pulling film off the reel and seeing pictures is indeed magic. So thanks, thread! E: development details: Rodinal (Blazinol here in Canada). 1+25 with vigorous agitation at sloppy intervals for short amount of time for the 1st picture. I think I read the directions off the bottle and ended up just doing my own thing. For the second, Rodinal 1+50 with more gentile agitation at more carefully timed intervals (I used the Massive Dev Chart app). Rot fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Aug 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
Some stuff from the roll of Tri-X I found from last summer while cleaning out my apartment. Apparently I wound the film the wrong way at some point and lost a few shots? That's what they told me at the lab... Hell tennis on Flickr  Flushing Meadow on Flickr  Astoria Underpass on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
I shot the heck out of my F3!     
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
Nice! I especially like the first two
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 10:43
|
|
|
Hell yeah!
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
Yeah those first 2 are spectacular
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 14:52
|
|
|
I picked up a SB-600 for cheap at a stoop sale for my FM2. I'm inclined to say it's not really compatible since the FM2 doesn't do TTL on the hotshoe and the only non-TTL mode on the SB-600 is full manual (unlike the 800 which has non-TTL auto mode) unless anybody knows anything different?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
Chill Callahan posted:I picked up a SB-600 for cheap at a stoop sale for my FM2. I'm inclined to say it's not really compatible since the FM2 doesn't do TTL on the hotshoe and the only non-TTL mode on the SB-600 is full manual (unlike the 800 which has non-TTL auto mode) unless anybody knows anything different? Yes the only "fancy" thing FM2 has on the hotshoe is "flash ready" signalling, so you get a little dot in the viewfinder when a flash is attached and ready to fire. So either learn the ways of manual flash control, or get a different unit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 11:39
|
|
|
Fe2 handles the same as the Fm2 and will do TTL. It has AE, a match needle ans runs on battery though. They are pretty cheap $.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 14:21
|
|
|
Hi film thread, can anyone recommend me a lab in San Francisco/LA/San Diego? I'm touring the west coast next month and I want to develop E6/C41 in 120 and get them to post to Australia when they are done.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
Bobsledboy posted:Hi film thread, can anyone recommend me a lab in San Francisco/LA/San Diego? I'm touring the west coast next month and I want to develop E6/C41 in 120 and get them to post to Australia when they are done. The Darkroom is based in San Clemente, kinda between LA and San Diego and they've done excellent work for me. E: just south of LA, not so much between. Whoops. DJExile fucked around with this message at 01:55 on Sep 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
DJExile posted:The Darkroom is based in San Clemente, kinda between LA and San Diego and they've done excellent work for me. That looks like a good option, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
Bobsledboy posted:Hi film thread, can anyone recommend me a lab in San Francisco/LA/San Diego? I'm touring the west coast next month and I want to develop E6/C41 in 120 and get them to post to Australia when they are done. The best west coast lab is Citizen's in Portland http://www.citizensphoto.com/ I'd call them and see if they'll do shipping to aus.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:The best west coast lab is Citizen's in Portland http://www.citizensphoto.com/ I'd call them and see if they'll do shipping to aus. Thanks
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
Did anyone ever try to compare film quality through the ages ? Say early popular mf stock compared to present ones. I'm thinking mostly in terms of achievable resolution if that makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
spatial resolution would be a function of a films granularity and the developer/process used. probably the finest grain you could go would be something like kodak tech pan with the appropriate developer. looking back i would imagine ancient film stock wasnt all that sharp as i suspect they would have improved with technology (maybe plates were sharp as hell? i dont know but i doubt it). with things like tech pan mostly retired at this point perhaps we are over the hump of extremely fine grained film stock and we'll just have to settle for tmax 100 for the rest of time 
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
There's still adox CMS 20 for all your extremely ultra fine grained monochrome archival reproduction purposes. 20 is kind of a low iso for field use, but I'm planning on snagging some for broad daylight landscapes. It requires a special developer for optimal results, but it's not really very expensive, even in 120. It's used for microfiche photography and (I've read) outresolves Velvia 50 and TMAX 100 by a significant degree. Speaking of old film stock, the Kiev 4A rangefinder I bought off eBay came with a roll of svema 64, exp. 1993. I wonder how well it compared to stuff like Foma 100 and PanF 50 back before it expired. I'm probably going to expose it at 32 now, and I've been told that there will be appreciable fog on the negatives.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
Hey all, quick question. Is this thing limited to still photography or can I ask about movie film? I'm about to try some stupid poo poo with some standard 8mm and Super 8 and I could use advice. I figured since I already own a couple film cameras (basically a bunch of older consumer Kodaks) in working condition, it'll be cheaper than renting a nice modern camera. Don't have any questions now, just wanted to see if this the right place.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 07:21
|
|
|
Oh god I 3D printed a 120 pinhole. This should be awful/awesome.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 14:00
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Oh god I 3D printed a 120 pinhole. This should be awful/awesome. Show us your pinhole dude
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 14:41
|
|
|
unpacked robinhood posted:Show us your pinhole dude
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
It sounds so dirty when you say it 
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
Anybody know what would cause this blue grain on the left side of this image? is it from the scan?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 08:51 |
|
|
Does the camera have a horizontal-traverse shutter? It's either the shutter being a piece, or a light leak. I had a Minolta with an uneven vertical shutter and would get a similar sort of haze along the bottom of the my frames. I sometimes feel like I am cursed to own film cameras that all have some kind of lovely defect about them like that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 22:42
|
|