|
Crazy reds excepted, I've seen some cool stuff taken with CineStill. Edit: Oh poo poo  .. guess I'll post some examples.  Redwood Shores Building by Chris Clogg, on Flickr Untitled by v.ir.g.il.e, on Flickr Untitled by v.ir.g.il.e, on Flickr(This one is Cinestill 50D, which I don't think they make anymore...)  000358020033 by nagi usano, on Flickr Military Surplus on Front by Orion Alexis, on Flickr
SMERSH Mouth fucked around with this message at 00:50 on Oct 31, 2016 |
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 17:50 |
|
|
It's just tungsten portra
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:
This is down the road from me what the hell
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
So are you guys actually scanning 35mm with a flatbed or have you ponied up for a used Pakon? Is there a better alternative?
BlackMK4 fucked around with this message at 05:55 on Oct 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
Epson Perfection V series are the flatbeds of choice and can handle 35mm and medium format film. The V800 can handle large format negatives too. Most dedicated film scanners can't handle medium or large format film unless you want to drop a few grand on one. There are plenty of 35mm-only scanners though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 12:15
|
|
|
I have an old SCSI dedicated 35mm scanner from the 90s but I highly doubt it'll do any better than my Epson 3200 which is what I've was using.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 13:53
|
|
|
Flatbeds largely do not scan 35mm very well. Get a dedicated 35mm scanner if you can.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:Epson Perfection V series are the flatbeds of choice and can handle 35mm and medium format film. The V800 can handle large format negatives too. Most dedicated film scanners can't handle medium or large format film unless you want to drop a few grand on one. There are plenty of 35mm-only scanners though. I have an Epson with the better scanning ANR glass and it's just tedious as gently caress. Do any of those cheaper scanners on B&H compare to a used Pakon?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
I don't think the Pakon offers anything special in terms of quality other than Kodak's secret sauce film profiles - it's great if you hate manually color correcting your photos, but has little to no manual options (I don't think you can scan as positive, so manual correction and scanning slides are out) It accepts uncut rolls of 35mm so it's crazy fast, no swapping of film holders, etc. BANME.sh fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Oct 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
BlackMK4 posted:I have an Epson with the better scanning ANR glass and it's just tedious as gently caress. Do any of those cheaper scanners on B&H compare to a used Pakon? The Plustek 8200 are well liked. I know Magnus Astrom uses one for a lot of his 35mm shots: https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=29596723%40N00&view_all=1&text=plustek Thoogsby fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Oct 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
I also read that the Pakon only works with windows xp, so that's kind of lame.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
Yeah you can run it in a VM if you don't want to maintain a dedicated XP machine. Silverfast/VueScan will not work with it either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:I'm about to buy a bulk spool of HP5+. It's been a while since I've shopped around -- is there any other bulk I should be looking at that's similar? Like to put how long I've been out of it into perspective, last time I ordered bulk I got whatever that awesome now-discontinued freestylephoto ISO400 was, and I can't even remember what it was called. Look into Kentmere 100 or 400 film. I've been shooting 100 for a while now, but I'd like to try out the 400 and compare it to HP5+. They're both owned by Harmon, so IMO they're pretty interchangeable for my purposes. and it's like $20 less than HP5+
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:Yeah you can run it in a VM if you don't want to maintain a dedicated XP machine. Silverfast/VueScan will not work with it either. I can't speak for the Pakon but I use Silverfast with a plustek 8200 on Windows 10 just fine. I think the problem is more you can't use ancient software versions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
Does anyone know how many rolls of 120 I would be able to develop with this kit? http://www.freestylephoto.biz/1181-Arista-Rapid-E-6-Slide-Developing-Kit-1-Pint
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
aricoarena posted:Does anyone know how many rolls of 120 I would be able to develop with this kit? They link a PDF of the instructions right on the site. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
nielsm posted:They link a PDF of the instructions right on the site. Man I'm dumb. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
I started shooting film earlier this year, finally got around to scanning negatives and processing them in Photoshop. I know that I have a ton to learn about handling film, but so far I'm enjoying the results. Portra 400 for both of these:  Untitled by David Shen, on Flickr  Untitled by David Shen, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:It's just tungsten portra and yet it looks cool... sooo?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 13:35
|
|
|
hi liter posted:
I really like this E: is that kid in the first one jumping down from like an 8 foot drop? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 14:51
|
|
|
DJExile posted:I really like this Yea but the sand was real soft.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 15:20
|
|
|
hi liter posted:I started shooting film earlier this year, finally got around to scanning negatives and processing them in Photoshop. I know that I have a ton to learn about handling film, but so far I'm enjoying the results. These scans are horrible. Colours are off, dust is all over the place, over sharpened.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
yeah, looks super purple-y green to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
bobmarleysghost posted:These scans are horrible. Colours are off, dust is all over the place, over sharpened. Karl Barks posted:yeah, looks super purple-y green to me. Yea - I was using a compressed air canister on the negs and the scanner beforehand but I figure I can do better. The colors - I think I can do better as well. I set the black/white points in PS for the first time and got a little lost in there. I'll give it another shot when I get some time to sit down and try again. Thanks for feedback. Looking forward to getting better at this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
akadajet posted:and yet it looks cool... sooo? Portra also looks cool and has an anti-halation layer sooo? Cinestill just seems like a total gimmick. No antihalation layer as a result of making the process C-41 compatible and it's tungsten balance which, despite looking cool in some situations, still has limitations over daylight. Color temp adjustments aren't really a big deal if you're scanning yourself and doing colors, it's not like you gotta buy tungsten film because your hands are tied by RA-4
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
hi liter posted:Yea - I was using a compressed air canister on the negs and the scanner beforehand but I figure I can do better.  Adjusted white points in levels. Your white points were all off. Set gray point. Used curves to remove green cast. Used the curves sample tool to select the point in the curve with the green cast (ex: their skin) and then pulled it up and down until I found a look I liked. Selected a few other curve points the same way. Edit: Happy to send you some tips via PM if you want, I think a lot of it has probably been talked about already in the thread, but I can share the little that I've learned since I've been doing this if you're interested. Awkward Davies fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Nov 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
Anybody know of a small, decent spot meter? I want to start pushing b&w film to 1600 for indoor concerts. I thought I could just use my x100t but apparently it grossly exaggerates the ISO. I have a Sekonic 308 but I'm not sure how that would help at all for a concert venue. e: Worth noting I shoot exclusively 35mm focal length so I don't really need a 1° spot BitesizedNike fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Nov 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
I'm not sure that a spot meter is going to help in an environment where the light is changing massively from one moment to the next. Whenever I shoot concerts with film, I tend to guess at a reasonable approximation of properly exposed and then fudge it from there, because by the time you've metered or worked out the EV change, the light is different again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
I feared as much. Is there any good resource for judging EVs in a concert setting? Generally most of my shows are folk/indie bands so nothing ridiculously over the top.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
I just assume that I'm going to be underexposed no matter what and use the widest aperture I have with the longest shutter speed I think I can get away with. Even with 3200 speed film, I generally end up with fairly dark images at f2/8 and ~1/60th or so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
Yeah I think you're going to be asking the world there to get much of anything useable with 1600 film, unless you're gonna be right on top of them with a 50mm f/1.4 or something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
DJExile posted:Yeah I think you're going to be asking the world there to get much of anything useable with 1600 film, unless you're gonna be right on top of them with a 50mm f/1.4 or something. It worked for Pennie Smith! (London Calling was shot on Tri-X @1600 with a Pentax ES II, and most likely the SMC Takumar 50/1.4 in front. I think she was right up front stage right, though.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
 Screen Shot 2016-11-09 at 8.30.39 PM by Ryan Chan, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 05:59
|
|
|
Has anyone had experience with film and random explosive testing at airports? I've just had my carry-on subjected to one of those tests with the hand-held wavy bullshit and I'm a bit concerned if it's strong enough to affect my film in any way. I'm thinking not, just because it's surely not x-ray related in any way, but I don't know anything about how any of this works.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 13:39
|
|
|
rohan posted:Has anyone had experience with film and random explosive testing at airports? Isn't that just a metal detector?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 13:44
|
|
|
That's what I figured, but I don't know how that's supposed to help find explosives. Airports just make me anxious is all 
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 13:57
|
|
|
X rays can ruin film but anything carry-on strength will not damage anything. If you are super concerned you can ask your film to be hand inspected.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
rohan posted:Has anyone had experience with film and random explosive testing at airports? TSA says their X-rays for carry on won't damage anything below 800 ISO. I usually ask for a hand check on my film anyway, just to be safe.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 13:27
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:TSA says their X-rays for carry on won't damage anything below 800 ISO. I usually ask for a hand check on my film anyway, just to be safe. That's also what I do. Even if the machine says "Film safe", I'll ask for a hand inspection. They are going to ask me to open my bag full of lenses and filters to take a look at it anyways, might as well... (This is outside the US, where airport security is, supposedly, lax, so ymmv)
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 17:50 |
|
|
San Francisco, 4 AM. ( 35mm Tri-X and Rodinal )
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 02:13
|
|