|
Ok I tried again. I'm much happier with these now. Took more time w/ black and white points on Levels, set gray points w/ curves and did some light color balancing on the guy with the guitar. (Also recropped the photo) Untitled by David Shen, on Flickr  Untitled by David Shen, on Flickr Learning is fun!
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 04:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 14:46 |
|
|
rohan posted:Has anyone had experience with film and random explosive testing at airports? The explosive test is when they swab your stuff with a small wand and then put the tissue they swabbed with into a machine. They usually end up doing that to my film when I ask for it to be hand checked.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
The first time my mom got her old film camera swabbed the guy was like "uhhhhh this came up with nuclear material on it" and my mom was like "oh?" and he's like "well I don't know what that means or what to do so go on through have a nice flight" Luckily it was in a Canadian regional airport, but it was in like 2003.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 06:22
|
|
|
HookShot posted:The first time my mom got her old film camera swabbed the guy was like "uhhhhh this came up with nuclear material on it" and my mom was like "oh?" and he's like "well I don't know what that means or what to do so go on through have a nice flight" Well, thorium oxide was used to create ultra low dispersion glass in several lenses and rangefinders/SLR eyepieces during the 1940s to 1970s. The glass made with thorium oxide is generally measurably radioactive, and one would assume there may be glass dust on an old camera. They use fluorite now. If the camera has a thorium oxide compounded eyepiece it's a huge brain cancer risk from even mild use.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 07:12
|
|
|
aricoarena posted:The explosive test is when they swab your stuff with a small wand and then put the tissue they swabbed with into a machine. They usually end up doing that to my film when I ask for it to be hand checked. Yeah I have this happen a lot too. Takes a couple extra minutes but it's never been too big a hassle in my experience and I'd far rather deal with that than risk something loving it up in the xray.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 13:38
|
|
|
windex posted:Well, thorium oxide was used to create ultra low dispersion glass in several lenses and rangefinders/SLR eyepieces during the 1940s to 1970s. The glass made with thorium oxide is generally measurably radioactive, and one would assume there may be glass dust on an old camera. Wow, well I doubt it's that bad since she had one of those Nikkormats that everyone had so most photographers would be dead now if it was that, plus she bought the camera in the 60s and isn't dead yet. I guess it must have been in her lens. That's cool to know, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
Got my CineStill 800T developed. Also picked up some Porta 800 from B&H while I was in NYC cuz I think y'all are full of it but we'll see. Chelsea Market by Cacator, on Flickr  The Jane by Cacator, on Flickr  Untitled by Cacator, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
Portra 800 is old technology. Get some Portra 400, shoot it at 800 and develop normally, and you'll see what we mean when we say Portra is magic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Having some issues with developing/scanning/??? Some of my negatives have these lines right through them; they are a consistant pattern, along the length of the film. Not always though, and they're not always on adjacent frames. Sometimes they are light, sometimes they are dark. They have showed up on two separate rolls of film, one fp4 125 and one tri-x400. Hasselblad 500cm, shooting that fp4 and tri-x. Both of these are developed in D76 1:1, fixed with (very old) ilford rapidfix (which has since been replaced). both of these are from the roll of fp4.   and neither can be seen on the negative even with light and magnification. On the FP4 roll, it shows up on 3 frames that aren't sequential. On the roll of Tri-X, I can see it without light or magnification. But it only appears on two frames, both in the middle of that roll. Wild EEPROM fucked around with this message at 08:55 on Nov 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 08:38
|
|
|
If you got nextflix and have any interest in british detective shows I recommend you check out season 10 episode 6 of Midsummer Murders. At one point the black leather clad members of the digital camera club meaninglessly twirl point and shoots while approaching the vested elderly film stalwarts, in slow mo. Its utterly ridiculous in a fun way, but not really a good episode of the show all together. aricoarena fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Nov 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
On a flatbed scanner (v600) is the actual film scanner in the lid of the unit? I think I've been scanning all my film upside down like an idiot this whole time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 13:15
|
|
|
According to the instructions of my v550, you're supposed to lay the film so that the emulsion side faces up. Any symbols printed on the film should appear backwards when you look down at it resting in the holder. I think the sensor is in the lid, so it scans the emulsion directly.Wild EEPROM posted:Having some issues with developing/scanning/??? This is just my best guess, but I'd think that regular patterns like the ones you're seeing here are not due to issues with your chemicals, or problems with your camera (especially since the 500cm has leaf shutters, right?) I'd try scanning again, this time flipping the film over and making sure that the frames in question are placed on a different point along the scanner's run. Also make sure you're scanning in 48-bit color, even for b&w film (I usually just convert to greyscale in PS to reduce file size) It looks like a scanner problem to me. But there's a chance that the problem could be with the film itself, if changing up your scanning doesn't eliminate the issue. SMERSH Mouth fucked around with this message at 16:46 on Nov 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
If you can read the letters on your computer screen after you've scanned then you did it correctly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
I picked up a cheap B&W enlarger (Durst M305) in really good shape and I'm looking at paper supplies. Am I safe ordering something from the Ilford multigrade line ? I remember this thread saying RC paper was a pita. Also if anyone has decent links about the whole process as I've never tried this before. Do I need filters ?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 10:22
|
|
|
unpacked robinhood posted:I picked up a cheap B&W enlarger (Durst M305) in really good shape and I'm looking at paper supplies. RC paper is cheap and very easy to work with, but can be limiting in artistic flexibility. Fiber/baryta paper is more expensive, and more difficult to work with, but can give you better tonality. Most importantly, fiber paper requires more development time, more fixing time, and significantly more washing time preferably with a hypo clear bath. It can also be challenging to make fiber paper dry flat. Ilford Multigrade is perfectly fine, but if you use multigrade/variable contrast paper you should strongly consider getting a set of filters. Otherwise you'll be limited to printing in a single, neutral contrast grade and be entirely at the mercy of the negative. nielsm fucked around with this message at 11:57 on Nov 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 11:54
|
|
|
Thanks, I think I'll buy multigrade rc paper, some filters and see what I get.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
Somebody really needs to step things up and bring back Fujifilm FP-100C, or fight them tooth and nail to get at least small runs of it. I just checked prices to order some for my Mamiya Polaroid back and learned that Fuji had stopped production and the prices are insanity (hence the title of the thread  ).What's a MF Polaroid loving man to do?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
Stock up. Shoot less. Somebody already tried to appeal to Fuji and their response was more or less "lol gently caress you" People been modifying older gear to work with instax mini. Maybe we'll see something for Instax Wide at some point, if it already hasn't been done.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
Is VueScan worth it? I've just been using Epson Scan. For the price of VueScan I could get almost a year of Lightroom/Photoshop...
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 14:23
|
|
|
Oh wait it looks like Epson Scan is broken in El Capitan so I'm just going to have to buy it anyway. gently caress. Edit: jeez, they let you download and use it to try it out and then plaster your image with watermarks and give you a message saying "buy it to get rid of the watermarks!". That actually makes me less inclined to buy it. Edit: Their film types arent even updated, they still have Portra NC and VC as your only options in here. Awkward Davies fucked around with this message at 14:50 on Dec 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
Is there really any advantage to using vuescan over Epson scan and just always scanning as positive and correcting in PS?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Is there really any advantage to using vuescan over Epson scan and just always scanning as positive and correcting in PS? Yes, in that Epson Scan is broken in El Capitan and later. If you buy a new computer (as I just did) you're kind of out of luck. If you can actually run Epson Scan, there's no advantage to using VueScan that I can see.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:Is VueScan worth it? I've just been using Epson Scan. No. I've never not had VueScan do weird things to gamma or white/black points. I'd rather use Epson Scan. Silverfast is better than either - in terms of results, at least.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
iSheep posted:Stock up. Shoot less. Yeah, they're in it for the money, and I guess film has been dead for a long time, like print, journalism and "photo editor" jobs. I saw the 3d printed piece to adapt holding that pack, and I suppose I'd be okay with that as a last resort in the future, if it'd work with a Mamiya back, but I'll have to check it out and see if it's possible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
VueScan is the worst purchase i've ever made. I'd rather use Epson Scan in a windows VM. It seems to clip every single negative I've thrown at it, the documentation is a joke (hope you enjoy your user experience as a glorified javadoc), the support is rude ("you're using it wrong"), and the interface is absolute crash-filled garbage. It shouldn't be difficult to get a "raw" scan out of any program, but VueScan requires you to either iterate forever on your scanner to find the perfect analog gain for each channel OR to calibrate it with each roll (or EACH SHEET, in my case) that you scan. If you're scanning rollfilm, you can't designate frames to crop, you have to use this ridiculous offset-based cropping to slightly speed up your scan time. It saves time if you manage to land your negatives in the same spot in the holders each time, I guess. It's seemingly targeted at people trying to scan mass amounts of documents or old family photos, not film. For years I've scanned all of my film in a virtual machine with Silverfast which has no trouble giving me an untouched scan without clipping any channels. Epson scan does just as well but can't handle 4x5 @ 3200DPI because it's still 32-bit, apparently. If I wasn't hitting that limit I'd just run it in a VM if OS X doesn't support it anymore. bellows lugosi fucked around with this message at 17:13 on Dec 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:VueScan is the worst purchase i've ever made. I'd rather use Epson Scan in a windows VM. Hm I hadnt even considered that. Seems like I could buy something like Parallels and just run Epson Scan in that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:Hm I hadnt even considered that. Seems like I could buy something like Parallels and just run Epson Scan in that. Edited my post above with some more detail - give it a shot. VirtualBox is free and pretty painless to use USB with, and you have the benefit of isolating your scanning environment and always keeping it "perfect"
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
When did Acros 35mmx36 get up to $7 a roll?!  What's the current best fine grain bargain BW film?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
I use Fomapan when testing new cameras. HP5+ is still fairly cheap or just go for Ilford Delta if you want a choice of speeds.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
COOL CORN posted:When did Acros 35mmx36 get up to $7 a roll?! FP4+ supremacy! Lovely film, lovely tones and gradations very fine grain and you get even "25" more over Fuji's Acros. (Nah, just expose at 100, whatever!)
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:Edited my post above with some more detail - give it a shot. VirtualBox is free and pretty painless to use USB with, and you have the benefit of isolating your scanning environment and always keeping it "perfect" I took the plunge and install VirtualBox and Windows 10 and now I'm getting the same message from Windows 10 that I was getting from El Capitan >.<. Windows is terrrrrrrrrible. Anyway, I'll figure it out, or at least play some PC only games. Thanks for the advice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
What version of Epson Scan are you using? I am using Epson Scan in Window 10 for my Epson 4870 from 2004 just fine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
Epson scan works on my mac in whatever version of OSX is current.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
Same here. Is there a reason why you can't or won't upgrade to Sierra? My 2011 MBA runs it just fine along with Epson Scan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
I had some problems w/ the software pausing between scans, but I was able to fix that with a patch.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:Epson scan works on my mac in whatever version of OSX is current. eggsovereasy posted:Epson scan works on my mac in whatever version of OSX is current. Well would you look at that. I upgraded to sierra and it worked. At least I have this Windows installation now. Thanks for the help all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
A few weeks ago I was faffing around at work with my camera and a coworker was curious as to how I was able to mount an old lens on it. I showed him how the adapter works and he got really excited when he saw the Helios 44M-4 I happened to have on it that day because he has one just like it on his Zenit! Apparently it is pronounced Zenit! Yes with the exclamation point, that is very important. He is from Romania and brought the camera with him when he immigrated to Canada. He brought it in to let me play with it and absolutely wouldn't hear of it when I tried to give him a couple of rolls of Tri-X I had in the fridge for who knows how long now. So I borrowed it. Its a Zenit 11 and I'm not going to say its a piece of junk, but it really feels like the Soviet Union may have been a little behind the rest of the world, photographically speaking. It was produced in 1987 has fewer features and worse technology in it than my Spotmatic made in 1967. I don't know if the Zenit 11 was a budget model camera or not. The viewfinder is very dark and heavily crops the image making framing interesting. It has only five shutter speeds from 30 to 500. Flash syncs at 1/30th. Uncoupled Selenium meter (not functioning on his camera, used a Gossen Luna-Pro instead). It has a light leak that strangely comes and goes, scratches the film and smells like diesel fuel. On the plus side the controls are big and easy to use with gloves and I probably could have used it as a weapon given the weight. No worries about babying that brick.    Gallery with the rest of it. The developing and scans were done by a local photo lab, I don't have the means anymore to process film myself. I haven't actually shot black and white film in over a decade so that certainly didn't help matters any either. All in all it was fun to play around with a camera that was there for the fall of the Soviet Union. Sauer fucked around with this message at 01:09 on Dec 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
Nice photos. This is the kind of post that needs a response from Helen Highwater, but I've noticed that my Kiev 60 has the same weird 'sometimes there's a light leak' property. And that thing has fresh factory light seals. Maybe it's the way all the pieces of metal fit together (for don't) that lets light in through the mechanics of the camera sometimes, on certain shutter speeds or something. Generally, the quality of the good lenses from the FSU outshine any of the camera bodies themselves, although there were certainly some good units that made it out of the factories. Also consider that the SU 'golden era' was long passed by the late 80's. At that point the region's economy was undergoing an extended collapse, so production quality was nosediving along with it. I think there were at least a few Zenit models with TTL, but they were never really 'high end' cameras as far as I know. I'm not sure if they're generally considered the best, but I did once meet a guy with a Praktica TL of some sort. It had a Meyer-optik lens, was beautiful, smooth and precise feeling, but heavy and the shutter was like a hammer. It felt better-made than the Kiev 60 or any of the fiddly 35mm FSU rangefinders I own. One thing I've been wondering about (again, paging Helen Highwater) are the Kiev SLR lenses. I've seen a number of them and apparently their mount is just a straight copy of Nikon's F-mount specification? I'd like to pick some up for my FM, if they're actually compatible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
Ha! Yes, Zenits are shockinly primitive. I have a couple of Zenit Es, a Zenit 11 and a Zenit 12 and they are very basic cameras. They were aimed at the lower end of the market for the most part, they had no automation features, not even automatic stop-down links in the lenses (that's why the Helios 44 has a pre-selector ring, you need to open it up to focus then stop it down to your pre-selected aperture manually before you take the shot). The higher end SLRs were made by Kiev. The same factory that made the Zenit SLRs also made the Zorki rangefinder cameras but again, these were low-end cameras, higher end rangefinders were made by FED. The Helios lenses that were mostly standard on them are great though and much better than the body that they are attached to - that's why I have more than one Zenit-E, I bought a cheap one because it had a Helios 44 85mm lens on it, so I paid ~$10 for a $300 lens with a working camera attached to it. The Zenit 12 has TTL metering (with a battery powered meter instead of a selenium unit) but it only works with lenses that have an aperture control pin. Mine is the fotosnaiper edition so it's slightly modified from the regular 12 model, it has an electrical link for the 300mm lens to report aperture settings so it can do TTL metering with the long lens on it, the regular 12 and 12S don't have that connection. The non-automatic Kiev SLRs (17, 18 and 19) do indeed use the Nikon F mount. I have a 19 and a couple of old manual focus Nikkor lenses and they work fine. They even meter properly. The automatic SLRs (10, 11 and 15) however use a different bayonet mount that looks similar to the F mount but isn't compatible. It's only for the automatic lenses that are specifically designed for those three camera models. If you're looking for Kiev glass to fit a Nikon, the Helios-81 5mm f/2 lens is pretty nice, it's a bit soft wide open but you get a nice falloff and great bokeh. Stopped down to f/6.3 or so, it sharpens up nicely. The Mir-24 35mm f/2 is also a beauty if you want a wider option but it has the usual problems with sunlight and lensflares.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 07:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 14:46 |
|
|
Helen showing up in dorkroom as a soviet camera expert is honestly one of my favorite developments in this subforum.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 13:48
|
|