|
Helen Highwater posted:Is there an easy way to proof them before scanning that doesn't require a darkroom (e.g. contact prints)? The preview scan is pretty small and is hard to see if stuff like focus is right. Plus of course it's inverted still. I scan everything that isn't obviously hosed and then do my grading pass on them after importing to Ps. Am I missing something super obvious that will make my life easier? Easy answer: all chrome, all the time.   In all seriousness, give it a little time and practice. After a while you start learning to read a negative intuitively, and you can get a pretty accurate guess of whether something's worth your time or not. You can improvise a good-enough-for-the-first-pass light table just by opening up a text file or SA reply window and turning up the brightness. Also, on the Mac, there is an optional hotkey to invert your screen colors (ctrl-option-⌘-8, enabled as an accessibility hotkey in your Keyboard options). It won't take out the orange base layer on negative film, but again, it'll help get you into the "should I scan this or not?" ballpark at least.
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:38 |
|
|
I may be going out to some parks and the farmers' market on Saturday. Which camera should I take to run a roll of 120 through? * Holga 120N * Diana (original or reproduction) * Box camera from the 1900s to the 1930s (I have a good number) Or I can just be really weird and take an Ilford Sprite 35.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I may be going out to some parks and the farmers' market on Saturday. Which camera should I take to run a roll of 120 through? carve a pinhole camera out of a literal potato
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 04:01
|
|
|
oh hey, somebody has done that https://petapixel.com/2016/11/01/photographer-turned-potato-camera/
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 04:05
|
|
|
My first prints came from an oatmeal box pinhole camera I made in 6th or 7th grade. I might still have the prints!
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 04:38
|
|
|
My prints come out of expensive cameras but I stay true to my roots because they look like poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 13:36
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:My prints come out of expensive cameras but I stay true to my roots because they look like poo poo. Technically, potatoes are stem tubers rather than root tubers 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
Yond Cassius posted:In all seriousness, give it a little time and practice. After a while you start learning to read a negative intuitively, and you can get a pretty accurate guess of whether something's worth your time or not. You can improvise a good-enough-for-the-first-pass light table just by opening up a text file or SA reply window and turning up the brightness. Yes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
Which c41 kit are you guys using for color (or do you even use press kits)? I ordered a unicolor kit off amazon and just found another kit on filmphotographyproject.com that was like 10 dollars cheaper. Are there any differences in them? The shelf life looks terrible on this poo poo, so I'm guessing you guys wait until you have a stack of rolls to develop before mixing?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 06:35
|
|
|
 The Lubitel is such a crappy camera, but never stops amusing with the weird poo poo that comes out of it sometimes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 09:29
|
|
|
Choicecut posted:Which c41 kit are you guys using for color (or do you even use press kits)? I ordered a unicolor kit off amazon and just found another kit on filmphotographyproject.com that was like 10 dollars cheaper. Are there any differences in them? I've been using the unicolor powder kits. Their shelf life is pretty bad, I think. (At least that's the reason I've come up with for why they start giving me color casts even when I haven't developed as many rolls as the stated capacity figures indicate.) The tetenal liquid kit works well, too. Really, the best way to maximise your economy when doing C41 dev at home is to just save up your rolls and develop in a big batch. ...But I might try mixing up a big batch of color chemicals, then separating it all out into two or three smaller airtight containers for each step, to find a baseline capacity for smaller volumes of the chemicals and maybe be able to have 'on-demand' developing. I saw that there was a new brand of liquid developer kit on freestylephoto.biz (Cinestill). Ordered some since it was pretty cheap. I generally like the liquid kits better, just because they're easier to mix.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:I've been using the unicolor powder kits. Their shelf life is pretty bad, I think. (At least that's the reason I've come up with for why they start giving me color casts even when I haven't developed as many rolls as the stated capacity figures indicate.) Nice. Thanks for the info. I'll try a liquid kit next go around. How many rolls are you typically developing before ordering a new kit? I think the description for the Unicolor kit said 8 rolls or something, which even then I'd be saving a ton of money. I was looking for some good air tight containers, but ended up ordering some more delta datatainer 1 liter brown plastic ones. I was going to try and just squeeze the air out and pop the cap on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:I saw that there was a new brand of liquid developer kit on freestylephoto.biz (Cinestill). Ordered some since it was pretty cheap. I generally like the liquid kits better, just because they're easier to mix. That's cool that they're making cheaper liquid kits. I know everyone here loves cinestill film *coughs*. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 14:48
|
|
|
God damnit. Today I learned about cinestill. Now I can waste even more money on garbage photos.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 15:00
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
Choicecut posted:God damnit. Today I learned about cinestill. Now I can waste even more money on garbage photos. Cinestill is trash, just throw your money right in the garbage and save the time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
Cinestill is stupid, long story short it's a crappy version of Portra. I don't develop my own color. Unless you're in it for the joy of process, why not just send it to a lab (assuming one is available, which if you're in the US, there is)? They'll do it better than you will, especially if you go to a lab with a dip & dunk setup.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
these are dope
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
Oh, come on guys. Cinestill is fine if you like things to glow red.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
Catsby posted:A few months late, but oh well; A few months late too but no, It's a B&W head. I haven't used it much but I was surprised by how great the results where. Assuming a "good" negative it's super easy to get prints that blew away my hobbyist eyes. No noise or artifacts or pixels or anything, just sharp creamy goodness, if that makes sense. My only regret is not being able to enlarge 120 film. Thoogsby posted:these are dope Thanks, that's Portugal unpacked robinhood fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Apr 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:I don't develop my own color. Unless you're in it for the joy of process, why not just send it to a lab (assuming one is available, which if you're in the US, there is)? They'll do it better than you will, especially if you go to a lab with a dip & dunk setup. As dumb as it sounds, developing black and white has been like stress relief for me, so I thought I would keep on trucking into color dev. It's been really enjoyable so far.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
Have you considered other dev Chems for b&w, there are tons to choose from outside the regular rodinal, d76, and hc110
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:Have you considered other dev Chems for b&w, there are tons to choose from outside the regular rodinal, d76, and hc110 I have and will. I'm having so much fun with film and photography in general right now, I just want to do it all. I keep telling myself I should pick something and stick with that, but meh, gently caress it, I'm just in it for fun. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 23:50
|
|
|
For me, anyway, developing B&W is zen (which is why I'm taking it back up), but developing color is like a chemistry lab for a grade.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
If you want a kit with long shelf life, the Rollei Digibase c41 is your best bet, you can mix the liquid chems as needed and the unmixed will last a year or so if stored well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 03:55
|
|
|
Recently got this from my late grandmother. Looks like it's pretty worthless but may still produce images on 120 film ? I don't feel like wasting film on this and will probably shelve it as a souvenir but who knows
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
unpacked robinhood posted:Recently got this from my late grandmother. Some googling shows some models took 120 film readily and others just needed a little modification in order to take 120. I'd say it's worth a shot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
unpacked robinhood posted:Recently got this from my late grandmother. The only difference is the film spool. You ought to be able to get some 620 spools and re-spool it if you're interested.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
You can also readily purchase new 620 film online, like from B&H.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:Cinestill is stupid, long story short it's a crappy version of Portra. Cinestill 800T is just 5219 though, which is way better than Portra. Honestly, I'm thinking people have been having a hard time with it because it's designed to be developed in the ECN-2 process, which is similar to C41 but uses Color Developer 3 rather than Color Developer 4. The difference? CD3 is a flatter developer than CD4, so it's probably way more contrasty than it was intended if you dunk it in C-41 chemistry. I'm also thinking that people are rating it too high, and should probably be rated at 320. VoodooXT fucked around with this message at 22:39 on Apr 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
Spedman posted:If you want a kit with long shelf life, the Rollei Digibase c41 is your best bet, you can mix the liquid chems as needed and the unmixed will last a year or so if stored well. This looks pretty good. I'll give that a try after the powder kit. VoodooXT posted:Cinestill 800T is just 5219 though, which is way better than Portra. Honestly, I'm thinking people have been having a hard time with it because it's designed to be developed in the ECN-2 process, which is similar to C41 but uses Color Developer 3 rather than Color Developer 4. The difference? CD3 is a flatter developer than CD4, so it's probably way more contrasty than it was intended if you dunk it in C-41 chemistry. I'm also thinking that people are rating it too high, and should probably be rated at 320. I ordered a couple of rolls just to check it out. I thought some of the photos I looked at on flickr were cool, but that's not saying much since I like a lot of what's posted here in the dorkroom. :iamafag: My sous vide cooker came in today, along with the remaining items I needed for color development. I just need to shoot some more rolls before I give it a go. I was thinking I'd mix it up when I have 8 rolls exposed and then cry myself to sleep after I realize I've ruined 8 rolls of portra.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 01:25
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:You can also readily purchase new 620 film online, like from B&H. Which is 120 that they re-rolled lol.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 01:55
|
|
|
Fun times with a Moskva 6x9. MoskvaBW002.jpg by Iain Compton, on Flickr  MoskvaBW001.jpg by Iain Compton, on Flickr  Moskva008.jpg by Iain Compton, on Flickr  Moskva013.jpg by Iain Compton, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 08:24
|
|
|
anyone have experience sending Olympus stuff to the guy at zuiko.com? I went on a trip and my 200mm f/4 got stuck on the camera due to a missing stop screw and I managed to gently caress up the aperture coupling wiper contact while removing it. also, fun fact: the more expensive a film scanner gets, the worse they get to use. I just used the Flextight X5 at school for the first time and while the photos look nice, Flexcolor sucks major rear end and the 6-frame 35mm holder rumples up and stops holding the end of the film flat if you try to actually use it
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 09:00
|
|
|
also does anyone have a couple hundred rolls of neopan 400 they don't need? i love it it's been years since I developed any B&W film and i've rediscovered grain and contrast
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 09:11
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:anyone have experience sending Olympus stuff to the guy at zuiko.com? I went on a trip and my 200mm f/4 got stuck on the camera due to a missing stop screw and I managed to gently caress up the aperture coupling wiper contact while removing it
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 09:16
|
|
|
Yeah I've never heard anything but great things about his work
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 12:49
|
|
|
Walk-around stuff with a 6x9 Moskva, Fomapan 100. Moskva007.jpg by Iain Compton, on Flickr  Moskva010-Edit.jpg by Iain Compton, on Flickr  Moskva006-Edit.jpg by Iain Compton, on Flickr  Moskva003-Edit.jpg by Iain Compton, on Flickr  Moskva013.jpg by Iain Compton, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 12:37
|
|
|
 Canein edit: tri-x 400 in HC110 DilD 9m on Canon af35mii Father O'Blivion fucked around with this message at 04:36 on Apr 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:38 |
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:
That's a whole lot of grain for a 6x9 ISO 100. What developer are you using?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 18:24
|
|