The Film Thread: "for sale: packfilm back. never used."

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > The Film Thread: "for sale: packfilm back. never used."

«‹›528 »

VelociBacon: Dec 8, 2009

Understanding posted:

so I wonder if all this makes Vuescan or Silverfast worth buying?

or if any open-source solution exists somewhere.

I think once you're used to whatever you're using there really isn't a benefit to changing to a 3rd party solution. I have presets in epsonscan for color neg 120, color pos 120, 35mm, and document scanning and it's finnnnee.

# ? Jul 18, 2017 17:41

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 27, 2024 06:39

akadajet: Sep 14, 2003

Yeah, I don't think the other software would be any better. In the end you get the same data in a tif file

# ? Jul 19, 2017 01:28

Wild EEPROM: Jul 29, 2011; oh, my, god. Becky, look at her bitrate.

i get mine in a psd :smug:

# ? Jul 19, 2017 06:20

akadajet: Sep 14, 2003

Wild EEPROM posted:

i get mine in a psd

fail

# ? Jul 19, 2017 16:28

Sauer: Sep 13, 2005; Socialize Everything!

Scan with your digital camera, get proprietary RAW file; unless you're one of those Pentax weirdos.

# ? Jul 19, 2017 20:44

akadajet: Sep 14, 2003

So on my "scanning old family slides" adventures I found a few have this mildew stuff on them. In some cases, it's rather extreme. I thought this before and after using pec-12 cleaner and pec pads might be interesting to you guys. I haven't removed any dirt on these two scans digitally.

Before

After

# ? Jul 20, 2017 03:22

SMERSH Mouth: Jun 25, 2005

Sauer posted:

I've complained in this thread previously about how finicky it is to scan with my digital camera, especially stitching 6x6 shots. Getting some second hand negative carriers (some sort of Besler 23 types) in the sizes I like significantly simplified the process. They keep the negative dead flat and perfectly in plane with the sensor so I don't need to refocus between frames; set it up once and snap, snap, snap... Also blocks nearly all other light coming from my light table. Quite a bit quicker and simpler to handle. I'm going to suck it up and live with stitching on larger negatives, the quality of "scan" shits all over my flatbed. Never know if a second hand Besler enlarger might happen one day.

I shot a roll of HP5 during Canada Day and screwed up a little while developing. I filled the tank with water for a pre-rinse like I normally do and grabbed my half full bottle of DD-X which I haven't used in over a month. Its sealed tightly and I squeeze most of the air out when closing it up but when I opened it the fluid was brownish instead of almost clear like it usually is. I figured that means its probably pooped so I developed the roll with 1:50 Rodinal instead. Worked fine especially with my exposures all being educated guesses since my camera's meter took Canada Day off but Rodinal isn't really the look I like with 400 speed film. Could I have recovered my roll from the tank while it was rinsing and waited until I got some more DD-X? I figured leaving it in water would eventually damage the emulsion. Draining the tank and hanging the film up in the dark to dry may have worked but I didn't want to risk it.

Canada Day was rainy, foggy, hot and 100% humidity. Downtown Montreal was still packed with folks celebrating anyway.

I've found that scanning with a full frame sensor digital camera mounted on an old Durst enlarger and a piece of ANR glass over a light pad to completely smoke my Epson V550 for detail reproduction, so I'm in the same boat as you. But I see that you're using it for black and white film. My setup is great for that, but do you ever use yours for color negatives? I've just about given up on trying to come correct negatives 'scanned' with a 5Dmkii. Between the color temperature of the light pad and the Canon color interpretation of the negative, I'm getting results that are poo poo poo poo poo poo whenever I try scanning Portra, Gold, or Fuji Superia.

# ? Jul 20, 2017 19:52

eggsovereasy: May 6, 2011

# ? Jul 20, 2017 23:39

Sauer: Sep 13, 2005; Socialize Everything!

SMERSH Mouth posted:

...but do you ever use yours for color negatives?

I haven't shot a lot of color negative and everything I have shot has been on not great film (Lomo Color Neg and Ultramax) and bad photos (crappy photographer). Just loaded my first ever roll of Portra into my "new" Nikon F80 this week. When scanning I don't worry about white balance and just leave the camera on auto. Make sure to scan of an area of the film that is unexposed. A spot between frames is fine if your film camera doesn't leak outside the frame or just scan an empty frame by taking a shot with the lens cap on when you're out photographing. I don't have my lab cut the roll so I use the little bit at the end that never left the canister. If you have the lab cut your film maybe shoot a real frame then a blank one so they don't slice off the "extra". This frame is your reference for your film's base color. Since the blank area is also effectively the whitest (blackest) your film can get its also good for setting your exposure on the right side of the histogram. Manually set an appropriate shutter speed that doesn't clip your histogram and use that for every frame. Check a few frames to make sure all three channels are not being clipped. If you scan some of whatever you're using to mask your film it will naturally be completely black and clip the left side; don't worry about that it will be get cropped out.

When you import the frames into Lightroom (or whichever raw processor you like) select the reference frame and set the image's white balance with the white balance dropper tool from a nice clear spot with no dust and such. Sync that white balance to all your shots from that roll. This still doesn't get rid of all the color cast after inverting but gets you pretty close. Crop out the mask and send your image(s) to Photoshop. Photoshop's curves tool is more powerful than Lightroom's and I prefer using the content aware clone stamp for dust removal; its a lot faster than Lightroom's spotting tool.

Clean up your shot. Invert it with an Invert Adjustment Layer. Add a Curves Adjustment Layer. Hold ALT and hit the Auto button. Choose "Enhance Per Channel Contrast", Snap to Neutral Mid-tones, and clip the shadows and highlights by 0.01%. This should take care of any color cast left from neutralizing the base color. You can turn this into an action to make it faster. That's all I do in Photoshop. If you're still getting a bit of color cast you can use higher values for the clipping points in Auto Curves. Don't overdo it or you will be throwing out useful data in your shadows and highlights. Color neg can still look weird if shot in lighting conditions its not balanced for. Lightroom's white balance picker tool makes it easy to fix.

After that just do any post-processing you like on the image as normal. I find the greatest difficultly in scanning color negative is focusing on the grain of the negative. Color neg's grain is translucent and naturally lacks hard edges. Its not silver crystals but clusters of colored dye; The silver is removed when color neg is developed. These were both post-processed in Capture One instead of Lightroom as I prefer it (its fast and nearly free if you own a Sony camera) but selecting white balance from a reference frame and auto curves in Photoshop remain the same. Both are Lomo Color Neg 400, which I'm pretty sure is actually Ultramax 400 or something a lot like it. The second one is rather overexposed due to surprise meter death in the ME Super.

Color Neg Scanning Example 1

Color Neg Scanning Example 2

Edit: Now that I think about it, I'm not sure that taking a reference frame is even necessary as long as you're not clipping any color channels when scanning the shot. Auto Curves with a tiny little bit of clipping would likely give the same end result regardless of white balance as long as all the data from each color channel is present.

Sauer fucked around with this message at 09:18 on Jul 22, 2017

# ? Jul 22, 2017 09:07

bellows lugosi: Aug 9, 2003

or you could just do each frame with one go at the curves dialog

# ? Jul 22, 2017 17:21

mozman: Nov 3, 2010

Saw this article today and thought it was kind of appropriate since she used film. Still not sure what to make of it exactly. Would be nice to win $20k by spitting on a negative, though.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/olive-cotton-award-photographic-portrait-prize-awarded-to-image-without-a-face-20170724-gxhr4y.html

# ? Jul 26, 2017 04:12

Bottom Liner: Feb 15, 2006; a specific vein of lasagna

Yeah I see why people would be upset. It's an interesting piece, but not a portrait by any traditional standard.

# ? Jul 26, 2017 19:47

Helen Highwater: Feb 19, 2014; And furthermore; Grimey Drawer

This is pretty cool, it's an album of scanned camera ads from the 70s and 80s.

https://imgur.com/a/3G316#QNCPuUK

# ? Jul 26, 2017 21:17

SMERSH Mouth: Jun 25, 2005

Sauer posted:

ansel autisms posted:

This is all going in my 'how to do poo poo' text file, thanks. I don't think the hardware is holding me back. Will just have to work on it.

Last time I went to the lab for 35mm color negative scans.

# ? Jul 27, 2017 03:36

VelociBacon: Dec 8, 2009

I wish pentax would bring back that marketing manager

# ? Jul 27, 2017 04:07

Sauer: Sep 13, 2005; Socialize Everything!

I wish ME Supers would stop dying in confounding ways.

# ? Jul 27, 2017 11:29

SMERSH Mouth: Jun 25, 2005

This is from a Gold 400 negative photographed on a light table with an FF DSLR and color corrected in ACR and PS. This is as faithful to life as I could get it.

This is the same image from my local lab.

Is there a youtube tutorial that covers how to color correct negatives using manual curves adjustment? I still needed to use the ACR camera color calibration dialog after loving with the curves, just to get to this result.

# ? Aug 3, 2017 19:31

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

SMERSH Mouth posted:

This is from a Gold 400 negative photographed on a light table with an FF DSLR and color corrected in ACR and PS. This is as faithful to life as I could get it.

This is the same image from my local lab.

Is there a youtube tutorial that covers how to color correct negatives using manual curves adjustment? I still needed to use the ACR camera color calibration dialog after loving with the curves, just to get to this result.

Looks like you did pretty well - I prefer your version.

This is the video that changed how I think about processing negatives (put it on mute): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_qeZOWqchM

# ? Aug 4, 2017 15:57

bellows lugosi: Aug 9, 2003

here's another one without any speaking https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHXJN5kjXxo

# ? Aug 4, 2017 18:01

Cacator: Aug 6, 2005; You're quite good at turning me on.

So I'm just starting to develop B&W film at home for the first time, but when picking up chemicals the camera store also sold me some Ilford Washaid. Do I actually need this for anything?

# ? Aug 6, 2017 00:42

eggsovereasy: May 6, 2011

Cacator posted:

So I'm just starting to develop B&W film at home for the first time, but when picking up chemicals the camera store also sold me some Ilford Washaid. Do I actually need this for anything?

The only I use washaid for is washing fiber prints.

# ? Aug 6, 2017 04:51

Cacator: Aug 6, 2005; You're quite good at turning me on.

eggsovereasy posted:

The only I use washaid for is washing fiber prints.

Yeah and I'm not doing any printing so it seems unnecessary. Maybe they meant to sell me PhotoFlo instead.

# ? Aug 6, 2017 04:58

Sauer: Sep 13, 2005; Socialize Everything!

They might have mixed it up with Illford Wetting Agent which is their version of Photo Flo. Go exchange them. If water is expensive where you live it may be worth using for film but water that costly had better come with a free car with every sip. I don't use Photo Flo for 35mm film anymore, just a final soak in clean water and run a folded Kimwipe down the negative. They won't scratch when damp and it leaves the negative almost completely dry so there's nothing to turn into water spots. Still use Photo Flo for 120 film though, its a bit big to effectively wipe off.

Sauer fucked around with this message at 05:16 on Aug 6, 2017

# ? Aug 6, 2017 05:05

some kinda jackal: Feb 25, 2003; �
�

Oh my god I found a makerspace near me that has a full darkroom. Literally the best $50/mo I'll ever spend considering everything else I get to play with but mmmmm finally no more locking myself in the bathroom stuffing a towel into the gap in the bottom of the door.

# ? Aug 7, 2017 22:23

Sauer: Sep 13, 2005; Socialize Everything!

Martytoof posted:

Oh my god I found a makerspace near me that has a full darkroom...

We want to see prints.

McGill University's photography club still maintains a darkroom with reasonable costs for non-students by the hour (I think its $10 for 90 minutes) and a cheap fixed rate per semester ($50 for the semester off the top of my head) if you're going to use it a lot. You just have to supply your own paper, they maintain their own chemistry. Tempted to try it out.

# ? Aug 8, 2017 06:15

Sauer: Sep 13, 2005; Socialize Everything!

I don't really like the Yashica Electro 35 but what's this? A "Film Tested, Photo Ready" Canonet QL17 for only 30 canuckistanies? What's the worst that could be wrong with it?

Everything... everything is wrong with it.

The seller agreed to refund half the cost for the following laundry list of issues. So hey, nearly free somewhat busted Canonet! He did admit the last time he "film tested" it was ten years ago.

Lens mount was lose. There's four screws inside securing it to the frame. The lens assembly is normally a bit wiggly on old rangefinders but everything was moving when pressing the shutter.
Seized aperture blades. Easy enough to clean, but I ended up having to do both sides and did the shutter while I was in there. The lens elements on the film side are tight access.
Hazy mid elements from oil vapor deposits.
Battery leak. Corrosion wasn't critically bad, nothing important rotted away. Just green crud in the battery compartment and rusted negative pole.
The aperture was out of calibration. The meter would indicate a certain aperture and the diaphragm would actually close two stops smaller. There's an eccentric pin that can be adjusted for this but moving it also changes the spacing between the meter needle and the needle trap so there's another eccentric pin that can be turned to correct that. They're not proportional to each other. It was hours of trial and error to get everything to line up properly and even small adjustments have significant effect. I'm sure Canon had a quick and easy method but that information all retired or died of old age.
Hot shoe shorting out. The extra pin for the Canolite D flash was shorting with the ground terminal and preventing a flash from firing (worked fine with the PC port). Maybe there's a tin whisker or something I can't see but there's no obvious way they should be contacting. I taped over the camera side contact for the Canolite pin since I'll never use one (My SB-22s would beat me if I did).
Used a small ball bearing to shim the throw on the shutter. None of my cable releases could get in deep enough to trip it. Not an issue now and even without a shim the throw is still nothing compared to the Electro.
Light seals of course.
New leatherette ordered since the other one turned to dust on me during removal. Its dark green as voted on in the Armagoons Discord.
Clean everything. Another used camera that lived in the home of a smoker. Q-Tips were coming back brown from inside the range finder assembly. I don't airbrush anymore, but I kept the compressor just for cases like this.

Remarkably the meter is dead on accurate with a hearing aid battery installed and the range finder didn't need adjustment. I don't know if the Canonets were particularly resistant to range finder misaligned with use or the previous owner "film tested" it by never touching it ever. Nice form factor; I like the focusing lever and short focus throw; focusing is really fast with this camera. The film loading is neat. An all mechanic version of what newer film cameras do; was probably a big deal in 1975. Its a lot smaller than the Yashica Electro while feeling roomy and very comfortable. The Electro is huge yet feels really clumsy somehow; like my hands don't know what to do with themselves while holding it. I think its because the Electro's lens is mounted off center to the right and leaves all my fingers jammed up in one place and not enough room to grip it properly. Rangefinder patch is way larger in the Canonet which I prefer. No frame lines on the right side of the frame is weird. I'll order a nice dark green rope sling to go with it. There's a roll of Foma 100 in there right now to test it out. If all is working its going to be my cheapy color negative mule during my upcoming vacation while "the good stuff" is in the F80.

Edit: If any of you know more about the lineage of Canonets I'd love to know what kind I actually have. It looks like it has QL17 III guts but the exterior is a regular QL17. Small QL badge on the front. Its made in Japan and I guess Canon's serial numbers are gibberish and don't encode any useful information.

Sauer fucked around with this message at 06:32 on Aug 8, 2017

# ? Aug 8, 2017 06:25

8th-snype: Aug 28, 2005; My office is in the front room of a run-down 12 megapixel sensor but the rent suits me and the landlord doesn't ask many questions.

Dorkroom Short Fiction Champion 2012; Young Orc

Sauer posted:

[Clean everything. Another used camera that lived in the home of a smoker. Q-Tips were coming back brown from inside the range finder assembly. I don't airbrush anymore, but I kept the compressor just for cases like this.

A few months ago I started working as an Ebay auction lister for Goodwill, I have slowly become the shop's goto film camera guy for testing and lotting. You would not believe the amount of camera bags I have thrown out in just a few months because they smelled like an ashtray.

# ? Aug 8, 2017 09:37

Primo Itch: Nov 4, 2006; I confessed a horrible secret for this account!

Sauer posted:

I don't really like the Yashica Electro 35 but what's this? A "Film Tested, Photo Ready" Canonet QL17 for only 30 canuckistanies? What's the worst that could be wrong with it?

Everything... everything is wrong with it.

The seller agreed to refund half the cost for the following laundry list of issues. So hey, nearly free somewhat busted Canonet! He did admit the last time he "film tested" it was ten years ago.

Lens mount was lose. There's four screws inside securing it to the frame. The lens assembly is normally a bit wiggly on old rangefinders but everything was moving when pressing the shutter.

Seized aperture blades. Easy enough to clean, but I ended up having to do both sides and did the shutter while I was in there. The lens elements on the film side are tight access.

Hazy mid elements from oil vapor deposits.

Battery leak. Corrosion wasn't critically bad, nothing important rotted away. Just green crud in the battery compartment and rusted negative pole.

The aperture was out of calibration. The meter would indicate a certain aperture and the diaphragm would actually close two stops smaller. There's an eccentric pin that can be adjusted for this but moving it also changes the spacing between the meter needle and the needle trap so there's another eccentric pin that can be turned to correct that. They're not proportional to each other. It was hours of trial and error to get everything to line up properly and even small adjustments have significant effect. I'm sure Canon had a quick and easy method but that information all retired or died of old age.

Hot shoe shorting out. The extra pin for the Canolite D flash was shorting with the ground terminal and preventing a flash from firing (worked fine with the PC port). Maybe there's a tin whisker or something I can't see but there's no obvious way they should be contacting. I taped over the camera side contact for the Canolite pin since I'll never use one (My SB-22s would beat me if I did).

Used a small ball bearing to shim the throw on the shutter. None of my cable releases could get in deep enough to trip it. Not an issue now and even without a shim the throw is still nothing compared to the Electro.

Light seals of course.

New leatherette ordered since the other one turned to dust on me during removal. Its dark green as voted on in the Armagoons Discord.

Clean everything. Another used camera that lived in the home of a smoker. Q-Tips were coming back brown from inside the range finder assembly. I don't airbrush anymore, but I kept the compressor just for cases like this.

Remarkably the meter is dead on accurate with a hearing aid battery installed and the range finder didn't need adjustment. I don't know if the Canonets were particularly resistant to range finder misaligned with use or the previous owner "film tested" it by never touching it ever. Nice form factor; I like the focusing lever and short focus throw; focusing is really fast with this camera. The film loading is neat. An all mechanic version of what newer film cameras do; was probably a big deal in 1975. Its a lot smaller than the Yashica Electro while feeling roomy and very comfortable. The Electro is huge yet feels really clumsy somehow; like my hands don't know what to do with themselves while holding it. I think its because the Electro's lens is mounted off center to the right and leaves all my fingers jammed up in one place and not enough room to grip it properly. Rangefinder patch is way larger in the Canonet which I prefer. No frame lines on the right side of the frame is weird. I'll order a nice dark green rope sling to go with it. There's a roll of Foma 100 in there right now to test it out. If all is working its going to be my cheapy color negative mule during my upcoming vacation while "the good stuff" is in the F80.

Edit: If any of you know more about the lineage of Canonets I'd love to know what kind I actually have. It looks like it has QL17 III guts but the exterior is a regular QL17. Small QL badge on the front. Its made in Japan and I guess Canon's serial numbers are gibberish and don't encode any useful information.

Take the lens off, grab a cheap whatever adapter for your mirrorless and make an adapter to use it with epoxi glue and filter rings. That's what I did when my Yashica Electro hit the fan and the lens is suberb for portraits...

# ? Aug 8, 2017 13:46

Sauer: Sep 13, 2005; Socialize Everything!

That's a really good idea. My Electro is in excellent condition and works perfectly so I wouldn't chop it up; a junker though... I just don't like using it because it feels like an awkward brick in my hands.

# ? Aug 8, 2017 19:07

coronalight: Oct 12, 2006; asdfghjkl;

After having a lower tier 35mm camera for years and dumping my money into medium format instead I'm looking into purchasing that "next level" camera. I'm thinking a Leica, Contax or the Bessa R2. Would the money for the Leica really be worth it? I know there's so much bullshit thrown around about ONCE YOU HOLD ONE, but I don't have the option to hold one anywhere near me ahah. I want to have this camera forever, should I definitely opt for a fully mechanical camera?

# ? Aug 8, 2017 22:12

Helen Highwater: Feb 19, 2014; And furthermore; Grimey Drawer

Fully mechanical cameras are amazing things to play with and use. There's a lot of room in that description though. All of my cameras are fully mechanical with the exception of some powered lightmeters. I'd say your choice should be more about the lens mount than the body.

# ? Aug 8, 2017 22:39

Sauer: Sep 13, 2005; Socialize Everything!

If you just want a camera as a fashion accessory then yes to any of those I suppose. My "high end" 35mm film camera is a Nikon F80 that does all the same stuff modern DSLR does but the sensor is film. I also already own a number of lenses for it from my former DSLR, which was a huge plus. What is your motivation for getting a fancy camera?

I will say that it is nice to be able to do my own maintenance on mechanical cameras. The only camera I have now that is totally broken is an ME Super because of an electrical issue I haven't been able to sort out.

Sauer fucked around with this message at 23:03 on Aug 8, 2017

# ? Aug 8, 2017 22:46

Wild EEPROM: Jul 29, 2011; oh, my, god. Becky, look at her bitrate.

Leicas are cool but the most solid feeling camera is not a Leica.

# ? Aug 8, 2017 23:02

Sauer: Sep 13, 2005; Socialize Everything!

Pentax Spotmatic, for when you need to beat someone to death with your camera and photograph the results. Spotmatic, it hammers nails and takes pictures. Spotmatic, it will anchor your boat.

# ? Aug 8, 2017 23:04

Sauer: Sep 13, 2005; Socialize Everything!

All pretty and dressed up with all discombobulated bits recombobulated and the cardinal gram meter aligned with the floozle nozzle. Works great. The chipped glass covering the range finder is just cosmetic, not going to worry about it. I'm glad I at least like fixing cameras because I still can't shoot for poo poo.

# ? Aug 9, 2017 02:40

Father O'Blivion: Jul 2, 2004; Get up on your feet and do the Funky Alfonzo

Anything Japanese circa '65-'75 should run you less than $20. The Minolta needed some oil to fix the mirror/shutter return. The Pentax's advance lever was stuck initially but was fixed within 30 seconds of popping off the bottom and manually cocking a mechanism.

From the Pentax:

(X-Sync flash)

# ? Aug 9, 2017 03:21

Sauer: Sep 13, 2005; Socialize Everything!

Spotmatics are great cameras. Completely mechanical and built like tanks. Rather heavy but you can use it as a self defense weapon and it will still work afterwards. The battery only runs the light meter and its a match needle meter*; there's no connection between the meter and the rest of the camera. If you're comfortable with estimating exposure yourself or use an external meter you don't even need a battery. Standard M42 mount so it will fit loads of lenses and the Super Takumars it was made for are pretty much all exceptional lenses aside from some of the wonky telephotos. As far as I can tell my Spotmatic has never had any maintenance performed on it and it still performs quite well. The film winder is a little rough but still works without issue and a strap lug is lose. The K1000 is pretty much a Spotmatic with the K-Mount; they're pricier since they're the standard "student camera" and possibly riskier since they are actually used quite a bit by students so there's loads of clapped out ones on the market.

* When using mine I usually just take a reading off the back of my hand or some other midtone or light shadow and only recheck when the light changes.

Sauer fucked around with this message at 04:16 on Aug 9, 2017

# ? Aug 9, 2017 04:07