|
I came here to ask almost the same question as it happens. I was given a bunch of Fujichrome 400D in both 135 and 120 formats by my local camera store. All of the rolls expired around 1994. According to this DX code parser it's Provia and I'm pretty sure that it hasn't been refrigerated seeing as they found it during a stock room clearout.
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 00:12 |
|
|
Reversal film gets almost impossible to recover if you over-expose, but digital processing of underexposed positives can occasionally give very good results. For the Ektachrome, I'd say shoot it at box speed, it should still be good enough for that. The Fujichrome, over-expose maybe 1 stop, and expect huge color-shifts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
refrigerated: box speed unrefrigerated: 1 stop per decade since expiration unknown: blow a test roll and try both
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
Provia 400 was supposed to have good exposure latitude for a reversal film, wasn't it? Or at least it could be underexposed and push processed with good results? Also, an update on the clicky 24mm Ai Nikon lens that seemed to stop clicking and start working well. I took it out for some early morning landscape stuff the other day. Shot a lot at f/4 and 5.6. Survey says: it still sucks. Left side is noticably more distorted and has a good deal more coma than the right. And the clicking is back. That's 0 for 3 Nikon 24/2.8s that I've tried. None have been decent. I look at the results from my Minolta 28/2.8 and the difference is like night and day. But I wonder how I'm ever going to get a decent wider lens, ideally in Ai-era F mount.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 06:20
|
|
|
Don’t worry my 24 2.8 has a huge blotch in the middle of the image that looks like you smudged the film. Every single frame.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 06:39
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Provia 400 was supposed to have good exposure latitude for a reversal film, wasn't it? Or at least it could be underexposed and push processed with good results? There is a modern zeiss 25mm in nikon f mount if you are willing to pay the money. Voigtlander also made a 20mm f/3.5 in nikon f mount that isn't crazy expensive but I don't know how wide you want to go.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
Acros is rather wonderful at night, no reciprocity failure until two minutes which doesn't appear to be just marketing wank.  Untitled
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 07:46
|
|
|
After reading a little more about it, I don't think the Nikon Ai-S lens series has any really good super wides beyond the 28/2.8 and 28/2. The Cosina Voigtlander 20mm seemed like it was positioned to fill the gap, but the reviews on it don't make it sound much better. I think I'm just going to keep an eye out for a good 35/2 or 2.8 and call it my wide for the FE2 kit. Hard to justify an expensive Nikon 28 when my $30 thrift store MD is fairly perfect in every respect. I do have a 24/2.8 MD, as well. It's sharper than the Nikon, but there are definitely some friction sounds and internal clicking when focusing. What I've noticed is that it usually smears detail on the right-hand side of the image, like this   But sometimes not? Or actually does worse on the left side?  I can't really figure out if it's decentered. The sounds seem to indicate something not moving smoothly inside, but it's hard to pick out from the images if there's something misaligned or if it's just tricky field curvature characteristics that would be there anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 05:32
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:After reading a little more about it, I don't think the Nikon Ai-S lens series has any really good super wides beyond the 28/2.8 and 28/2. The 20mm f/2.8 is supposed to be pretty good. I have a 24mm f/2.8 and it seems ok, but I've not shot with it a ton (none of the 24s seem highly regarded though). The 28s you mention are both gems though. If zooms aren't out of the question, the 28-50 f/3.5 is actually pretty good too and they're not too expensive. I've read the 25-50 f/4 is also good, but haven't used it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 04:24
|
|
|
I've heard that the 20/2.8 Ai-S has some sample variation, but that when they're good, they're good. (I'm beginning to think that the 24/2.8 Ai is one of those lenses where you're rarely going to get a great copy.) Nikon had a lot of different versions of the 20mm lens. You're probably right that the 20/2.8 Ai-S is likely the best bet. Or the 20/2.8 AF-D, simply because any copy would likely be newer and maybe in better shape. Although I like the look of the old Nikkor-UD 20/3.5, even if it is relatively huge. And thanks for the tip on the 28-50 zoom. That would actually be pretty cool, as long as it doesn't flare and ghost too badly, especially since it's so small. The bigger zooms like the 25-50 are sort of clunky for walkaround shooting. I haven't found a color slide film that I really like compared to Portra, except maybe Velvia 50 for some traditional nature landscapes. But I had an old roll of Provia 100F that was about to expire, so I decided to take it out one night. I wouldn't say that I like it better than Portra 400 for night use, but it's different in an interesting way.    
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 05:06
|
|
|
Some three years ago I got my hands on several tins (cans?) of Tri-x for very cheap. It became my go-to movie for all this time. Now I have two rolls of it and need new film. Tri-x is ridiculously expensive right now, especially since I'll be importing whatever film I buy (there's nothing to be found locally in Brazil without it being more expensive than just buying online). The question is, what should I go with? Ultrafine is cheap but the results i've seen where very lackluster. Ilford is always good and an option on the table, but the prices are a little right for me right now. Anything else, Foma, Rollei, Kentmere, Adox, that I might want to look into? The thing is, I've always focused on high speed (Tri-X at 3200, 1600), but recently tried running it slow and taking my time with developing and I'm thinking of maybe going with slower film, but I've honestly only shot Pan F+, which is awfully nice but way to expensive for me right now at 8 bucks a roll, and Adox Silvermax which was nice but is running with Ilford price-wise... So, what would be a nice cost/benefit on a ISO ~100 black and white film now? (I've heard all good things about Acros, but it seens discontinued...)
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2017 03:12
|
|
|
I like Fomapan 100. It is grainy compared to Ilford Delta but you get some nice contrast out of it and it handles pushing quite well. Fomapan 200 is just as good and the 400 speed variant can be pushed to crazy levels as long as you are fine with All The Grain.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
Foma 200 has that "sharp and grainy, but paradoxically smooth" look that Ilford Delta 100 has, but it's just not very high-resolution, which limits its results with 35mm. I don't know if Foma 100 has better detail reproduction than 200, but for a 'traditional cubic grain' film with all the contrast but not the speed of Tri-X, it does the job, and cheaply. Foma 400 is close to Tri-X, but you *can* push Tri-X farther (in the sense that you can preserve more shadow detail at higher speeds, not that it necessarily looks better). But where I really think that Profiline Action falls short of 400TX is in the pulling. Tri-X shot at 200 and developed in Perceptol is a pretty drat good stand-in for a premium traditional slower-speed film like Ilford FP4. In fact, you might just be happy sticking to Tri-X (presuming it's still more affordable) and expanding your processing options rather than opting for new more expensive film stocks. Edit: I've messed around with a lot of different black and white film stocks, but once I got over the syndrome of wanting to try all these different film and developer combinations I gained a much better appreciation for consistency over variety. So now for me it's Delta 100 & Foma 400 / Xtol for everything. And if I need extra low reciprocity failure and ultra fine grain for some kind of special reason, Acros / Perceptol. SMERSH Mouth fucked around with this message at 14:28 on Oct 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2017 04:31
|
|
|
I took my Fotosnaiper out the other day, which I am sure is going to get me shot by the police before too long. Anyway, I wanted to see how the lens handled fast action, so I went to the place where all the skateboarders and BMX kids hang out and shot them with some Fuji 400 that I found in the back of my fridge. Fotosnaiper006.jpg by Iain Compton, on Flickr  Fotosnaiper014.jpg by Iain Compton, on Flickr  Fotosnaiper012.jpg by Iain Compton, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:I took my Fotosnaiper out the other day, which I am sure is going to get me shot by the police before too long. You are a braver man than I lol. Did anybody ask you about it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Foma 400 is close to Tri-X, but you *can* push Tri-X farther (in the sense that you can preserve more shadow detail at higher speeds, not that it necessarily looks better). But where I really think that Profiline Action falls short of 400TX is in the pulling. Tri-X shot at 200 and developed in Perceptol is a pretty drat good stand-in for a premium traditional slower-speed film like Ilford FP4. In fact, you might just be happy sticking to Tri-X (presuming it's still more affordable) and expanding your processing options rather than opting for new more expensive film stocks. You're right on track here. I've liked the looks of Tri-X slowed down, but it's prohibitely expensive now, so I'm looking for an already slow alternative. Maybe I'll try a can of Foma 100 and see what happens. I'd love to try a can of rollei 80s. Fotoimpex has it cheap but the shipping is insane :o
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
akadajet posted:You are a braver man than I lol. Did anybody ask you about it? The skaters were super interested in it. Because of the focal length I was quite a way away but several of them came over to check it out. They had a guy with them doing some video wth a cellphone in a gimbal and he couldn't get his head around shooting action events with film.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
What if you could have all the convenience of shooting film along with the image quality of a mediocre phone camera? Well, thanks to famous Hong Kong camera company JNC Datum Tech International, Limited, and the Yashica brand name, NOW YOU CAN.    quote:The Unprecedented Camera – digiFilm™ Camera Y35 Wrap it up film nerds, the future is here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
Looking forward to picking one up for peanuts in a year
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
The real Yashica Electro manages to feel cramped and awkward in my callused working man hands and it's huge. I can't imagine how uncomfortable a smaller plastic knock-off would be. Gonna get one when they're cheap after it bombs and carry it around slotted it into my Electro's coldshoe.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
lol that even the promotional photos of it cant hide that fake spray painted metallic on black plastic finish look.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
Fed up of your 35mm camera being too reliable? Not getting enough random lightleaks? Why not try film that has the lightleaks pre-applied for you? There's another version that reproduces the effect of a hosed up developer too! All for the low, low price of more than a roll of Portra.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:Fed up of your 35mm camera being too reliable? Not getting enough random lightleaks? Why not try film that has the lightleaks pre-applied for you? loving hipsters man.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
Please stay tuned for more news about my new line of digiFilmTM sensors with pre-applied dust and water damage.
SMERSH Mouth fucked around with this message at 02:41 on Oct 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
I'm excited to Kickstart my new range of artisanal film stocks that faithfully capture that authentic family holiday feel. Choose from: Dad Thumb - an ISO 800 emulsion that only covers about 70% of each frame. Lenscap - an ISO 1 film, DX coded for 400. Dead Battery - an ISO 200 film with heavy grain where the emulsion stops at a random point along the roll.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
Don't give Lomography free ideas! Make them pay for that artificially aged slide film.Helen Highwater posted:Lenscap - an ISO 1 film, DX coded for 400. Heh.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:I'm excited to Kickstart my new range of artisanal film stocks that faithfully capture that authentic family holiday feel. You forgot "Winder trouble", cut to a random length and improperly attached to the spool, so winding it will eventually pull it entirely out of the cassette.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
Add "Very Loosely Rolled" and "Forgot the Tape" to your 120 offerings.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
I shot rolls of Portra, Provia and Velvia on a trip to Europe and got the Portra developed today, which is when I realized the date print function was on the whole time 
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 02:07
|
|
|
Cacator posted:I shot rolls of Portra, Provia and Velvia on a trip to Europe and got the Portra developed today, which is when I realized the date print function was on the whole time If it wasn't set to april 20th 1969 then 
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 07:47
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:If it wasn't set to april 20th 1969 then Thank the sweet baby Jesus for the content-aware healing brush, but it's humiliating that I have to use it at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
I used to have a Fuji GA645Zi (so underrated; it's like a giant contax G2 with a permanently-attached zoom lens) that printed your choice of date or exposure information (ISO, aperture, shutter speed) just outside of the image frame. I don't really understand why so many other film cameras print data inside the image area. I wonder if there are any cameras/databacks that let you enter your own custom text to print on the frames, though. That would unlock some cool possibilities.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 03:53
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:I used to have a Fuji GA645Zi (so underrated; it's like a giant contax G2 with a permanently-attached zoom lens) that printed your choice of date or exposure information (ISO, aperture, shutter speed) just outside of the image frame. I don't really understand why so many other film cameras print data inside the image area. Data printing in the frame is useful for things like family snapshots that will end up in a shoe box with a butt load of others or anything where a time code stamped on the frame would be legally relevant like forensics and insurance adjustment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
To a certain extent I think of film photography today as a way to make pictures that have a certain look to them, so it's all about the aesthetics. Thinking back to an era where (especially 35mm) film photography was just they way you recorded images, for any kind of technical or documentary purpose, I guess you're right. Still seems like you could achieve the same basic functions by putting the records outside of the frame, but being able to immediately date prints at a glance would definitely be more convenient. It's already a big enough pain to dig out and reference old negatives when you only have one drawer full of prints like I do. Speaking of forensics, does anyone know if film photos are still used for certain types of evidence collection? It seems like something that private investigators and the like might still have use for, because as far as I know it's still much harder/more limiting to fake original slides or negatives as opposed to digital images. I don't know how hard it is to spoof digital RAW metadata, though. Aren't there are certain persistent variables that are really hard to scrub away once the image file is saved out of a photo editing application? Anyway, I actually came back to this thread to ask an unrelated question. eggsovereasy posted:If zooms aren't out of the question, the 28-50 f/3.5 is actually pretty good too and they're not too expensive. I've read the 25-50 f/4 is also good, but haven't used it. This got me thinking about Nikon zooms. The 28-50 f/3.5 seems like a decent lens and the size & weight would make it a great alternative to carrying around 2 or 3 primes. I'm definitely still considering it, but its range is pretty limited and wide open performance isn't reputed to be that great. That got me looking into other Nikon zooms in the 24/28/35 to 50/70/105 range, and as soon as I made the mental concession to possibly getting an early-type AF lens instead of MF only, it opened up a whole new world of cheap and compact mid-range zooms to consider. The 28-80 f/3.5-4.5 AF seems to be a common decent pick. It's certainly compact and cheap enough. Any opinions of it here? The 35-70 f/3.3-4.5 is said to be a dog by Krock (for whatever that's worth), is even cheaper and smaller, and doesn't have much price or size advantage over the 28-80. Those are the two that I've thought about. But I seem to remember that there were like five other AF/AF-D zooms in that range. Any good ones besides the 28-80 I already mentioned? Just never mind the constant aperture 2.8s; they're too big and expensive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 04:50
|
|
|
The 28-105mm afd is probably the best of the older afd kit type lenses, it has a faster long end an 1:2 macro. It may be stretching your budget a bit tho because they for for $100-150.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 08:02
|
|
|
So online, all these ebay listings read to me as Nikon As gently caress, Nikon As gently caress-D, Zoom-Nikkor As gently caress. But nice to hear a vote for the 28-105. I'd been wary of stretching out the zoom range so far. Thought maybe 70 or 85 would be the limit for good results. But 28-105 basically replaces (except for 4mm at the wide end and fast aperture stuff) the 24/2.8, 50/1.4, 100/2.8 kit I currently use, at least for most walk-around/tripod shooting. And would make it easier to bring along the FE2 as a second to a medium or large format camera. Edit: it is big though, and for a little more money and weight I could pick up a tokina at-x pro 28-70/2.8. drat it, knowing more just makes the decision harder! SMERSH Mouth fucked around with this message at 03:34 on Nov 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
It doesn't replace any of those primes because all of them are way better than the 28-105mm zoom (and the tokina probs).
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
The 28-105 is a great walk-around lens. If you stop it down to f/5.6-f/8 it will produce decently contrasted and sharp images, more than good enough for non professional reportage. The macro setting is quite useful, I published a little story with one of my daughters last Christmas, involving LEGO blocks and characters, and the image quality was very good for a $150 lens.  (pardon the digital shot here)
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 10:59
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Edit: it is big though, and for a little more money and weight I could pick up a tokina at-x pro 28-70/2.8. drat it, knowing more just makes the decision harder! I used to have that Tokina and the 20-25mm f/2.8 one. I used them on my F4 and they were both pretty good. You have to be careful with the 28-70 though because there's a poo poo version of it, the "SV" or something I think.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 00:12 |
|
|
Less talk more film ya shazbots   
Father O'Blivion fucked around with this message at 05:33 on Nov 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 05:16
|
|