|
So local craigslist listing is giving away a Noritsu machine. Would be an awesome find if it werent 300 lbs.
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 21:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 02:53 |
|
|
Putrid Grin posted:So local craigslist listing is giving away a Noritsu machine. Would be an awesome find if it werent 300 lbs. Haha, link? My wife used to operate one, she keeps joking that we could get one for my silly bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 22:17
|
|
|
I used to run a kis machine but i'd pick up a noritsu film developer if I can be sure I can get chemistry for the next 5 years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 02:36
|
|
|
Rot posted:Haha, link? The guy actually will deliver it for 250 bucks. https://philadelphia.craigslist.org/zip/d/developer-machine-noristu-qsf/6554348116.html
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 09:08
|
|
|
I have a bulk loader I got at goodwill years ago with a "Kodak Plus X" label on the outside. Just got a can loaded with 12 exposures as a test. Gonna test this bitch out and see if this expired film is good anymore. Wish me luck.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 18:33
|
|
|
Putrid Grin posted:The guy actually will deliver it for 250 bucks. This is the single greatest temptation in my life.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 16:19
|
|
|
 sup film thread
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 02:43
|
|
|
Got the light seals in my X-570 replaced just in time to head to Japan tomorrow with a bag full of Portra and JCH StreetPan. It's going to be an excellent 2 weeks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 04:49
|
|
|
A few months ago I bought a lot of home processing stuff for black and white film, the reasons being twofold. One, the lab has a one-day turnaround on colour but a one week turnaround on black and white, meaning it can take two weeks for me to get it back depending on my schedule. Two, to "justify" shooting in larger formats (6x9, 6x12, etc) on those occasions where it merits it, and save money on the processing. As expected, my first few tries were a disaster. I ruined my film (a mix of improper light sealing of the bathroom and forgetting how ratios work when mixing), yet decided to give it another go eventually. After a peristent flu and a miserable first quarter of 2018, I gave it another attempt yesterday. I quit in a fit of rage when I couldn't spool neither 120 nor 35mm film after trying for 45 minutes in a pitch black bathroom, and started to hallucinate (is this what Charles Bonnet syndrome is like?). After painting the walls with expletives and ruining another two rolls, I placed everything together on the kitchen table ready to be photographed and placed on Kijiji. In one last ditch effort I gave it another go this morning and had zero problems threading 35mm film. I can't tell what I did wrong, but it was more or less done in minutes and the film came out perfect. A small victory; I guess I'm determined when I succeed at something, yet stubborn when I fail. I don't think I felt that level of childlike wonder and wizardry in an accomplishment since a childhood science experiment. I enjoyed the ride back from the lab; looking at my film on the subway, gratified that it came out at all. To have it change in my own hands, BY my own hands, for the first time was special. That being said, I have no idea if I have it in me to go through that again 
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 22:56
|
|
|
WorldWarWonderful posted:A few months ago I bought a lot of home processing stuff for black and white film, the reasons being twofold. One, the lab has a one-day turnaround on colour but a one week turnaround on black and white, meaning it can take two weeks for me to get it back depending on my schedule. Two, to "justify" shooting in larger formats (6x9, 6x12, etc) on those occasions where it merits it, and save money on the processing. Are you using plastic Paterson reels? If so, check that the ball bearings in the ratchet mechanism aren’t bound/frozen. I’ve seen ones that are pretty corroded. I’ve also found it helps to cut the corners of the film that you insert into the reel, especially with 120. That being said, congrats for sticking with it! Subsequent tries will get easier!
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 00:53
|
|
|
If you still have the ruined rolls use them to practice loading reels in the light. Then close your eyes and practice more. With the funnel installed and the lid on your tank is a light tight environment. If you start to feel pressured you can put your loose film in the tank seal it up and come back to it later to try again.
Sauer fucked around with this message at 05:04 on Apr 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 04:05
|
|
|
Picked up a Fuji GW690III a few months back, and am really enjoying that 6x9 detail.    The scans come out ok, but optical prints are much more satisfying!
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 06:12
|
|
|
Nice but feels overly sharpened.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 06:51
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:Nice but feels overly sharpened. Thanks, yeah I’m still getting the hang of using the scanner, but the prints I’m pulling off an enlarger don’t look all that different. I can’t remember if I had unsharp mask enabled when I scanned these...
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 07:17
|
|
|
Shoving film on a reel is something you just need to practice a dozen times or so, using disposable/used film. Practice the same way you’ll do it for realsies: in a bag or in the dark.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 07:38
|
|
|
WorldWarWonderful posted:As expected, my first few tries were a disaster. I ruined my film (a mix of improper light sealing of the bathroom and forgetting how ratios work when mixing), yet decided to give it another go eventually. After a peristent flu and a miserable first quarter of 2018, I gave it another attempt yesterday. I quit in a fit of rage when I couldn't spool neither 120 nor 35mm film after trying for 45 minutes in a pitch black bathroom, and started to hallucinate (is this what Charles Bonnet syndrome is like?). After painting the walls with expletives and ruining another two rolls, I placed everything together on the kitchen table ready to be photographed and placed on Kijiji. I find that doing it in a darkbag is much easier than doing it in a darkroom. Just put your tank, funnel and reel in the bag and zip it up. Break the seal on the film roll outside the bag and have it in your hand when you put your arms into the bag. It's much easier to keep track of everything and you don't need to worry about light sealing an entire room. Also, when spooling it on, have your thumbs resting on the reel edges just ahead of the tabs where the ball-bearings are. That way the film runs under your thumbs before it gets picked up by the reel and it won't get twisted or jump out of the groove. Hold the reel vertical so that the film spool hangs straight down from it too, it means there's a nice straight path for the film to take so it goes on smoothly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 10:34
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:I find that doing it in a darkbag is much easier than doing it in a darkroom. Just put your tank, funnel and reel in the bag and zip it up. Break the seal on the film roll outside the bag and have it in your hand when you put your arms into the bag. It's much easier to keep track of everything and you don't need to worry about light sealing an entire room. That's the next step - I wanted to see if it was something I enjoyed doing before investing more. That being said I've run into a problem where everything is flat and has this grey-ish overtone - nowhere near as contrasty as the stuff I had developed at the lab. I scanned my old negatives to confirm and - same film, same camera - the lab-scanned ones are way more "black and white" instead of washed out. Here's an example of how one of the "better" shots turned out: https://imgur.com/a/YmPJn1e Let's say I'm using Tri-X, this is how I'm developing it: -HC110 dilution B, used per instructions. -A vinegar / water stop bath (1:8). I'm going to try a "real" stop bath to see if this resolves it, used for about eight minutes. -Kodak fixer for ten minutes. -A rinse and a Photo-flo. -Hang it up in the bathroom for 12-24 hours. I've followed the agitation technique that seems pretty common (thirty seconds agitation followed by ten seconds every minute). Like I said, same camera, same film, same technique, but different result. I know it's not my camera, my Sunny 16 instincts, or my scanner since I have a control. My options are: 1) Use a real stop bath. 2) Dump out my three-month old fixer (even though it's yielded the same result for the last month and change). 3) No idea. Anyone have any tips on where to start? Is it my chemicals? My agitation technique? Did I possibly screw up my fixer mix when I first started? Thank you! Edit: Oddly enough developed a properly-exposed roll of 120 yesterday (my others were taken with a camera that unbeknownst to me had a pretty bad light leak despite advertised as otherwise) and just scanned it - it doesn't seem on first glance that I have the same issue so I don't know. Is this an issue with improperly stored film? I kept the 35mm rolls in the fridge for a few months but the 120 was bought and used same-day. WorldWarWonderful fucked around with this message at 01:10 on Apr 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 00:52
|
|
|
Use higher dilutions of HC-110 (E, H, F). Dilution B is hellastrong leaves very little leeway for something like tri-x and will compress your dmax unless you're a robot. Tri-X really likes being pushed, so don't hesitate to underexpose 1-2 stops and push in a higher dilution to increase contrast at the "expense" of more grain. Stop bath is useful for fully automated processing at low dilutions, but at higher dilutions plain water is fine. Fixer capacity is a consideration for medium to long-term storage of the film, but as long as its clearing the film base sufficiently for scanning you're fine. Do a leader test. Edit for edit: Its hard to say. The light leak may be increasing contrast by way of your scanner auto-correcting. The exposure, surface area of the film, volume/dilution of developer, agitation method (i.e. swirling vs tank inversion), processing temperature, and the film's constitution are all variables. Father O'Blivion fucked around with this message at 01:24 on Apr 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 01:18
|
|
|
Father O'Blivion posted:Use higher dilutions of HC-110 (E, H, F). Dilution B is hellastrong leaves very little leeway for something like tri-x and will compress your dmax unless you're a robot. Thanks! I'll give the higher dilutions a go next time. Forgot to add that the old 120s had a light leak so I didn't consider them viable; I shot with a new medium format camera and the results are much better but still feel a little flat (that being said, less so than the 35mm). WorldWarWonderful fucked around with this message at 02:05 on Apr 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 01:54
|
|
|
I'd love to see pictures of the lab-developed negatives and your home-developed negatives side-by-side. Not scans, just pictures of the negatives; for one thing, I think seeing what the rebate looks like on each might give some clues.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2018 23:29
|
|
|
I got lab scans back and wtf happened here, look at that garbage: (This is a 100% crop from a sky area with a bit of cloud. ) Did they loving write in the middle of my scan ? I am not a satisfied customer e: the hosed up blotches happen on like half the pics of the roll, I assumed something happened during processing but then it should be everywhere. 
unpacked robinhood fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Apr 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 21:11
|
|
|
unpacked robinhood posted:I got lab scans back and wtf happened here, look at that garbage: It says KODAK. I'm guessing you're talking about a piece of 120? How old is this film? There was a known issue for a while where Kodak's backing-paper supplier changed to printing with soy-based inks, and they wound up very slightly increasing the sensitivity of emulsions where they came in contact. T-Max was most heavily affected, with some known problems with Portra. Write to Kodak and they should send you replacement a few replacement rolls for your trouble.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 21:47
|
|
|
This can also happen with 120 rolls that get damp or left in humid conditions for extended periods. If you store your film in the fridge or freezer make sure to let it come to ambient temperature before cracking the foil.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 22:25
|
|
|
unpacked robinhood posted:I got lab scans back and wtf happened here, look at that garbage: Like others have said, this is 100% a Kodak issue with specific batches of backing paper/emulsion, don’t blame the lab! I had a problem with one roll, sent Kodak a note, and they sent me 5 rolls in the mail for free.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 07:14
|
|
|
Yond Cassius posted:It says KODAK. I'm guessing you're talking about a piece of 120? How old is this film? Ya it's a roll of expired Portra 160 in 120. Not more than a few years old iirc. frogbs posted:Like others have said, this is 100% a Kodak issue with specific batches of backing paper/emulsion, don’t blame the lab! I had a problem with one roll, sent Kodak a note, and they sent me 5 rolls in the mail for free. Thanks, I'll try getting in touch.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 09:23
|
|
|
unpacked robinhood posted:Ya it's a roll of expired Portra 160 in 120. Not more than a few years old iirc. That would put you in the window, for sure. As far as I know the problem started showing up mid 2015, and should have been fixed by the end of 2016, though reports differ a little on exactly when which emulsions are safe to use again. Personally I think it was a huge mistake that Kodak did a replace-but-don't-recall and just left the affected batches to burn their way through the supply chain, but I guess they felt that the problem was inconsistent enough that they could write off any goodwill loss involved. Email Profilm@kodakalaris.com and they should make things as right as they can.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 16:06
|
|
|
Tri-X @ 1600 in HC-110   
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2018 21:09
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:Tri-X @ 1600 in HC-110 This would be sick with a portrait orientation crop leaving out all that empty background on the right and just focusing on that wicked looking crab.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 07:54
|
|
|
That crab looks like a videogame boss
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 08:49
|
|
|
The face of comedy
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 03:19
|
|
|
The local place that I used for E6 have apparently shut down their E6 development. There is one other local place that still does E6 at reasonable prices but this has made me start thinking about developing all my own film. I work at a biochemlab so I'm used to the whole lab-stuff and I'm not to worried about the protocols for developing but I do wonder about any smell. As I understand it B&W isn't a particularly smelly procedure but how about C41 and E6? My wife is a bit sensitive to smell so I don't think it would be going over well doing it at home if it stinks a lot and even doing it at the lab might get a bit sensitive if its really bad, but I guess I could do it in a cabinet.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 10:28
|
|
|
MadlabsRobot posted:The local place that I used for E6 have apparently shut down their E6 development. There is one other local place that still does E6 at reasonable prices but this has made me start thinking about developing all my own film. Considering if you're doing C41/E6 you'll basically need a darkroom I would think the smell is adequately contained in the room. You can dev B&W without a darkroom and it's not that smelly. Certainly the smell would only be around as you're actively developing. Maybe you could rent a weekend apartment somewhere that your wife doesn't know about to dev your film I can't imagine how that could go poorly.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 16:02
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:Considering if you're doing C41/E6 you'll basically need a darkroom I would think the smell is adequately contained in the room. You can dev B&W without a darkroom and it's not that smelly. Certainly the smell would only be around as you're actively developing. Is there any reason that you can't use a tank for C41/E6 dev?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 16:30
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:Is there any reason that you can't use a tank for C41/E6 dev? I don't understand it enough to say. I've just always heard you need a darkroom to do it, sorry.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 16:50
|
|
|
The fumes from C41 development dissapate after about a day to normal noses. They may linger longer to a sensitive nose. This is if you're very cafeful. If you spill the blix, get ready for the smell to be around for a while.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 18:01
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:Is there any reason that you can't use a tank for C41/E6 dev? I've done C41 in a tank just like b&w.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 21:44
|
|
|
Cosina Voigtlander has some very sharp modern lenses that are basically Nikon Ai-spec manual-focus primes. The 40/2 in particular seems like it would be a great general propose lens for my FE2, but how much extra detail can you really get out of 35mm Portra 400 & 160 with something like that, compared to vintage Nikon glass? Seems like there might be diminishing returns past the sharpness of something like a 50/1.8D at f/5.6. Maybe one of the ultra fine grain b&w films like adox CMS might benefit from the extra resolution, but I get the sense that springing for the Voigtlander might be throwing away money for extra sharpness I won't be able to see on a grainier color stock. But then again I've never used a Leica or any other sort of high-performance 35mm film camera, so I don't know.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 17:08
|
|
|
Portra 800 fuckin owns owns owns  00000009 by Ben Wilcox, on Flickr 00000036 by Ben Wilcox, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 01:29
|
|
|
Has anyone here owned a Minolta CLE? I'm trying to find a 35mm camera that gave me the same sense of joy as the X100, and I haven't found it yet. I've tried the Canonet QL17, Contax G1, and Nikon F3. The Nikon got the closest, but it's just too heavy to take with me everywhere.
luchadornado fucked around with this message at 03:27 on May 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 03:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 02:53 |
|
|
Helicity posted:Has anyone here owned a Minolta CLE? I'm trying to find a 35mm camera that gave me the same sense of joy as the X100, and I haven't found it yet. I've tried the Canonet QL17, Contax G1, and Nikon F3. The Nikon got the closest, but it's just too heavy to take with me everywhere. I just dropped a wad of cash on a contax T2 and i like it a lot. Been shooting with a X100S for 4 years. It has the aperture dial, easy exposure comp, and is very compact.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 22:42
|
|
