|
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. The voigtlander Bessas are probably worth checking out, and you get to use those sweet m mount lenses. Karl Barks fucked around with this message at 23:17 on May 22, 2018 |
#
?
May 22, 2018 23:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 16:12 |
|
|
Karl Barks posted:The voigtlander Bessas are probably worth checking out, and you get to use those sweet m mount lenses. The CLE uses M mount lenses as well. I know the hi-matics have issues with the accuracy of their light metres but don't know if that's extended to the CLE.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 00:03
|
|
|
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. The camera you are looking for is the Konica Hexar AF. I haven't personally used one but its basucally a film x100. https://www.cameraquest.com/konhex.htm
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 00:41
|
|
|
I've always wanted a CLE, and an m-rokkor 40/2. I like minolta stuff in general, I guess maybe because an SRT101 was my first camera; a hand-me-down that's never been serviced and is still working great. I'm always just about to buy an autocord, but somehow I never do. 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 was about to recommend an OM-1 or 2 since you mentioned liking the F3 but found it too big. The OMs are SLRs like the F3 but they offer that kind of wonderful viewfinder experience that an X100 appreciator might value, plus they're small and have very a slick design. But I'd forgotten about the Hexar. That's another one that I was on the verge of buying for a while but never did. From what I've seen out of them their lens is very sharp, with 'better' than average bokeh than most 35s. They are definitely the closest thing to an X100 in the film camera world; same field of view, same aperture, same 'tunnel viewfinder with framelines and AF confirmation' P&S-style functionality. Hexar As gently caress. DJExile posted:Portra 800 fuckin owns owns owns Nice. If you like Portra 800, you should try Portra 400 at 800.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 00:55
|
|
|
I've been looking at the Contax T2 and Konica Hexar AF as well, so those are all great suggestions. I'll probably splurge and buy one of the above at some point. I'm a *little* wary of the more automatic cameras since I've had two Contax G1s that had unrepairable issues.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 01:23
|
|
|
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've been an X20 / X100-series user for about six years and I started shooting film in April 2017 because I wanted to try a rangefinder and didn't want to pay Leica money for a digital one. I'll run through my purchases in chronological order and hopefully you can distill something from my GAS. 1) Olympus 35RC: My first purchase. After a lot of research I decided to start with this; small, affordable, and powerful. I put it on the shelf to use my...... 2) Olympus Pen FT: Before buying, I decided to add some rules because I knew from shooting digital this could be a slippery slope. Each camera has to more or less contribute something different than the other. This was a half frame SLR: it's compact and can rattle off 72 exposures per 36-exposure roll due to its half frame. It's an SLR so I can (in theory) use different lenses that are two-thirds or less the size of a full-frame camera and if you're a black and white shooter it's fantastic - it amplifies the grain in the film since it's half frame, but I find it doesn't work as well with colour film. I could get twice as many images back from the lab for a slightly increased price! 3) Found the Canonet QL17 for sixty dollars at a flea market. Purchased on impulse but it's going to hit the classifieds. The Olympus 35RC is smaller and I'm feeling like Olympus is more my "church". The quick loading is a fantastic addition though. 4) I got my hands on a reasonably-priced OM adapter for my Pen F, so I picked up a cheap Olympus OM-1n - now each OM lens gets me two focal lengths since the Pen FT acts as if it's a crop sensor! 5) A bunch of medium format stuff - a Mamiya 6x6 foldable (will probably sell), a Yashica LM TLR (which I love using). I originally got into film because I wanted to get a Fujifilm GS690, and I did get better yields with my shots, but by this time I valued portability instead of quality - the Oly 35RC was still my favourite because it was a full frame that fit in the palm of my hand. If I ever discover a good condition Olympus Flex I'll swap it out with this. 6) A Leica iiic. I loved using it but it didn't really contribute anything to my setup so I sold it. My Pen FT still sits at the top - I find it a joy to use. It takes a bit to wrap your head around the portrait orientation but you find ways around its limitations. Sure, I could turn it sideways but that never feels right to me. Taking a four-shot panoramic and only using up a fraction of my roll? Now you're talking. I normally don't like SLRs - even with the Fuji X100 series I preferred the OVF by a long shot. But the size and engineering behind this camera makes it my favourite to use, despite it not being a rangefinder. It all comes down to what you're looking for too. Are weight and size an issue? If you want a fixed lens, what kind of focal length or speed do you need or want? The extra stop on the Canonet QL17 compared to my Oly35RC was great when I was out shooting Cinestill800T at night, but for as often as it happens. Manual or automatic, and if it's a hybrid do you want aperture or shutter speed priority? WorldWarWonderful fucked around with this message at 01:51 on May 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 01:48
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Nice. If you like Portra 800, you should try Portra 400 at 800. I’m in Kyoto right now, and the only colour Kodak film on offer at the local Yodobashi is a very beat-up box of Portra 800 in 120, for the low low price of ¥13000. Kodak film is generally more expensive here than anything else, but holy poo poo. (On my first day here I cleared out their stock of Acros 120 for a much more reasonable ¥2500 per box. Sadly the 4x5 is already gone everywhere I go.)
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 10:38
|
|
|
Disheartening to hear about film disappearing. I've only shot one roll of Portra 800 ages ago, but I do 400 at 800 pretty often and it's great. No personal experience of it, but I think 800 does better pushed to 1600. That is, Portra 400 is still pretty perfect pushed one stop, but past that you'd do better to start off with 800. One thing I can't really see is if Portra 800 has it's own 'look' or if it's just Portra 400 with more grain and underexposure lattitude. There might be something more to recommend it if it has a different color response, but I can't tell from looking at other people's final images. Scanning technique and lens coatings probably have more of an influence.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 02:27
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Disheartening to hear about film disappearing. Portra 800 isn't even vaguely Portra 400. The 800 is old tech, it's based on vision 2 stock which P400 trounces up to EI 3200 easily.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 05:42
|
|
|
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. Nah, it should work fine with just a changing bag for the darkness-part. Couldn't afford to rent an other apartment even if I wanted to, maybe I can get a cheap hotel room to do the dev in, that could surely not go poorly... SMERSH Mouth posted: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. Yeah, that is kind of why I ask. My nose might be as good as dead but my wifes sense of smell is like a drat dog and it would most definitely not be appreciated if I stink up the place.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2018 12:51
|
|
|
Can anyone tell me what camera this is? Figured I would ask the film thread since its a film camera. It's just super bothering me, it looks familiar but I can't identify it. 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2018 17:00
|
|
|
aricoarena posted:Can anyone tell me what camera this is? Figured I would ask the film thread since its a film camera. It's just super bothering me, it looks familiar but I can't identify it. Looks like a Yashica Electro 35 to me, but with a piece of tap over the over/under lights.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2018 17:03
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:Looks like a Yashica Electro 35 to me, but with a piece of tap over the over/under lights. Thank you! I briefly had that thought but in the picture the camera seemed to long.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2018 17:08
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:Looks like a Yashica Electro 35 to me, but with a piece of tap over the over/under lights.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2018 18:58
|
|
|
So I'm considering trying my hand at some film development! I've got both black and white and color film, is there a general recommended guide for what chemicals to buy? Anything I should look out for when purchasing gear, or should keep in mind when I try developing my first roll?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 15:19
|
|
|
For small-scale color film development you generally buy a full set of chemistry, but I don't remember which if any is recommended. For black/white film the minimal chemistry required is a developer and a fixer, everything else is "nice to have". The most standard developer there is Ilford ID-11 or Kodak D76, both are essentially the same chemistry. For fixer, anything called "rapid fixer" works. You will need a development tank with reel(s) suitable for the film format you have. You will also need a dark place to transfer the film to the tank before development, either a room you can fully black out, or a changing bag/changing tent. You will also need several bottles or jugs to hold prepared chemistry, as well as some precise measuring cups, ideally a chemist's measuring cylinder. A thermometer covering around +10 C to +40 C is a good idea. Finally, some clips to hang the developed film from when drying, and to weigh down the lower end of the strip to avoid it curling back up. Black/white development is really hard to gently caress completely up, the biggest failure risk is not the chemistry or development movements, but getting the film transferred into the tank without damaging it. It can be a good idea to sacrifice a roll of film to practice it in light so you can see where the catches are. nielsm fucked around with this message at 15:58 on May 31, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 15:55
|
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted:So I'm considering trying my hand at some film development! I've got both black and white and color film, is there a general recommended guide for what chemicals to buy? Anything I should look out for when purchasing gear, or should keep in mind when I try developing my first roll? The biggest thing is what someone in this thread suggested to me when mine weren't coming out the way I wanted it to - try a different dilution of developer that takes longer but gives more control. I was using Dilution B on HC110 and everything kind of came out flat. On Dilution H, which is diluted by twice as much, takes longer but came out with a little more contrast. Tip two is cut the tips of the film ends off at an angle so they look kind of like this: /ˉˉˉ\, be it 120 or 35mm. It does make it easier to slide into the reels.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 01:01
|
|
|
I mostly just but the cheap powder color chemistry kits from freestyle photo, but the Tetenal liquid kits are easier to mix and seem to be harder to gently caress up with when using. (Tolerate minor errors in time and temp better) Now that acros is dying, I'm thinking about switching to Delta 100 for b&w night stuff, seeing as how it's the film I use the most anyway. I've heard that the reciprocity failure compensation information provided in Ilford's own datasheets is incorrect? Does anyone know of a resource with correct exposure compensation guidelines for long exposures with Delta 100? Or would I be much better served with just replacing acros with TMAX 100 for long exposures?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 01:25
|
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted:So I'm considering trying my hand at some film development! I've got both black and white and color film, is there a general recommended guide for what chemicals to buy? Anything I should look out for when purchasing gear, or should keep in mind when I try developing my first roll? I've got a set of reels/canisters for sale in the buy/sell thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 01:47
|
|
|
I've gone fast and loose with times and temperatures for Presskit development and with Black and White development I've been using HC-110 (E) almost exclusively because it's easier to measure out 5ml per roll. Even though it's recommended to have 6ml minimum per roll, I haven't had a problem with it so far. But i also haven't developed anything in a while and rarely share what I've shot so i could have a backlog of disastrous negatives on my hands. D-76 is a good developer to start with. Usually mix it 1:1 with water after making the working solution and it's 9 mins for most common films like Tri-X and HP5+. One gallon will make about enough for 20 rolls. By then you can decide to keep that going and get more D-76 or try something else like HC-110. Depends on how deep you wanna go and how little you have to spend. There's also Rodinal, which has all sorts of common dilutions for development (1:25, 1:50, 1:100, etc) which aside from stretching your dollar (a great reason for a college student) also gives different results while developing. With Fixer, any Rapid-Fixing, non-hardening fixer will work fine. I've never noticed the difference between Fixers, but you'll always notice when it's gone bad or when you need to give it more time. Most are reusable to a point, certainly Kodak's. Just buy Kodak's chemicals and find out what the difference when you reach the point you find yourself caring about that sort of thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 18:32
|
|
|
Is there any site that shows different results on the same (or similar) shots with different developers, or different films? It would be really useful to see for myself how different choices make different results.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2018 01:42
|
|
|
I have always had the best results with Rodinal. It's a liquid developer that lasts for ages so you don't need to worry about the bottle going bad if you do your developing at random intervals. A bottle in Europe costs €6 which is enough for 24 rolls of 135 or 12 rolls of 120. It's fast (less than 6 minutes for most stocks at a 1:20 dilution), or you can use a 1:50 dilution and more time for a less contrasty, smoother grained result.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2018 06:59
|
|
|
Maintaining a working solution is for chumps (or labs with lots of volume, which don't exist anymore). One-shot HC110 is ok but I like the flexibility of Rodinal better, it literally never goes bad, and the bottles don't tend to split with age like HC110.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2018 07:10
|
|
|
Good to know Rodinal doesn’t spoil! I have a two-year old barely-used bottle covered in specks of Rodinal gunk that I was considering tossing. I’ll keep it around instead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2018 07:18
|
|
|
I get that film (all really) photography is for burning giant piles of money, but I am having trouble wrapping my head around prices on pretty much everything that used to be less than $150 a few years ago. Am I missing something or if I just want a small rangefinder or decent P&S I can just toss in my bag I am going to have to fork out multiple hundreds of dollars now? I guess there's still the Oly 35RC or XA
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2018 19:10
|
|
|
XA prices have also gone nuts tbh. Last time I checked they were like $150+, I paid like $40 back 5 years ago. The explorer (and recession) is over and prices for good gear have been on an upward trend.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2018 21:01
|
|
|
I paid like $250 for a Yashica Electro CC like 5 years ago because they were hard to find in the US, but now that ebay is teaming with Japanese camera sellers you can find it for less than $100. So not every camera is going up in value.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2018 23:06
|
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted:Is there any site that shows different results on the same (or similar) shots with different developers, or different films? It would be really useful to see for myself how different choices make different results. 100% guarantee you you wont know a difference until you develop enough rolls. i couldnt tell you the difference between d-76 and hc-110 rolls. rodinal had some grain to it, but i did the 400+2stop 1 hour 1:100 push
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 06:35
|
|
|
Tri-X  FP4 
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 16:33
|
|
|
Got my first roll of film back from the lab  Fuji Superia 400 with a Minolta X700Here are my favorites, I'd love some feedback:  58310002 by Cody P, on Flickr 58310017 by Cody P, on Flickr 58310024 by Cody P, on Flickr 58310025 by Cody P, on Flickr 58310029 by Cody P, on FlickrHere are some I have some questions on:  58310032 by Cody P, on FlickrThere's a pinkish strip running vertically on the left, and there's a smudge above the tail of the kite. Neither appear on other photos from what I can tell, would that have eben a problem with the film or development?  58310030 by Cody P, on FlickrWhat's up with the flare in the bottom right here? Maybe a light seal leak?  58310013 by Cody P, on FlickrThere's a small blue smudge in the center of this photo, near the bottom. Another appeared (in a slightly different place) on another photo. A problem with development? Thanks in advance for any help! CodfishCartographer fucked around with this message at 04:28 on Jun 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 04:15
|
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted:Got my first roll of film back from the lab 
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 05:47
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:The band is probably a light leak from the right side seal on the back of your camera. It's not particularly bad, so I would just put electrical tape over the hinge. The smudge was junk on your lens. All your photos look like they were taken by someone who just got their first camera and the only thing you can do about that is take a million more photos and Thanks for the info! Curious, how do you know that the leak is on the right side? Also uhh, is that the right side looking at the back of the camera, or the front?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 06:05
|
|
|
Right side while holding the camera normally (so looking at the back). Thin vertical bands show up when side seal is bad. Top and bottom seal leaks tend to effect a wider and shorter area. You know it's the right side because the left side is the film canister. With vertical bands there is a tiny chance the light seal on the film canister crapped out, but that's pretty rare and would only affect the beginning of the roll.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 07:28
|
|
|
Living in the PNW is cheating. You could probably get some good photos by just going out into those fern-lined forest paths and shooting Portra. I would would like them, at least. If you tape up your back and the red blotches are eliminated, then you could buy a foam seal kit off eBay and replace the (probably work out) light seal material around the edges on the inside. The Minolta MD 35 2.8 is a really good and underrated lens that can be had on the cheap. The MD/MC 24 2.8 is overrated and overpriced but wonderfully sharp if you happen to get a good copy. People malign the old metal barrel 58/1.4 somewhat but I think it's an absolutely great lens even wide-open. Again, maybe I just ended up with a good copy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2018 02:58
|
|
|
More Tri-X    I've been experimenting with the "Gibson method". Evidently Ralph Gibson would soot Tri-x at 100 or 200 ISO and then develop it in Rodinal for 11 minutes. Basically he overexposed it and then overdeveloped it to get thick negatives and added a lot of contrast in the darkroom. His 11 minute time is on the old Tri-X emulsion, I tried it at 9 minutes after shooting it at 100 and did get nice thick negatives. The grain gets nice and fat too which is cool. I've had some problems though, first attempt I did 30 seconds of agitation followed by 4 inversion every 90 seconds and ended up with some pretty bad surge marks. I gave it another try doing 2 inversions every 90 seconds and made the inversions more gentle. No more surge marks, but it looks like it over developed on the bottom of every frame, it's only in the frame, not on the edges. I shot this on Nikon F3 which has a horizontally traveling shutter and fresh light seals so I'm guessing its an agitation issue. Any ideas?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2018 03:29
|
|
|
I'm glad there's some Minolta chat going on because I just picked up both an XG1 (older model) and XG-A, each with an MD 50mm lens (XG1 version is 2.0 max aperture, XG-A is 1.7), and a Promaster MC 80-200 4.5 zoom lens. Looking forward to trying both out, though I don't know how they differ from each other, or from the later X-700 for that matter. The front of the zoom lens looks like it needs cleaning and also lacks a lens cap (no visible scratches, though). Also, the camera strap (attached to the XG1) looks like some old military/surplus deal: unadorned olive drab, thick and tough as hell. Any other lenses than those SMERSH Mouth mentioned worth keeping any eye open for? Looks like most are cheap as hell.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2018 04:29
|
|
|
I really like my MD 28mm f/3.5. It was the budget of their 28 range, but is smaller in size and weight and still takes a mighty fine photo. Should be able to get them for dirt cheap.  I use a Minolta X-570 and love it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2018 04:56
|
|
|
Portra 400 NC expired in 2001 (shot at ISO 50), Arax 88 and Volna 80mm f/2.8. 000003.jpg by Iain Compton, on Flickr  000009.jpg by Iain Compton, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2018 04:57
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:
This is dope.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2018 05:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 16:12 |
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Living in the PNW is cheating. You could probably get some good photos by just going out into those fern-lined forest paths and shooting Portra. I would would like them, at least. Thanks a ton for this, I've been curious what lenses to look for. I'm just shooting on a 45/2 that came with the camera, and I've been enjoying it well enough for learning, but there have been a few times I wished I had something shorter or faster. I've also got some like 80-300mm lens I think that I picked up at a yard sale cus it was 5 dollars, but I haven't shot anything on it yet. And I'll probably replace the light seals, I'm sure it couldn't hurt at any rate. I'm about to replace them on an old AE-1, so that'll be good practice. The mirror dampener seems a little worn out, but isn't flaking off or anything so I'll probably leave that alone. Seems like it'd be a pain in the rear end to get to without leaving tons of residue on the mirror or focus screen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2018 06:01
|
|