|
The 50 f/1.7 was the standard kit lens, is ubiquitous, cheap and also excellent. Not much faster than your 2 tho. I've been keeping an eye out for their 16mm fisheye for a price I can justify. No luck yet.
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2018 08:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 08:54 |
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Living in the PNW is cheating. honestly this. there's no picturesque squalor by me. Maybe i just need a change of viewpoint.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2018 01:40
|
|
|
So in my continuing journey to fix up this old AE-1, I've noticed the stop down lever isn't adjusting the diaphragm in my 50/1.8 lens at all to preview DOF. Any idea what it could be? I scraped out the mirror dampener in anticipation of a new light seal kit, so I'm hesitant to test shooting it out of fear of hurting the mirror / focus screen. I know the stop down lever worked properly at some point, so it only recently stopped working. The camera isn't wound so I don't risk accidentally taking a shot without the dampener, does the stop down lever not function otherwise? E: turns out it IS tied to the having wound the film advance lever! Now the question is, is it safe to shoot without a mirror dampener, or should I wait until I replace it? Can I stick a microfiber cloth there without the lens on so I can take a shot and release the tension without damaging the mirror or focus screen? CodfishCartographer fucked around with this message at 03:25 on Jun 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2018 02:38
|
|
|
I'm slowly getting back into film and trying to remember everything I've managed to forget in the past year or so of not shooting. Am I off-base in remembering that films require a minimum amount of developer, regardless of dilution? eg a roll of 120 would need 5ml of Rodinal regardless of whether it's 1+300 or 1+100. I've been experimenting with dilutions and I'm getting good results from 1+75, but I haven't yet developed any 4x5 and I'm concerned the 475ml-size CP445 tank wouldn't work as well with the ~6ml of developer required. I feel as if I've heard something to this extent but can't find anything to back it up. [edit: on reflection, people use this tank for stand dev, so I assume 1+75 should be fine, but I still think I've heard about a minimum developer amount before. rohan fucked around with this message at 14:18 on Jun 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2018 14:06
|
|
|
Yes there is a minimum amount needed. It depends on the surface area of film you want to develop. The reaction that develops the film uses up the chemistry so you have to have enough in the mixture to finish the job.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2018 18:59
|
|
|
Sauer posted:Yes there is a minimum amount needed. It depends on the surface area of film you want to develop. The reaction that develops the film uses up the chemistry so you have to have enough in the mixture to finish the job. From what I recall it’s less about minimum developer for surface area, and more about minimum concentrate in the mixed developer; so if there isn’t enough actual concentrate in the tank, the chemical processes just won’t take place. eg if I used 3ml of Rodinal in a litre of water to develop 2 rolls they might well come out fine, but if I naively halved all the variables and only used 1.5ml in 500ml, the roll might not develop even though the amount of chemistry relative to surface area is the same. I know people do develop one roll in a full litre of developer on occasion, and imagine the reason is something along these lines?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2018 22:28
|
|
|
rohan posted:eg if I used 3ml of Rodinal in a litre of water to develop 2 rolls they might well come out fine, but if I naively halved all the variables and only used 1.5ml in 500ml, the roll might not develop even though the amount of chemistry relative to surface area is the same. I know people do develop one roll in a full litre of developer on occasion, and imagine the reason is something along these lines? That is what I meant actually by chemistry. The developer concentrate, not the developer/water mixture. You need to have at least a certain amount of rodinal in the tank regardless of the amount of water to get acceptable results. More water will just increase your development time. Agfa recommends at least 10ml of Rodinal per 80sq/in of film, but you can probably go down to 5ml per roll without issue. Presumably that would mean you could use 1/4 of that to develop a single sheet of 4x5 as long as you modify your development time to take into account the dilution necessary to completely cover the film. Personally I would always err on having more developer in the tank rather than less as long as the dilution ratio and time match to give adequate development. I like using Rodinal at a 1:50 dilution so for a 120 roll I'd put 10ml of Rodinal and 490ml of water in the tank and develop for my film's 1:50 time even though 5ml of Rodinal and 495ml of water at 1:100 time should still give adequate development. Gives you some leeway; can't be sure if your concentrate is weakening over time or the quality of the water doesn't play as nicely as it should and so on. More juice to cover your butt. Sauer fucked around with this message at 23:30 on Jun 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2018 23:04
|
|
|
Here's everything else I can say about SR-mount lenses: The 45/2 is a pretty good all-round lens for the Minolta system. I used to have a 45/2 and a 58/1.4, and even though they're both 'normal' focal lengths, I always really liked having a 'subject' normal (the 58) and a 'scene' normal (the 45). What elese does anyone really need...? I guess a couple of real wide and long lenses. I've heard from more than one person that the 28/3.5 is pretty great. I personally value lower distortion and more even across-the-frame performance in wide angle lenses over close range center sharpness, and I know from experience that the Nikon 28/3.5 was great for my purposes. I did have a late-model MD 28/2.8 that was absolutely fantastic and would have recommended it, but it was very, very dusty so I bought a cleaner copy and it was much shittier for sharpness and centering, so I think it was just winning the sample variation lottery for the first copy. My only other recommendable SR lenses are telephotos: the MD 135/3.5 (cheap, and simple construction, but certainly sharp enough and pretty compact) and an older Vivitar Series 1 70-210/3.5. Vivitar zoom is actually really good, but if you go that route you should do a little googling about which generations of the 70-210 Series 1 lenes were the best. I know some of them (especially the later ones) we're much crappier. I like mine though. I think it's a first or second gen. eggsovereasy posted:More Tri-X This looks freaking cool. I wonder if one could get a similar look in XTOL with overexposure/development of HP5 or Foma 400. Not that Tri-X and Rodinal aren't plenty cheap; I just have a lot of the other stuff already. I only really see lightness on the edges of a frame like that when 1.) Digitizing using a DSLR/copy stand/light pad with insufficient frame masking to block out extraneous light, and 2.) cranking the curves a little agressively in Photoshop.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 04:51
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:This looks freaking cool. I wonder if one could get a similar look in XTOL with overexposure/development of HP5 or Foma 400. Not that Tri-X and Rodinal aren't plenty cheap; I just have a lot of the other stuff already. This thread has some people talking about it, some use other film/dev combos so it might work, https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=101827 quote:I only really see lightness on the edges of a frame like that when 1.) Digitizing using a DSLR/copy stand/light pad with insufficient frame masking to block out extraneous light, and 2.) cranking the curves a little agressively in Photoshop. I might be getting a little wild with the curves or maybe its the holder for my scanner. I might try rescanning a couple frames and see if it makes a difference. I just moved so I'm not sure where my loupe is right now, but I'd like to examine the negatives closer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2018 15:51
|
|
|
I dig all the Minolta lens chat, anyone have recommendations for Canon FD lenses? I finally fixed up the old Canon AE-1 I've got, and am starting to take it for a spin. Assuming that some of the shutter speeds aren't hosed, I'll probably be looking for some more lenses for it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2018 17:17
|
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted:I dig all the Minolta lens chat, anyone have recommendations for Canon FD lenses? I finally fixed up the old Canon AE-1 I've got, and am starting to take it for a spin. Assuming that some of the shutter speeds aren't hosed, I'll probably be looking for some more lenses for it. Make sure you buy FD lenses from a reputable seller or at least someone that knows how to test them. You need to check the aperture while it's attached to a body or there's no way to see if it actually stops down. That being said most of their primes are decent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2018 18:27
|
|
|
apropos of nothing: the whole "you get more radiation from a coast-to-coast flight than not having your film hand-checked!" thing is hilarious. Yeah, I have it hand-checked and then I fly with it in a lead bag too, why wouldn't you?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 04:59
|
|
|
Eh, lead bag doesn't do that much, image courtesy of a friend working at airport security.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 07:19
|
|
|
The Claptain posted:Eh, lead bag doesn't do that much, image courtesy of a friend working at airport security. yeah again, get them to hand check it (doesn't go through the x-ray scanner) then put it in a lead bag after (doesn't pick up fog from ambient radiation). gently caress I'm sure there's a lot of exposure, and if they can't see through the lead bag they're just going to turn up the power anyway. got to stand and watch the TSA trainee at LAX get guided on how to swipe every. roll. of. film. and. every. camera. I. brought. One swab of paper at a time, then 30s in the machine, each. Literally 20 minutes waiting for the hand-check. Gotta be sure! Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 07:36 on Jun 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 07:27
|
|
|
Keeping America safe, one roll of Fuji Color 200 at a time. I wonder if the testing kit they use would pick up old nitro-cellulose based film substrates - the type that sometimes spontaneously combust when they get a bit old and frisky.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 09:01
|
|
|
How many rolls of fast film are you travelling with that you’re willing to spend 20 minutes waiting? Unless you’re exclusively shooting 3200, I think I’d just be tempted to scan the whole lot and be done with it. I’m picking up a roll of Portra 400 on Thursday that would’ve been through four scanners and about 24 hours of flight all up. I’m sure it’ll turn out perfect just like every other time I’ve travelled with Portra 400. They do consistently spend much longer checking my bag on the screen than anybody else’s, though. I think the Hasselblad and the Pentax spot meter always throw them... rohan fucked around with this message at 09:07 on Jun 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 09:02
|
|
|
three rolls of portra 400 135-36, three rolls of ektar 100 135-136, five rolls of astia 135-36, and four 120 rolls of provia 100(F?). Wasn't willing to risk it because of the Astia and Provia. When it's gone or hosed up, it's gone. Gotta protect dem holiday snaps 
Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 09:53 on Jun 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 09:17
|
|
|
Yeah, that's fair. Genuinely curious, why the concern for the Provia, though? Was it also expired or is slide film more susceptible? I actually took my final roll of Astia on the same trip, but had it developed over there to save the extra scans on the way back. I also picked up some Provia, shot a roll and had it developed in the space of a few days — which has to be the most ideal conditions ever — and there was no difference in quality between the two rolls. For all my confidence about 400 ISO films and x-ray scanners, though, I'm a bit peeved that I got in my head to pack ten rolls of Portra 400 and five of T-Max 400, and only shot a single roll of the Portra with the remainder drawn from my hoard of Acros 100 and low-speed slide film.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 11:45
|
|
|
If i'm travelling with film these days I just allow an extra 15 minutes on the front end for hand checking, even if I'm just going with some standard 400 and 800 speed stuff. I just can't bring myself to trust xray machines.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 14:16
|
|
|
I went through 4 gates with 5 rolls of 400 and everything was totally fine. Portra and JCH Street Pan.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 14:21
|
|
|
I've never had film hand checked and had it pass through nearly a dozen carry on bag scanners on a single holiday, AND flown over the pacific twice on the same trip, it was Portra 400, Tri-X 400, and Instax which is ISO 800.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 00:04
|
|
|
Spedman posted:I've never had film hand checked and had it pass through nearly a dozen carry on bag scanners on a single holiday, AND flown over the pacific twice on the same trip, it was Portra 400, Tri-X 400, and Instax which is ISO 800. Same here, mostly Provia 100F and some Velvia 50.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 07:47
|
|
|
Just received this back from the lab. This is the only photo that large white patch appears on and I have no idea what could have caused it. Anyone know what the issue was?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 08:22
|
|
|
Looks like the film touched itself during development. Typically there will be another frame slightly further along the roll to match with, but it could have been at the start or end of the roll. Judging by the size you're shooting on 120? If you ask the lab about it they might give you a free roll. You should also do something about that light leak.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 09:56
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:Looks like the film touched itself during development. Typically there will be another frame slightly further along the roll to match with, but it could have been at the start or end of the roll. Judging by the size you're shooting on 120? If you ask the lab about it they might give you a free roll. You should also do something about that light leak. The light leak I didn't know about until this roll, so that will be taken care of post haste. Luckily it's intermittent on the rolls I just got back so a few good shots are untarnished. Thanks, I'll contact the lab.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 10:19
|
|
|
I've had film stick to itself/someone else's come back from the lab and it looked nothing like that on my scans.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 17:42
|
|
|
Megabound posted:The light leak I didn't know about until this roll, so that will be taken care of post haste. Luckily it's intermittent on the rolls I just got back so a few good shots are untarnished. Thanks, I'll contact the lab. I've had "Intermittent" lights leaks once when my camera had a very small light leak, so whenever I didn't advance the film for longer-ish, I'd get a light leak in that frame. Maybe that's your problem?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 20:07
|
|
|
Primo Itch posted:I've had "Intermittent" lights leaks once when my camera had a very small light leak, so whenever I didn't advance the film for longer-ish, I'd get a light leak in that frame. Maybe that's your problem? I think it's just a regular light leak and it shows up more depending on how I'm holding the camera. I'll keep it in mind if it shows up again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 23:26
|
|
|
rohan posted:Yeah, that's fair. Genuinely curious, why the concern for the Provia, though? Was it also expired or is slide film more susceptible? Fuji is burning down their stockpile of Provia as well. The whole "discontinue the multipacks and charge more for the single rolls" is the same thing they've done for multiple film stocks that have since been discontinued. If you like Provia or Velvia, now would be a really good time to lay in a stockpile.  Things are not looking that good for Acros either - if they are still producing film, cutting 4x5 is no more difficult than cutting 120 and 35mm. If they are discontinuing 4x5, they aren't producing film anymore. I'm not super optimistic about the continued longevity of E-6 development once film starts to get discontinued, and film developed using home chemistry kits isn't as archival as the full 6-bath process due to using blix instead of separate steps. But I guess the good news is that Kodak is bringing back Ektachrome and they'll probably supply chemistry too. I have a lot more faith in them than Fuji at this point. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 05:15 on Jun 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 05:12
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Things are not looking that good for Acros either - if they are still producing film, cutting 4x5 is no more difficult than cutting 120 and 35mm. If they are discontinuing 4x5, they aren't producing film anymore. This isn't strictly true - sheet film uses a different, thicker base than roll, and getting the coating right can be subtly different as a result. You can't just cut part of a roll as sheet film; you've got to do the whole thing, and the economics of selling that can be iffy in such a tiny market. That said, Fuji announced the full-line discontinuation of Acros earlier this year. Get it while you can. Cassius Belli fucked around with this message at 06:20 on Jun 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 06:18
|
|
|
From what I heard, Fuji has stopped making new E6 film since a few years back already. They made one super massive batch of all their films, and stored it away to sell when needed. Then they scrapped all the film production machines and sold/repurposed the factories. Every time you notice prices go up or pro-packs split to single rolls or different formats of the same film stop, that's a sign the stock levels have gone below certain levels. Gotta place hope in Ektachrome and Ferrania now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 08:54
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:Gotta place hope in Ferrania now. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 04:04
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:If you like Provia or Velvia, now would be a really good time to lay in a stockpile. This is not the depressing take I needed to read tonight. I was just about to buy a bunch more film gear I didn't need and now a small part of my brain is chanting "FILM IS DEAD YOU DUMB gently caress".
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 03:14
|
|
|
Helicity posted:This is not the depressing take I needed to read tonight. I was just about to buy a bunch more film gear I didn't need and now a small part of my brain is chanting "FILM IS DEAD YOU DUMB gently caress". I think that at least black and white still has some staying power, but E6 is on the go right now. sadly 
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 23:13
|
|
|
Delta 100 New Braunfels by S M, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 22:19
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Delta 100 sick
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 00:10
|
|
|
Darkroom printing talk, since that thread's been archived: I have a medium-format shot I'd like to get printed later this week, but somehow I managed to get some dust on the roll pre-exposure, so there's now a white strand on the negative (that will obviously print dark). Are there any effective strategies to get around this, given it's in the middle of an otherwise featureless grey sky? I'm considering doing a split-filter print and dodging that area during the #5 filter, but I'm not sure the best way to both get some light colour in the sky without getting the dust in. Would I need to pre-flash the paper to get some colour in first and then dodge the sky during both filters?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2018 14:32
|
|
|
Any dodging you do to fix that will end up looking like a blob on the paper unless you're a mask cutting maestro. Normally you'd use spotting ink to touch up a print after the fact to get rid of dust spot but you've got the opposite problem. Wonder if you could touch up the negative instead? Soft pencil and a magnifying glass? Bleach the offending bit after printing with potassium ferracyanide. Is the dust close enough to an edge that you can crop it without ruining your composition? Can you reshoot it?
Sauer fucked around with this message at 15:06 on Jun 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2018 14:57
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Nice. If you like Portra 800, you should try Portra 400 at 800.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2018 00:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 08:54 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2018 02:08
|
|