|
Sauer posted: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?  and I can't crop it either. I only took one frame with the correct composition -- the other frame I took isn't as balanced.Am I wrong in thinking that dodging during the #5 step would effectively stop the dust from printing without affecting the very light sky, and then printing as normal with the #00 filter would at least reduce the contrast between the dust and the sky? Grimarest posted:From a while back but do you need to ask the lab to process it differently, or do you just end up with an underexposed film? I’m used to overexpose portra 400/160.
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2018 02:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 09:09 |
|
|
rohan posted:I can't reshoot without spending a grand in travel It's not exactly the pure film experience but you could scan the neg, fix it in PS, then print that out on a transparency and print it in the darkroom.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2018 03:36
|
|
|
rohan posted:I can't reshoot without spending a grand in travel Sure give that a try but be subtle about it. Unnatural looking dodging is very obvious to the eye. Digital negative doesn't sound like a bad idea either if you have a decent scanner or don't mind paying for a good scan.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2018 04:49
|
|
|
rohan posted:I can't reshoot without spending a grand in travel I had this happen to me when I took an 8x10 color shot of a friend's favorite spot in Paris... and then discovered on developing the film that I had loaded it into the holder backwards, so it came out as a deep red silhouette. =/ Sauer posted:Wonder if you could touch up the negative instead? Soft pencil and a magnifying glass? If you can maintain good registration in your enlarger, try this: 1 - Get a sheet of thin clear mylar film (my box is 5-mil but that may just have been what I grabbed from the supply store when I tried this out the first time) 2 - Overlay this on your negative on a light table 3 - Use light touches and a hard, blunted pencil to make a corrective mask on the mylar. You want a hard pencil so every stroke leaves very light marks. Get very close to the greys from the sky, but undershoot just a touch. 4 - Use a very soft pencil on sandpaper or something to raise fine graphite powder (or get graphite lubricant from the hardware store, you don't need much) and use a 00 paintbrush to add just the tiniest bit more, feathering the edges (so any tonal miss is less obvious). 5 - Load the mask and the negative together into the holder before printing. 6 - Feather that area anyways because no matter how soft your mask edges are, it's a static mask and they're not soft enough.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2018 07:42
|
|
|
You’ll prob get the best result by drum scanning the neg, fixing it properly then printing to transparent sheet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2018 11:41
|
|
|
I have a Olympus epic stylus and I was drunk a few nights ago and put in a new roll of film. I thought I did everything correctly but it seems like the canister wasn't placed in the normal position where you can see the speed / film capacity through the opaque window on the body of the camera - you can kind of see it but not as clearly as if I did it correctly. Did I mess up and will my prints turn out correctly? I took a few pictures and everything seems to be working fine but just want to ask you guy's how sensitive this camera is to properly placing the film correctly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 00:28
|
|
|
The canister side tends to be forgiving, it's the lead side you have to worry about. On a manual camera you'd know based on if the rewind lever moves while advancing, but on an automatic camera it would depend on if the camera is smart enough sense the advancement by counting the sprockets. If you are worried enough you can always note which frame you're on, rewind the roll, use a lead extractor on it, put it back in the camera, then cover the lens and shoot back to where you were. Some auto cameras can rewind a roll and leave the leader out, but it doesn't look like the epic has that option.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 01:05
|
|
|
Busy Bee posted:I have a Olympus epic stylus and I was drunk a few nights ago and put in a new roll of film. I thought I did everything correctly but it seems like the canister wasn't placed in the normal position where you can see the speed / film capacity through the opaque window on the body of the camera - you can kind of see it but not as clearly as if I did it correctly. Did I mess up and will my prints turn out correctly? I took a few pictures and everything seems to be working fine but just want to ask you guy's how sensitive this camera is to properly placing the film correctly. It'd have let you know if it wasn't spooling the film. You should be fine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 01:16
|
|
|
I caved and got an SRT 102  anyone have suggestions for battery adapters?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 04:56
|
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted:I caved and got an SRT 102 You have three choices. 1: Use a Wein cell. These will give you the right voltage but will not last very long, even if the camera isn't used very much. They're also kind of expensive. 2: Use a 1.5v 625 alkaline battery. These are cheap and will last a while but the voltage is wrong so your lightmeter will be off unless you recalibrate your camera for the higher voltage. 3: Use an MR-9 battery adapter that lets you use a cheap 625 alkaline battery but steps it down to the correct voltage. These are relatively expensive but you only need one and you'll save over all on battery costs in the long run.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 08:09
|
|
|
That adapter is a scam. It just adapts the shape with no voltage step down. A proper MR-9 adapter will have visible circuitry. You can get real ones on Ebay from Japanese sellers for about $35. You can use a cheaper $10 adapter with no circuitry and a 675 hearing aid battery as an alternative if you like. They supply nearly the perfect voltage and are dirt cheap. Should last a few months in a camera. Still haven't had to change out the one in my Canonet installed six months ago. A 675 with a rubber O-ring around it would also work well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 11:22
|
|
|
The adapters from pratedthai are legit. I have one and it adapts the voltage for the light meter perfectly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 14:06
|
|
|
polyester concept posted:The adapters from pratedthai are legit. I have one and it adapts the voltage for the light meter perfectly. Oh huh, quite a few Amazon reviews are calling them out as scams. Do you need an adaptor for each battery, or just for the one on top that touches the connection? Sauer posted:That adapter is a scam. It just adapts the shape with no voltage step down. A proper MR-9 adapter will have visible circuitry. You can get real ones on Ebay from Japanese sellers for about $35. You can use a cheaper $10 adapter with no circuitry and a 675 hearing aid battery as an alternative if you like. They supply nearly the perfect voltage and are dirt cheap. Should last a few months in a camera. Still haven't had to change out the one in my Canonet installed six months ago. A 675 with a rubber O-ring around it would also work well. Got a link to the hearing aid adapter, or a suggestion for what size o-ring to use? That sounds like the cheapest option for now, especially if both batteries need an adaptor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 15:10
|
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted:Oh huh, quite a few Amazon reviews are calling them out as scams. Do you need an adaptor for each battery, or just for the one on top that touches the connection? You'd need two unfortunately. And a lot of people are measuring the voltage on those adapters are doing so without applying a load to the battery, which is the incorrect way to do it and will always give you false readings. You can find people who do more thorough tests and confirm that the adapter drops the voltage to 1.35 correctly. The official ebay listing has more educated reviews polyester concept fucked around with this message at 16:37 on Jun 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 16:33
|
|
|
Sorry about that. Hope I didn't come off confrontational there. I suppose its possible that adapter is using a different means of stepping down the voltage that doesn't leave a visible diode sticking up in the middle of it. I've only ever seen knockoffs of the original CRIS MR-9 adapter on the market. These are the dumb adapters I've purchased. More expensive than the Chinese vendors but you won't wait three months to receive them. 675 hearing aid battery stuffed into one for my Canonet and a plain old regular SR44 in one for my Spotmatic F. The Spotmatic has a voltage regulating circuit so it doesn't care what you put in it (within reason), the adapter is just for proper fit. I don't know what specific o-ring size would work but you could probably get away with just wrapping an elastic band around the rim. Any drugstore should have plenty of 675 batteries since hearing aid users go through them pretty fast. They'll last a long while in a camera. Can be had on Amazon in ludicrous quantities for nearly nothing if you plan on collecting bucketfuls of old cameras. Sauer fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Jun 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 21:47
|
|
|
While on the topic of batteries I got a great deal on a Praktica MTL5 and a handful of lenses for it, but I can't get the battery compartment open. It rotates a little bit, like 10 degrees, but then stops. Does anyone know if it should screw out all the way or if it's a bayonet mount with a really short throw? Anyone run into a similar issue and have a clever solution?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 19:05
|
|
|
Megabound posted:While on the topic of batteries I got a great deal on a Praktica MTL5 and a handful of lenses for it, but I can't get the battery compartment open. It rotates a little bit, like 10 degrees, but then stops. Does anyone know if it should screw out all the way or if it's a bayonet mount with a really short throw? Anyone run into a similar issue and have a clever solution? I have no knowledge of prakticas (although I'd be surprised if the battery cover wasn't the standard type and just stuck up with corrosion or cross-threaded), but here's to hoping you are able to make it usable. It'd be interesting to find out how you think it holds up compared to something widely praised for build and image quality, like that Minolta SR system you've been using. An MTL with a set of CZJ lenses definitely looks cool as hell, but I wonder if the image quality and usability are up to the same grade. EDIT: And a random question: I saw an IG post about that 3D-printable 35mm panoramic camera that's been in development for a while, and it got me wondering. This is a dense as hell and stupid question, but... When you design a film advance lever/spool system, the degree of rotation on the spool has to decrease as its diameter grows with wound film, right? Just something that made me appreciate how challenging that would be to design from scratch. SMERSH Mouth fucked around with this message at 03:12 on Jun 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2018 02:57
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:I have no knowledge of prakticas (although I'd be surprised if the battery cover wasn't the standard type and just stuck up with corrosion or cross-threaded), but here's to hoping you are able to make it usable. It'd be interesting to find out how you think it holds up compared to something widely praised for build and image quality, like that Minolta SR system you've been using. Even if I can't get into the battery I won't be too worried as the only thing it runs is the light metre, I'll definitely be putting a roll through it. From my understanding the biggest issue that can crop up is if you don't fully mount the lens into the screw mount and get your distance to the focal plane hosed up. In terms of build quality and hand feel it's a beautifuly solid piece of kit. 3D printing a mechanism to advance 35mm accurately must be a nightmare. FDM printing, the style that's available to the public, would struggle with such fine teeth. This one looks rad too, and is available now, but only for leaf shutter lenses. https://petapixel.com/2018/06/21/goodman-one-is-an-open-source-3d-printed-analog-camera/
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2018 08:19
|
|
|
Megabound posted:Even if I can't get into the battery I won't be too worried as the only thing it runs is the light metre, I'll definitely be putting a roll through it. From my understanding the biggest issue that can crop up is if you don't fully mount the lens into the screw mount and get your distance to the focal plane hosed up. In terms of build quality and hand feel it's a beautifuly solid piece of kit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2018 08:35
|
|
|
Fair enough, I guess my only points of reference are my Kiev and X-570, and while I love both the full metal construction of the MTL5 makes it feel a fair bit nicer in hand.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2018 09:14
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:This is a dense as hell and stupid question, but... When you design a film advance lever/spool system, the degree of rotation on the spool has to decrease as its diameter grows with wound film, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2018 09:40
|
|
|
I couldn't get the battery compartment open on the MTL5 for the life of me, but I did find out I can access it if I remove the bottom plate. I put a hearing aid battery in, and with a rubber band gasket, it's metering in agreement with my Minolta. Time to run a roll through !
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2018 16:04
|
|
|
is a loose batter door for a CLE a common thing? I've had mine for about 2-3 months, I've kept the battery door shut with a segment of tape.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2018 22:19
|
|
|
A shot in the dark, literally: I recently got a Konica Auto S3 for a song at a thrift store and it seems to work fine - it has an f1.8 lens! and I'm sitting here eyeing a large lot of ISO 25 b&w film on ebay... if you were to stick a pretty powerful flash (high GN, whatever) on the Konica and shoot ISO25 film for party portraiture - would that work?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2018 00:38
|
|
|
Are you sure it isn't document film? Often slow film like that is extremely high contrast intended for document reproduction rather than regular photography. It technically is possible to get normal contrast from a document film, but it typically requires you to expose it significantly slower (for e.g. ISO 3 or 6) and be very careful with development times and agitation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2018 01:14
|
|
|
ORWO NP15 - a quick google shows people using it for landscapes. I have little experience with slow films, I'd just read a thing about using slow film with fast lenses leads to interesting results is all. edit: https://www.lomography.com/films/871938708-orwo-np-15/photos/18356736?order=popular shots like this are *super clean* for being shot at night, and seem to be using a flash - but they're still. clean high contrast b&w is appealing. wolfs fucked around with this message at 01:27 on Jul 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2018 01:23
|
|
|
Sure go for it then. Trying out unusual film stocks is one of the ways to enjoy the hobby. Just make sure to do some test shooting and developing before betting it on a party shoot 
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2018 01:27
|
|
|
Delta 100 in Rodinal
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 15:57
|
|
|
Anyone have any good suggestions for Minolta MC/MD zoom lenses? I’ve got a couple that I’ve picked up from garage sales etc, but the only one I’d really rely on is a Vivitar 70-210mm f/4.5 - all the others either have oil on the blades and loose zoom barrels. I’d like to pick up something nicer, a more proper rokkor or minolta, but I’m not sure what people would recommend. e: I've also got a couple close-up filters my girlfriend's dad gave me. They seem to be in decent condition, but are those filters at all worth using? I haven't really seen any mention of them here. CodfishCartographer fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Jul 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 19:28
|
|
|
Have you looked at rokkorfiles.com ? That guy tested at least one zoom. I think it was a wide-to-normal. TheLastManStanding posted:Not necessarily. Cool, thanks. I understand now. Or at least I understand as well as I can considering I know so little about mechanics.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 21:52
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Have you looked at rokkorfiles.com ? Duh, I dunno why I didn’t think to check there. I read over the reviews, and it seems obvious now that I should just go for like a 100-200mm prime instead of a zoom. I haven’t really played around much with focal lengths that long, but would like to for both up-close shooting and flattening stuff that’s far-off. Any suggestions on what kind of stuff I should look at? 100mm macro? @00mm telephoto? there’s a lot to choose from and it’s a tad overwhelming haha.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 23:10
|
|
|
I don't have much experience with first party Minolta tele-primes. The old Alpha mount 70-210/4 'beercan' was a highly-regarded Minolta telephoto lens, but it came out later for their AF cameras. My MD 135/3.5 is fine, but nothing remarkable about it. https://phillipreeve.net/blog/manual-minolta-lens-ratings/ is a place that has some Minolta lens reviews, but the dude is testing them on his A7 which doesn't make it the best reference if you're shooting film. Still, the 100/2.5 and 200/4 get decent ratings. Nikon made a 105/2.5 that is generally considered very good. One might expect that you'd have something similar with the Minolta 100/2.5. Generally speaking, there are some good older manual focus telezooms that range around 70-80 to 200-300. Old glass in the 300+ range needs speed, and the image quality advantage of primes. Chromatic aberration was hard to suppress back in the day. Here's an example from the MD 135/3.5  Austin by S M, on FlickrAnd something completely unrelated  San Antonio by S M, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2018 07:20
|
|
|
I got some scans back from a 120 roll I shot in Pattaya a couple of weeks ago. I was shooting expired (2002) Portra 400NC as ISO50 film. I've shot a few rolls of that particular batch recently and they've come out fine. This set though have a pattern superimposed over them. It's visible on the negatives as well as on the scans. The lab don't know where it came from but think it's an artifact of the expired film. Has anyone seen anything like this? Did the lab gently caress up the dev or is it really just a dead roll issue. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2018 05:48
|
|
|
That seems way too well patterned to be an artifact of expired film, it looks like an endless saltine cracker, but I'm stumped on what might have caused it. Maybe an imprint from a roller.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2018 06:27
|
|
|
I vaguely recall someone else in this thread running into that, and the consensus was it was due to duct tape or something similar. A slight amount of light seeps in through the tape, and different parts of it are thicker than others to result in the pattern.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2018 06:29
|
|
|
It's not 100% consistent across the roll, it's more evident on images towards the start of the roll that I had shot the previous day. It is still visible to a lesser effect on all shots though. Where would the duct tape have come from? AFAIK, the lab developed it in a Fuji C41 machine, they've developed other rolls for me (including another of my expired Portra 400NC rolls) and I've not had that happen before.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2018 06:44
|
|
|
If the saltine pattern is consistent, it could be the pressure plate on the film back, and light's reflecting off of it or something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2018 16:27
|
|
|
It's 120 film. There's a layer of backing paper between the film and the pressure plate. Also my Arax uses Hasselblad style magazines that don't have a pressure plate, there's a smooth metal block that the film is stretched over from behind.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2018 17:10
|
|
|
I picked up a mint Olympic Stylus Epic 2.8 a few years back at a thrift store for $5. I opened it up in a dark room and it had a partially shot roll of 35mm in it. I picked up a battery for it and took a few pics and never finished the roll. I'm going to finish the roll and send the film in to be developed. Seeing as the first half the roll is going to be someone else's vacation photos and most likely the film has been sitting exposed so long it will look like poo poo, I just want the film developed, scanned and sent back to me. Is there a recommended place to send it to? Google pointed me to this place. https://thedarkroom.com/
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2018 17:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 09:09 |
|
|
yeah darkroom is really good. They've always worked well for me
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2018 22:48
|
|
