|
Sauer posted:How much money you got? Nikon will make you a brand new F6 to order if you hand them a few grand. Oh, I'm probably in the 'professionally trades in old gear' phase of this rather than ready to drop a few grand. I definitely enjoy this enough to want to hoard and preserve a few nice bodies. Who knows if anything nice, new, affordable, and simple is ever going to be made again? In the meantime, Eric says he has an idea about what it might be. In the mail it goes, tomorrow.
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 20:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 22:52 |
|
|
Insanite posted:
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 06:15
|
|
|
Definitely might keep those in mind as Christmas presents to... myself. Do you have one? How is it? e: Thread history says yes. 😎 Insanite fucked around with this message at 12:28 on Oct 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 12:24
|
|
|
Insanite posted:Definitely might keep those in mind as Christmas presents to... myself. I've been shooting with a Kiev 60 and am looking at picking up an Arax 60 for Christmas too. The Kiev is great apart from all it's Kiev eccentricities and a version that works as intended is very tempting. The cheap lenses are also great.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 13:50
|
|
|
Hi thread, quick question while I'm catching up with the last 30 or so pages of the thread: do you know if there's any place where I could get a few rolls of 127 film? Edit: preferrably in the EU
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 15:51
|
|
|
I have both an Arax 88, and a Kiev 60 that has been CLAd and modified by Arax. They are solid, reliable cameras. P6 glass is plentiful, cheap and good. Neither are really walking around cameras, but medium format blows 35mm into the weeds if you have a tripod and some time to set up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 21:24
|
|
|
Post film muthafuckas
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2018 02:47
|
|
|
You're not my boss!
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2018 03:05
|
|
|
I have no idea what I'm doing.   
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2018 03:49
|
|
|
What film are those shot on?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2018 04:12
|
|
|
Kentmere 100 BW, Superia X-tra 400 color.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2018 04:29
|
|
|
Pooper Trooper posted:Hi thread, quick question while I'm catching up with the last 30 or so pages of the thread: do you know if there's any place where I could get a few rolls of 127 film? Write a strongly worded letter to Ilford or Foma. https://www.freestylephoto.biz/500127-ReraPan-400-ISO-Film-127-Size https://www.lomography.com/magazine/176766-how-to-make-your-own-127-film
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2018 04:41
|
|
|
Father O'Blivion posted:Write a strongly worded letter to Ilford or Foma. Hey thanks, I bought a couple rolls to check it out! I'm really new to film photography, and pretty new to photography in general. I've been shooting digital for a year or so now, and thought I'd give film a try. I went and bought a repaired Nikon FTb with a 50mm f1.8. Didn't get a chance to see what film was put in it though, the guy that sold it to me just reached behind the counter and took a kodak box. I know it's colour though, so there's that. Newcomer thoughts: I really like how there's actually thought behind each shot. With a limit of 36 photos you kinda need to make them count. And it feels like A LOT. I've been trying to finish the film for the last couple of days because I'm getting impatient, been carrying the camera with me everywhere, noting settings and stuff, taking photos of all different things in random conditions. I'm really loving the analog light meter, but I'm afraid I've taken to mostly shoot in shutter speed priority and tweaking the aperture, just because it's easier to do. That's a bad habit I'll have to break. I like how there's no frills and guides and settings, but I'll probably regret saying this once I actually have the film developed. I'm sure most of it's going to be a shaken underexposed mess, but we' ll see! I doubt I'll get into developing any time soon, the house is already pretty cluttered without all the chemicals. Also, today I found this at a local antiques shop, haggled it down to 100euros and bought it without even inspecting it. I got a bit too excited I guess   Heken Highwater  This thing is intimidating af
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2018 18:32
|
|
|
Its a Zenit. If it doesn't work hit it until it does. Please don't get shot using your camera gun.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2018 20:24
|
|
|
Pooper Trooper posted:Newcomer thoughts: I really like how there's actually thought behind each shot. With a limit of 36 photos you kinda need to make them count. And it feels like A LOT. I've been trying to finish the film for the last couple of days because I'm getting impatient, been carrying the camera with me everywhere, noting settings and stuff, taking photos of all different things in random conditions. I'm really loving the analog light meter, but I'm afraid I've taken to mostly shoot in shutter speed priority and tweaking the aperture, just because it's easier to do. That's a bad habit I'll have to break. I like how there's no frills and guides and settings, but I'll probably regret saying this once I actually have the film developed. I'm sure most of it's going to be a shaken underexposed mess, but we' ll see! I've been feeling the same way. Even though I've been shooting digital for many years, I feel like a few months of film has helped me learn a lot now that I really think about each shot rather than just shooting with little care. I too have taken to carrying cameras everywhere and constantly trying to finish off rolls of film (while still trying to only take decent photos). I am really happy that this week I managed to finish off three different rolls that I had been using for a month or two and got them sent out for developing.  I've seen a couple people mention it in this thread; what are the notes and logs commonly taken while photographing with film? Are you basically writing down things that would be metadata on digital, like aperture/shutter speed/ISO/lens?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2018 22:11
|
|
|
Woooo just shot my first roll of film (for about 15 years and not in a lovely point and shoot anyway...). As suggested earlier in the thread, Fomapan400 at box speed and more or less what the lightmeter needle told me to do +/- 1 stop in some cases. I'm going to have my first crack at developing it tomorrow, massive dev chart says Rodinal with Fomapan400 at box speed is 1+25 and 5.5 minutes, however I've read that Fomapan400 at box speed in Rodinal ends up under-developed so I'm not sure if I should be trying anything else instead. I did read somewhere else that 1+50 dilution over 18 to 22 minutes with less agitation (30 sec every 5 mins) works a lot better at EI400...
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 05:34
|
|
|
Pooper Trooper posted:Also, today I found this at a local antiques shop, haggled it down to 100euros and bought it without even inspecting it. I got a bit too excited I guess
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 11:21
|
|
|
Its a jar Edit: also a wall 
Father O'Blivion fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Oct 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 22:07
|
|
|
Yardwork
Rot fucked around with this message at 16:07 on Oct 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 03:33
|
|
|
First ever film developed! Shot in a camera that I restored! I'm so excited! Unfrotunately just after rinsing the negatives as I was hanging them up to dry I dropped the whole roll onto a dirty floor and then in a panic I didn't re-rinse them, so there's tons of poo poo stuck to the film and it's basically ruined. Also I don't have a scanner or any way of actually digitising them right now so here's a photo I took of them on a piece of paper with my digital camera and the colours inverted. This was only a test roll that I rushed through in a day to check the camera out (light leaks, bad shutter speeds, inaccurate lightmeter etc) so I'm not too sad that I ruined it, will have to invest in a scanner and some good negative pockets now.  I know the photo is trash because there's no back lighting, it's in a filthy plastic sleeve and I had to really mess with the levels of the photo in lightroom to get it to look reasonable but is there anything that can be taken from these negatives to do with the way I've exposed and developed? Or is there a suggestion for a way I could get some better images to show? I don't have much experience but looking at them it feels like quite a few of the frames are under-exposed (negatives are entirely clear in shadow areas) but I'm not sure if that's because of how I exposed or how I developed. I've seen people say that Fomapan 400 especially when developed with Rodinal is actually more like 200 which could explain an underexposed look. I shot at box speed and developed for 18 mins, 1+50 with short agitation every 5 mins. Blackhawk fucked around with this message at 03:47 on Oct 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 03:43
|
|
|
It's really hard to tell from the photo of your negatives, but it looks as though they are a bit milky and there appears to be some evidence of bromide drag. That's probably an artifact of your long dev time and maybe insufficient agitation. I'd recommend the 1+25 dilution for Rodinal at stock speed with gentle agitation every 30s or so. Edit: FWIW, I've shot a lot of Fomapan, and I always develop it for the recommended time for each box speed, I have never heard anyone say that Foma400 is equivalent to 200 if you use Rodinal before.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 09:53
|
|
|
I just checked the lightmeter in the Minolta vs. my Sony A7RII in a few different outdoor scenes and it was more or less spot on, maybe 0.3 stops off at most. I think the milky look is just that I took the photo while the negatives were still in a plastic sleeve and they're slightly above a white sheet of paper so the shadow under the negatives makes them look kinda blurry. I really need to get a film scanner to properly evaluate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 22:02
|
|
|
Does anybody here have experience shooting 8mm film? I just inherited my grandfather's old Brownie movie camera (I tested it, it seems to work), and while I'm interested in playing around with it a bit, I really know nothing about the practicalities of the format--indoor/outdoor usage, the length of time a spool lasts, whether modern spools will even feed into this old thing properly, etc. The Ektachrome revival interests me a bit, even if it is expensive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 22:36
|
|
|
In case you weren't aware; 8mm is not Super 8. I'm not sure if you can still get the former, but either way shooting movie film is prohibitively expensive. The film itself will set you back $35+ for a roll; with shipping, processing, and scanning, it comes out to $60+ for around 3 minutes of video with no sound. It's is fun, especially if you have a projector to play it back on, but was definitely below my fun/cost threshold.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 23:08
|
|
|
Thanks, I actually wasn't aware of the difference, though I've heard both terms used. I did a little research and it looks like standard 8mm can be found in B&W; there was a color option available too until recently. It's a little cheaper than Super 8, so I may look into getting a few spools to play around with at some point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 03:10
|
|
|
I'm going to give the Nikon ES-2 film digitiser attachment a go with my Sony A7RII, I've seen good things about macro lenses to 'scan' negatives (especially B&W negs where colour casts don't matter so much), I also had to get a second hand macro lens but hey if it doesn't work out I still have a macro! Also picked up a cheap vivitar 70-210 f2.8-4 for my SRT-100 while I was at it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 09:38
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:In case you weren't aware; 8mm is not Super 8. I'm not sure if you can still get the former, but either way shooting movie film is prohibitively expensive. The film itself will set you back $35+ for a roll; with shipping, processing, and scanning, it comes out to $60+ for around 3 minutes of video with no sound. It's is fun, especially if you have a projector to play it back on, but was definitely below my fun/cost threshold. So you mean I can shoot 2 hours of color film footage with sound from a zoom h1n for $2500?! Watch out Hollywood. edit: adding innocent bystanders 
Father O'Blivion fucked around with this message at 05:37 on Oct 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2018 05:31
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2018 03:21
|
|
|
Ok, film is much more fun than I expected! First roll came in last night. Apparently I tend to overexpose a bit, but I really like the look.    
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2018 15:23
|
|
|
What's that film stock? Kodak Gold? Fuji Superia? Anyway, gear question: As film makes a small comeback in popularity, as more film camera models are trumpeted as cult favorites or sleeper gems, and as the finite supply of old gear in decent condition whittles down, the price of just about every film camera type has gone up. Dramatically, in some cases. (I'm basing this on eBay prices... I've been browsing cameras on there for years at this point.) But that's not the case with at least one group of 'sleeper gem' / 'cult favorite' cameras: the Fuji fixed-lens 690 rangefinders. I used to see "excellent" condition gw690iii's going for $1000, but that seems rarer now. And overall prices seem to have stayed about the same as they were in 2015, or even gone down. Anyone have an idea why? My first thought is that maybe they are prone to having mechanical problems, or issues with film flatness. Haven't come across any writeups detailing as much, but most analogue camera reviews are pretty starry-eyed. Delicate cameras that are prone to problems and nearly impossible to fix, like the Ricoh GR and Contax T series, are commanding higher prices than ever, but I feel like GW690s aren't very good fashion accessories. Their prices could be trending downward because they keep getting returned or re-sold, and maybe there's some reason for that. If not, maybe it's just due to the roll counters. They're like clocks counting down to 'needs repair/CLA', and thanks to that it's much harder to hide the extent to which they've been used, so it keeps people from paying higher prices based juat on aesthetic condition.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2018 04:17
|
|
|
it's a big ugly plastic camera that doesn't look good as an accessory. nobody buys it so nobody else buys it so the cycle continues.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2018 05:15
|
|
|
I had a GW690II for a short while - it is indeed big, ugly, and plastic looking (insides are metal though and overall it's pretty skookum). It was a great camera but bulky as all hell and ultimately I felt that bulk worked against it's rangefinderiness. To me it was obviously a really great camera for what it was originally designed for: a workhorse used for rattling off endless groupshots of tourists. I sold it on ebay, for what I paid for it on ebay, and got myself a Mamiya folder which is orders of magnitude more portable and convenient. 6x9 negs are pretty awesome though...
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2018 06:10
|
|
|
I wanted one for the longest time and when I finally got my hands on one I thought "I am never going to use this" - I loved the camera and it was great for family events but when I go out to take pictures I aim for the lightest and most versatile setup possible. If I took more vacations it'd be neat to have for those days where you don't venture out too far, or if you drive across the country a lot and enjoy taking landscape photos, but I felt it very limited-use. I have a TLR I find easier to handle and if I ever find a used Lomo Belair for a decent price I'll pick one up. To be fair I am a very weak specimen of a human being and definitely not fabricated to be a pack animal so that may be another factor to consider.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2018 11:27
|
|
|
The fuji rangefinder series is such a great value because on paper it looks very restricting. One focal length, "slow" f/3.5 lens, no meter, not great minimum focus distance, and of course the least friendly to first time buyers is the fact that it's a rangefinder. The price is further kept down by being not of a brand commonly collected by shelf lords and dentists, if Rollei made a 6x9 rf it'd be half as good and still cost over 1k on the used market easily.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2018 19:18
|
|
|
Yeah they look cool to me... except the III. Just thinking about them because I've been looking back at the output from my old G690s and really digging the 3:2, as well as the low-contrast rendering of the singlecoated lenses under streetlights. Those cameras did have issues, though. I had two G690s (pre W, interchangeable lens), a 100/3.5, and a 65/8 at one point. The 100 was a good lens, the 65 ok. Lenses for the system are rare and mostly full of dust, and the bodies seemed to have issues with film flatness, and the film gate curtains were unreliable. All the GW690s lack a true bulb mode, which is why I went with the G690s. I liked using them for night/tripod stuff. But having to end your exposures by dropping a cloth over the lens is a workaround that gives you a usable picture, while the issues with the G690s were image killers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 02:39
|
|
|
So I had my first completely blown roll. If my roll came out blank after development, but there are still markings on the sides of the roll marking frame numbers/brand, that means I messed up the loading in the camera right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 03:03
|
|
|
either that or your shutter isn't firing or you had your lens cap the whole time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 03:08
|
|
|
Yea I think I blew the loading, it felt weird when I was winding it back, didn't get the normal 'pop' and release in tension that I normally get.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 03:11
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:The fuji rangefinder series is such a great value because on paper it looks very restricting. One focal length, "slow" f/3.5 lens, no meter, not great minimum focus distance, and of course the least friendly to first time buyers is the fact that it's a rangefinder. The price is further kept down by being not of a brand commonly collected by shelf lords and dentists, if Rollei made a 6x9 rf it'd be half as good and still cost over 1k on the used market easily. Pretty much, I also found that apparently the overall desirability of a cam falls quickly with the cameras and the formats size & absence of a meter. 35mm cams, especially compacts have gone up to truly absurd regions, medium format TLRs, rangefinders and such have gone up by quite a bit also, especially metered models like the Mamiya 7 which now fetches in the thousands of dollars, but I guess they never were cheap to begin with. Pentax 67 (also metered) is up by a lot. 6x9 folders as well as the Fujis have seen much less of an impact, 4x5 and up even less so.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 04:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 22:52 |
|
|
drat I just realised why the pack of 100 35mm negative sleeves I got was so cheap, each sleeve holds 7 x 5 negative strips, which: A) Is less than the 6 strips that most scanners take and... B) Adds up to 35 frames, not 36... I mean otherwise they're good, but I'm either going to have to split a roll across two pages or just pick a frame to throw away from every roll and deal with having odd length strips, also I already cut my first roll into strips of 6.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 09:26
|
|