|
It seems that Thanksgiving has given me a bad case of GAS. I remembered seeing an old camera or two a few years ago at my parents' house, before I reignited my photography hobby and got into film. So, last week during the holiday, I went digging around their house and found the cameras plus several more things I did not remember. Argus A2B  Yashica Lynx 1000  Rokunar Lens. I have no idea what mount it is or what camera it would go on. Sounds like it's just a cheap 3rd party lens.   Tru-Vue viewer and sample films  Keystone 8mm video camera  Vivitar LF Tele  Kodak Vigilant Junior 620   Nothing super fancy, but I'm excited to have some new old things to play with, especially the Kodak, as I've been wanting to find a cheap way to start playing with medium format. Unfortunately I don't think I'll be able to invest time into these until the beginning of next year. I am worried this will just lead for more GAS as I might need to start developing at home in order to make playing with these feasible.
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 06:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 13:43 |
|
|
Negatives or it didn't happen, peasant.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 06:13
|
|
|
I had a roll of fomapan 400 with a mix of bright daylight photos and pitch black night photos and I was worried about how they'd go with standard development, so I tried a semi-stand develop. 1 hour in 1+100 rodinal with ~5 inversions at 30 minutes. Actually turned out really well IMO, I'd heard horror stories about muddy neggies and bromide drag but they still came out with plenty of contrast and no strange non-uniformities. Here are some of the pitch black ones, the daylight ones were mostly portraits of people at a work party so not that interesting... DSC01406 by Andrew Burns, on Flickr  DSC01405 by Andrew Burns, on Flickr (white edges/non-uniform lighting are due to how I'm scanning them, not the negatives themselves)
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 09:03
|
|
|
The couple in the apartment above me are having "a real good time" with each other and shaking the building making my prints blurry  . Just darkroom problems.Edit: Not gonna let that stop me  
Sauer fucked around with this message at 06:51 on Nov 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 03:45
|
|
|
Finally read through the entirety of this awesome thread, and was inspired so I thought I'd try this film thing out. Picked up an Olympus Trip 35 for cheap and some Ilford XP2 Super 400 film. My first roll was pretty much a test as I didn't even know if the camera was working properly. Turns out it was and there were a few photos I thought turned out pretty well. lovely lab scans:     The Trip felt really good to use despite being zone focus which I've never used before, so I got plenty of out of focus photos when I misjudged distance, but overall I'm pretty stoked with the results. Although I think I might have the bug as I've bought another 3 cheapo film cameras to try out (Minolta Hi-Matic 7s, Canon AF35M and a Ricoh AF35) and have ordered a bunch of film, yes, Portra is included. fun times
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 09:07
|
|
|
Lankster NZ posted:Finally read through the entirety of this awesome thread, and was inspired so I thought I'd try this film thing out. Sick, you didn't happen to get the trip 35 from Caleb?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 09:33
|
|
|
Blackhawk posted:Sick, you didn't happen to get the trip 35 from Caleb? Nah from an online shop based here in NZ
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 09:56
|
|
|
Lankster NZ posted:Nah from an online shop based here in NZ Hah crazy because I saw a guy on facebook in auckland sell a trip 35 yesterday as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 18:32
|
|
|
Blackhawk posted:Hah crazy because I saw a guy on facebook in auckland sell a trip 35 yesterday as well. Hah, yea I've seen quite a few come up for sale on trademe lately also, usually going for 50-60 bucks. I got mine from cash converter's online auction site for 20, I didn't even know the site existed until then so I was a bit dubious about how it would work out but it was mint. They have heaps of digital gear on there but not a lot of film cameras, although what they do have they tend to under value so it's not a bad place to keep an eye on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2018 02:05
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 05:51
|
|
|
Ffffffffriday night, motherfuckers!  Developed two roles of color film that were in a box with an old Yashica Electro 35 that my wife’s father gave her years ago. Only two or three actual images out of 48 exposures though. :/
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2018 02:05
|
|
|
How do the scans look coming from film to DSLR?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2018 02:22
|
|
|
Not too bad, really. The biggest problem I had to overcome was how to blur the pixels on my ipad so that they didn’t show up in the image. In order to get enough separation with the depth of field that f/8 creates, I’ve got two pieces of glass glued together with four little feet made out of film canister lids. That base, combined with the thickness if my film holder, gives me juuuuuust enough distance from the screen. The camera is a 7D. Kinda old, but it seems up to the task. I’m still dialing in my setup, but once I get some decent results I’ll share them here. Very interested in any tips others may have! Glad to share any more details about my arrangement too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2018 02:29
|
|
|
That's how I used to do it as well until getting a Nikon ES-2 that screws on to the end of my macro lens. I wanted a setup that could easily use a flash as a light source as my old apartment building uh... vibrates. Not much but enough to make any "scan" blurry from the exposure times with a light table and tripod. The ES-2 works well even with a crop sensor on a non-nikon body. In my opinion a DSLR scan is superior to any other scanner regular folks can afford. Black and white film is a piece of cake but colour negative can be hell to invert sometimes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2018 02:45
|
|
|
What lens are you using on your 7d to shoot the film?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2018 03:53
|
|
|
50mm 1.8 STM with a 21mm macro extension tube. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B071RZT8GY/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_PLFaCb1J0X04Z I’m able to fill the frame and focus well, so I figure I can’t ask for much more than that. For settings, manual focus, aperture priority at f/8, two second delay on the shutter. Shutter speed goes to around 1.3 seconds or so. President Beep fucked around with this message at 07:10 on Dec 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2018 04:04
|
|
|
What is the recommended scanning method for hobbyists nowadays? Is just using a DSLR probably the best since most photographers would already have a capable one? The old scanner thread still recommended a few flatbeds or dedicated film scanners as of a year or two ago, but it also sounded like a DSLR would get equivalent or better in terms of pixels/dpi IIRC. I'm still occasionally scrolling through craigslist and classifieds to see if a decent scanner pops up, but would it likely be best to just focus on a DSLR setup?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2018 05:31
|
|
|
Dslr setups can be finicky and you have to have a keen eye for casts and be able to correct a lot of things in post. Epson v550 or newer is IMO the way to go in terms of low headache and good results.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2018 05:55
|
|
|
President Beep posted:Not too bad, really. The biggest problem I had to overcome was how to blur the pixels on my ipad so that they didn’t show up in the image. In order to get enough separation with the depth of field that f/8 creates, I’ve got two pieces of glass glued together with four little feet made out of film canister lids. That base, combined with the thickness if my film holder, gives me juuuuuust enough distance from the screen. If you’re doing a bunch of scan-shooting having an external screen plugged in your digital AV-out and a remote trigger is great for ergonomics and image quality. So is having a film carrier with notches, so you can have a peg on your platform and never worry about centering/alignment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2018 12:23
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:Dslr setups can be finicky and you have to have a keen eye for casts and be able to correct a lot of things in post. Epson v550 or newer is IMO the way to go in terms of low headache and good results.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2018 12:24
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:I mean yes but it also takes forever. I honestly think it must take around the same time with the DSLR method.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2018 12:39
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:I honestly think it must take around the same time with the DSLR method. Actually capturing the image is nearly instant but you have to put in a lot of work inverting, correcting colour and removing dust that the scanner typically does automatically. I find it very quick and good for black and white because there's no colour cast to worry about, haven't tried colour film yet but I'm shooting a roll of Portra now to try out (will get it commercially scanned and then see what it takes to make my DSLR scans look the same).
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2018 18:46
|
|
|
File size-wise, how do film scanners stand up to DSLR capture? The more data, I presume the better results, roughly speaking.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2018 19:00
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:I honestly think it must take around the same time with the DSLR method.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2018 19:39
|
|
|
Who's the go to mail in film dev/scanner these days? I just want the negatives back and some high DPI scans. Indie Film Lab seems to be the trendy one, but I'm open to any suggestions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Who's the go to mail in film dev/scanner these days? I just want the negatives back and some high DPI scans. Indie Film Lab seems to be the trendy one, but I'm open to any suggestions. https://blog.jimgrey.net/2018/08/22/where-can-you-still-get-film-developed-2018-edition/ I'm using Old School Photo Lab, and I'm happy with their results. I haven't used any others, though, so I can't offer comparison. I enjoy their Instagram feed, too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2018 20:25
|
|
|
How does flatbed scanning stand up against just using a m43 camera? I haven't got a decent DSLR, I just use an EM10ii as my digital camera. I could get the 60mm macro lens which is a good buy anyways, but I'd like to scan my own film and dunno if that'd be up to snuff.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2018 21:36
|
|
|
I have an Epson V600 that has worked great for my 120 scans. I got a good deal on it too so they can be had for relatively cheap.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2018 21:38
|
|
|
Dslr digitizing is not as good. You’re spending so much time on the color correction of the dslr and then the film and fighting it that the instant capture advantage is lost A flatbed is really good and fast and you’re only really working on the film color A dedicated film scanner is even better. Slow but good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2018 21:58
|
|
|
I did some DLSR scans, I used a tripod and a light table but i wasn't too thrilled about it either, but my v600 comes out too soft IMHO.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2018 23:51
|
|
|
Okay, here's an image "scanned" with my DSLR setup. If you pixel peep, you can still make out a faint pixel grid--looks like I don't have quite enough separation yet. ( ). Having never used a film scanner, flatbed or otherwise, I have no idea if this is any good or not. I'm also new to film, so the editing might be poo poo too. Hell if I know! I'm open to feedback on any and all aspects of this snapshot. I'm used to digital, and this looks a bit oversaturated to me in places, but I couldn't easily dial things back without causing other problems. Is this kind of color intensity simply the nature of some films? This was shot on Kodak Gold 200.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2018 23:52
|
|
|
Gold is a consumer film so it usually does have pretty high saturation and contrast. It also tends to have the typical Kodak warm tones which your image doesn't have. You've got too much blue going on. These pictures of stuff are DSLR scans and converted with Negative Lab Pro. Neg Lab makes the conversion pretty painless and longest part was spotting the dust. You don't get ICE with a DSLR. Porta 400:   Fuji Superia 400: 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 01:38
|
|
|
Sauer posted:Gold is a consumer film so it usually does have pretty high saturation and contrast. It also tends to have the typical Kodak warm tones which your image doesn't have. You've got too much blue going on. Ah! Thanks. I really do feel like I’m starting out at square one here, and it’s feedback like this that I find helpful. e: This seems like an improvement. 
President Beep fucked around with this message at 02:03 on Dec 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 01:46
|
|
|
Assuming you're using Photoshop or GIMP or the like, add a curves adjustment layer, use the gray point dropper and click around on the pavement (or any other neutral area) until it looks good. Your second image has a load of magenta/red in it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 02:31
|
|
|
Cool. I'll put it into photoshop and try that. Thanks again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 02:36
|
|
|
Okay, Sauer, this is the last time I'll pester you (and the thread) with this image. Setting the gray point in photoshop seemed to improve the magenta cast in a way that I was having trouble with in lightroom.  I sure do feel like film editing gives me more rope to hang myself with compared to digital!
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 02:51
|
|
|
That tree has a completely different color now!
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 09:59
|
|
|
Yeah, at first I thought it really had been that bright yellow, but once I warmed things up I realized that I’d been waaaay off. I think what was loving with me a bit was that the bushes to the left looked correct, so I assumed the rest of the foliage must’ve been right as well. Nope!
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 10:15
|
|
|
Father O'Blivion posted:A few frames of Kodak Gold 400 @ 500 developed with the above process.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 21:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 13:43 |
|
|
I wanted to ask this in the instant films thread but it's closed now. Has anyone used the Impossible Project Impossible I-1 camera? I was wondering it it's any good because you can get them significantly cheaper than when they launched and it looks like an interesting design. Admittedly I think their instant film kind of sucks but I get it now and again and if you have one of their branded cameras the film for it is cheaper than what the old Polaroids use because it has no battery in it. I mainly use an Instax Wide.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2018 20:21
|
|
