|
CPL593H posted: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. I love the Impossible film and the size. The Spectra was my machine of choice but apparently the Impossible film is slightly thicker than the original and burns out the motors easily. I found the Impossible camera on sale in a pawn shop for fifty bucks and picked it up, figuring I'd save on the cartridges as well. It also goes with the rest of my Teenage Engineering equipment! The flash is absolutely useless and if you've ever used a Polaroid before you know how important light is. I wasted a lot of indoor shots trying to figure it out despite it being on auto. If I ever get the inclination to shoot Polaroid again I'll pick up a Onestep 2+ (on sale or secondhand) which is basically the same thing but looks to be a better flash. I haven't messed around too much with the long exposures. It's like trying to go back to 6x6 after shooting 6x7. It's not THAT much different but that little extra touch is gone. WorldWarWonderful fucked around with this message at 23:11 on Dec 8, 2018 |
#
?
Dec 8, 2018 23:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 22:20 |
|
|
WorldWarWonderful posted:I love the Impossible film and the size. The Spectra was my machine of choice but apparently the Impossible film is slightly thicker than the original and burns out the motors easily. I found the Impossible camera on sale in a pawn shop for fifty bucks and picked it up, figuring I'd save on the cartridges as well. It also goes with the rest of my Teenage Engineering equipment! I mean I primarily use an Instax Wide and the flash on that camera is garbage. I mean the camera itself isn't that great, which is a shame because the film is so much better than the Impossible Project stuff it's laughable. I also don't have any intention of paying over a hundred dollars for the One Step so I thought the I-1 would be better because you can get them cheaply and I find it to be more a more interesting design than "Hey it's the box type SX-70 again!". Admittedly I mostly keep trying their film out in the hopes that it will get better and I suppose the current generation is marginally so. Though so far all the color shots I have are tinted purple and the monochrome looks good when it first develops but after a couple weeks it turns yellow. More than anything I'd like for FP-100c to come back (not going to happen) or for Fuji to at least make a good camera for the Instax Wide film (probably also not going to happen). On a related note did you see that kickstarter for the new packfilm? The company is a bunch of the old Impossible guys and it's like ten bucks an exposure and the film packs only hold three sheets. It's not promising. So anyway to sum up this rambling post, is the I-1 worth bothering with and should I get it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2018 23:58
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:I mean I primarily use an Instax Wide and the flash on that camera is garbage. I mean the camera itself isn't that great, which is a shame because the film is so much better than the Impossible Project stuff it's laughable. I also don't have any intention of paying over a hundred dollars for the One Step so I thought the I-1 would be better because you can get them cheaply and I find it to be more a more interesting design than "Hey it's the box type SX-70 again!". Admittedly I mostly keep trying their film out in the hopes that it will get better and I suppose the current generation is marginally so. Though so far all the color shots I have are tinted purple and the monochrome looks good when it first develops but after a couple weeks it turns yellow. More than anything I'd like for FP-100c to come back (not going to happen) or for Fuji to at least make a good camera for the Instax Wide film (probably also not going to happen). For outdoor shots and good lighting, and if you like the colour profile of the impossible film, that’s really up to you. I shoot a lot of events with mine and having a reliable flash is important, so having a strong one like on the Spectra is great but I find the one on the impossible camera can’t cut it. I’m hoping to try it out more at Christmas since I shot mostly events this summer and brought what I was most comfortable with (my Spectras). Personally I love the colour profile and rendering on the impossible film and find Fuji’s too cool and clean. Never had a purple tinted picture and I’ve taken well over a hundred shots. I’ve only used their ISO 600 films though, and never their others. Oh, and the battery life is a bit of a letdown. You need to charge it every two or three cartridges and it won’t hold a charge over the week so you have to remember to charge it the morning of.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2018 01:54
|
|
|
WorldWarWonderful posted:For outdoor shots and good lighting, and if you like the colour profile of the impossible film, that’s really up to you. I shoot a lot of events with mine and having a reliable flash is important, so having a strong one like on the Spectra is great but I find the one on the impossible camera can’t cut it. I’m hoping to try it out more at Christmas since I shot mostly events this summer and brought what I was most comfortable with (my Spectras). The problem with the Impossible Film I've always had having used 600 monochrome and color and Spectra monochrome is that the results are wildly unpredictable. Instax is always consistent. I also find that if you leave the film pack in the camera for a bit without using it it goes bad fairly quick. Maybe you've had better luck than I have.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2018 02:01
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:The problem with the Impossible Film I've always had having used 600 monochrome and color and Spectra monochrome is that the results are wildly unpredictable. Instax is always consistent. I also find that if you leave the film pack in the camera for a bit without using it it goes bad fairly quick. Maybe you've had better luck than I have. I tend to use it on special occasions or events, so I "budget" packs. So a wedding is usually two packs, a street festival is one (or two depending on the size), Christmas with the family is one, and so on. I never have a sheet left in the pack; it goes from fridge to spent within ten hours. I think it also depends on the batch - I've had cartridges where the pictures and colours are consistent, and others where the sky can be a completely different shade of blue and almost purple despite it being taken moments apart. From a product standpoint it can be frustrating to the consumer but I've never been disappointed with an outcome unless it was my own fault or a jam.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2018 04:03
|
|
|
Pan F+ is great, but I guess I've learned my lesson about developing it in Xtol or Fomadon Excel. It gives good tonality, but there are specks all over the emulsion.  IMG_0639 by S M, on FlickrVery small specks. Easiest to see in slightly darker out-of-focus areas, like just above the flower on the image below. It's not all dust, or at least it doesn't come off with a blower or gentle wipe with a PEC pad.  IMG_0643 by S M, on FlickrI generally always mix my chemicals (including stop bath) using distilled water, but I rinse with tap. Maybe pipe water got to it somehow during development or fixing, but this has happened on all three of my attempts to develop this film with Xtol-formula developers Whatever the case, I'll probably just always use Perceptol or ID-11 for all my Pan F needs in the future. They've never caused this sort of thing. Could there possibly be a way to eliminate the speckling from the negatives? Maybe soaking them in distilled water, wetting agent, or something else? As an aside, the photos in question were shot with the PG 110/4 Macro on a GS-1. Now that both of those things are gone (traded for a Pentax 6x7 and 90/2.8), I'm starting to appreciate just how great the 110 was. Very sharp from wide open at distant and close focus, and incredibly low field curvature. OOF areas are rendered evenly across the frame; no 'cat's eye' bokeh balls. I'm beginning to think that I won't find anything that matches those particular characteristics among the P67 lineup. The 90 and 105 both have a more of a swirly look at wide apertures. There's an SMCT 135/4 Macro headed my way, but that's an OG P67 lens and there's a good chance that it's not going to render much like the mid-80's "computer designed" PG 110. I'm guessing the SMCP 100/4 might be a little closer, but those are rare and expensive. Given how fantastically it performs and how relatively cheap GS-1's are, the 110 seems like a steal at around $250 on the 'bay. Who knows, though. Maybe I just got a really good copy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 03:50
|
|
|
I'm an idiot and forget to set the light meter correctly. So I took shots metered for 400 instead of 100 on some E6 film. How far can I push dev to try and salvage something?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 03:31
|
|
|
doomisland posted:I'm an idiot and forget to set the light meter correctly. So I took shots metered for 400 instead of 100 on some E6 film. How far can I push dev to try and salvage something? Probably depends on the film but pushing 2 stops isn't the craziest thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 03:57
|
|
|
Yeah film can go a lot farther than digital generally, should be salvageable
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 05:32
|
|
|
You under exposed slide film by two stops. Honestly I’d probably develop it normally. You probably saved the highlights doing that
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 05:57
|
|
|
Depending on what you shot, there's gonna be a lot of black parts which might be recoverable, 2 stop is possible but if it's in the deep shadow, probably not likely.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 08:10
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2018 17:05
|
|
|
Post/username combo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2018 17:33
|
|
|
Mucking around with 4x5 enlargements from x-ray film now that I've got a functioning graflarger. Made two wild prints and this one was the better of them. Fuji HR-U in 1:100 Prodinal, printed on Ilford MG, developed in homebrew Kodak D-51. Edit: And a scan of the original negative for good measure. I still need to get a handle on the effect the combination of the cold light & the blue tinted film base has on contrast... its way different than standard film + an incandescent bulb. Note that the blotchy poo poo in the background is my filthy coffee table and not an artifact of processing. 
Father O'Blivion fucked around with this message at 22:56 on Dec 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2018 20:38
|
|
|
Ran my first roll of colour film through the SRT100 (portra 400, shot at 200). My film must have slipped resulting in this unintentional but quite interesting double exposure:  Accidental Success by Andrew Burns, on Flickr  Auckland Domain by Andrew Burns, on Flickr  Woodhill Sunday Drive by Andrew Burns, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 11:14
|
|
|
Shot my first couple rolls of B&W film. You guys weren't joking when you said I'd be better off learning how to develop, scan and print my own films, two different local labs did a mediocre job at best. Plus B&W was actually more expensive to dev, scan and print than color film which pissed me off. Lucklily my girlfriend's christmas gift was a 3-day seminar in all those processes, so come February I should have at least some grasp on what needs to be done. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 19:17
|
|
|
Gosh, those are some nice looking images. Now that I’ve developed a handful of less expensive drug store C-41 process film without ruining anything I think I’ll try Portra next. What film stock and subsequent developer did you use? I’ll be coming back from vacation with a handful of rolls of HP5+ 400 shot at box speed and the various ways to develop black and white film is definitely causing me some angst. I have no idea what might work “best”.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 19:43
|
|
|
President Beep posted:What film stock and subsequent developer did you use? I’ll be coming back from vacation with a handful of rolls of HP5+ 400 shot at box speed and the various ways to develop black and white film is definitely causing me some angst. I have no idea what might work “best”. Oh I didn't develop these myself, they were just a couple of the nicer ones I had developed etc. Fwiw those were Kodak Tmax 400. No post-processing done on my end. And I'm just as, if not more angsty as you are when it comes to that stuff.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 19:56
|
|
|
Pooper Trooper posted:Shot my first couple rolls of B&W film. You guys weren't joking when you said I'd be better off learning how to develop, scan and print my own films, two different local labs did a mediocre job at best. Plus B&W was actually more expensive to dev, scan and print than color film which pissed me off. Lucklily my girlfriend's christmas gift was a 3-day seminar in all those processes, so come February I should have at least some grasp on what needs to be done. I had never shot film before and I went straight into developing my own B&W film, so far I've tried quite a few different things and I haven't had any disasters. B&W negative film seems to be very forgiving, especially if you're scanning and editing digitally. For my first two rolls my camera's shutter speeds were double what they should have been (since fixed) and the images still turned out just fine, it was just the equivalent of pushing the film one stop which people do intentionally all the time. I develop in Rodinal and I've tried both normal and semi-stand development, both techniques have worked just fine, although again I'm scanning and digitally editing which can correct for more things than if you're trying to directly enlarge. President Beep posted:Gosh, those are some nice looking images. Now that I’ve developed a handful of less expensive drug store C-41 process film without ruining anything I think I’ll try Portra next. Thanks!, to be clear I didn't develop or scan these myself, I had it done by a local lab with a good reputation (which I think is accurate given the results). I'm getting the negatives back from them to give my scanning method a go too, I've only ever done B&W which are much easier to invert than colour.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 21:22
|
|
|
Been shooting a bunch of HP5+ and FP4+ while on vacation. It’s very cool to be able to stroll into the Boots in town and find this poo poo on the shelf.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2018 22:52
|
|
|
I killed my Pentax 6x7's (old) battery shooting long exposures on a cold night with Delta 100 and correct reciprocity failure compensation. The exposures came out well, but with Acros off the market I'm wondering what the next best option is for shorter long exposures. Tmax? I have some in the 400iso variety. Going to try that out. I also have this 'cold weather battery adapter'. It's basically a dummy plug that inserts into the onboard battery compartment of the camera with a power cable that connects to a remote battery that you can keep in your pocket. I don't think it would've helped much the other night (temp was above freezing), but it seems like... Maybe I could pull the battery while engaging bulb mode with a locking came release and get long exposures without the constant battery consumption. But I guess it might necessitate using the auxiliary shutter reset button to recover from the power loss, which would mean that I'd have to employ the hat trick, making the camera no better than a gw690 for long exposures. Would be cool if it just functioned like regular bulb mode though. Kind of afraid to fix with it either way. The Pentax feels robust, but that shutter seems like the weak point. I'd hate to start getting capping or worse vibrations due to stressing it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2018 00:20
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:I killed my Pentax 6x7's (old) battery shooting long exposures on a cold night with Delta 100 and correct reciprocity failure compensation. The exposures came out well, but with Acros off the market I'm wondering what the next best option is for shorter long exposures. Tmax? I have some in the 400iso variety. Going to try that out. Now, I need to preface this by saying that I don't have a P67 anymore, but when I did, mine needed a solenoid replacement at some point. My assumption is that the solenoid is what's holding open the shutter (in order to time it) and also what's causing the constant battery drain during bulb exposures. Removing the battery during bulb would most likely cause the shutter to close. I don't think a mechanical problem should arise from that as this seems to be a relatively foreseeable scenario. (Customer starts B exposure on a weak battery.) Anyways I doubt the outcome will be that the shutter stays open. I guess a dry test is in order. VomitOnLino fucked around with this message at 08:24 on Dec 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2018 08:21
|
|
|
I'm looking at buying a scanner for 35 and 120 and am considering the Epson V550 or V600. Is there a marked difference in the quality of scans I'll get from the V600 or a different scanner I should be considering around the same price point?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 00:09
|
|
|
Megabound posted:I'm looking at buying a scanner for 35 and 120 and am considering the Epson V550 or V600. Is there a marked difference in the quality of scans I'll get from the V600 or a different scanner I should be considering around the same price point? They are exactly the same internally. The difference AFAIR is that the V600 comes with a top light that warms up faster when you first turn it on. The difference is negligible however, and you are going to be loving about with film holders for a lot longer than the light takes to get up to speed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 05:22
|
|
|
v600 includes like photoshop elements or something but v550 does not
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 08:30
|
|
|
A few shots from a visit to Sydney recently, shot on mixture of Tri-X and Arista EDU 400 pushed to 800 and semi-stand developed in Rodinal. DSC01449 by Andrew Burns, on Flickr  DSC01499 by Andrew Burns, on Flickr  DSC01450 by Andrew Burns, on Flickr  DSC01495 by Andrew Burns, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 10:19
|
|
|
Got to say that for a so-called "Budget film", I'm really digging the Ilford Pan 400 can I got in Buenos Aires... Good classical look with a nice round grain and good sensitivity all around the colour range. I'll have to do some experimentation with pushing now, but overall quite happy. Ilford Pan 400 @ 400, D-76 1+1 for 13 minutes.   
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2018 00:25
|
|
|
Primo Itch posted:Got to say that for a so-called "Budget film", I'm really digging the Ilford Pan 400 can I got in Buenos Aires... Good classical look with a nice round grain and good sensitivity all around the colour range. I'll have to do some experimentation with pushing now, but overall quite happy. Liking these two in particular.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2018 00:28
|
|
|
If you want to try another surprisingly good film for its price get some rolls of Ultrafine Xtreme. They won't tell you what it is but its definitely produced by Harman and the development times and reciprocity times are identical to FP4 and HP5. Harman has always said they won't resell their Ilford brand films under another brand but I'd be hosed to find a difference. Specifically the Xtreme brand stuff. Ultrafine sells some other films that even the Lomography guys won't touch. Edit: The water coming out of the development tank with Ultrafine is clear while Ilford's films pours out green or blue in 120 format. That's the only difference I've found. Sauer fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Dec 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2018 01:31
|
|
|
Does anyone know where these circular light leaks could be coming from? I know the spots around the edges are probably coming from around the door because the seals are shot. I took the shot on a Pentax ME Super.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2018 18:07
|
|
|
What in the heck? You’d think that marks like that that progress laterally across the frame would be a shutter dragging issue, but the fact that they’re semicircular has me utterly stumped.
President Beep fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Dec 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2018 18:14
|
|
|
Some sort of lens flare or reflection? The circular marks appear to be centred around the light source to the left of frame.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2018 18:23
|
|
|
It could be a reflection. Although I have another shot with the light source on the other side of the frame and the arcs are still in the same spots. Could it be leaking through the hinge side and messing up exposed shots on the spool? Most of the pictures I have with the arcs I took in one late afternoon at burning man. I shot and advanced the shutter quickly but the roll may have sat in the camera for a day or so before I rewound it. And a shot that I really like just to share for fun 
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2018 18:44
|
|
|
I'm with team Flare/Reflection too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2018 01:05
|
|
|
My guess is a scratch or small reflective speck on a rear element.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2018 01:06
|
|
|
Has anyone else ever noticed the backing tape on their 120 film glowing when they peel it off in the dark?
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2018 03:57
|
|
|
I realized that all of the automatic processes in my Pentax DSLR and cell phone camera meant I don't really know much about taking pictures beyond how to focus the image  So, since I'd long ago gave away the film camera I used when I took photojournalism in high school, I went and bought a Pentax K1000 and a pack of Portra 400! So, hey, I guess?
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2018 08:07
|
|
|
Sauer posted:Has anyone else ever noticed the backing tape on their 120 film glowing when they peel it off in the dark? Yeah, Kodak paper innit? Has caused some errant exposures for me at times. Highly annoying.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2018 08:48
|
|
|
VomitOnLino posted:Yeah, Kodak paper innit? Was HP5 that did it this time. I'm going to guess it this phenomena. Just HP5 things.  Was nearly folded in half while drying. The Ultrafine Xtreme in the back dried completely flat in the same drying conditions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2018 19:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 22:20 |
|
|
Sauer posted:Was HP5 that did it this time. I'm going to guess it this phenomena. My only film developing experiences so far have been tri-x and fomapan/arista edu in 35mm. The fomapan dries totally flat while tri-x has a slight curl, doesn't really make it any harder to scan though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2018 23:23
|
|