|
I don't have time for development, dammit! That's important shitposting time!
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 20:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 14:18 |
|
|
President Merkin Muffley: "Gentlemen! You can't develop in here! This is the darkroom!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 21:45
|
|
|
Just throw your film in the coffee pot when you make your morning cup. Two birds one stone; this isn't hard guys. Efficiency!
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 21:45
|
|
|
if you spent less time worrying about one guy on the internet telling you how you can override the mfg's directions (which they literally spent decades and billions of dollars on developing) and more time on what mattered you could actually get some half decent shots once in a while
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 23:15
|
|
|
I was cleaning out some old text files and found a two-year-and-change old draft response in this thread. It was a lot of effort at the time (slow work day) and I thought some of you might like the end result, so I wrapped it up and present it here:unpacked robinhood posted:Did anyone ever try to compare film quality through the ages ? Say early popular mf stock compared to present ones. Twenties Superstar posted:spatial resolution would be a function of a films granularity and the developer/process used. probably the finest grain you could go would be something like kodak tech pan with the appropriate developer. looking back i would imagine ancient film stock wasnt all that sharp as i suspect they would have improved with technology (maybe plates were sharp as hell? i dont know but i doubt it). with things like tech pan mostly retired at this point perhaps we are over the hump of extremely fine grained film stock and we'll just have to settle for tmax 100 for the rest of time Most plate processes are really fine-grained if you nail the execution. At the very highest extreme, daguerreotypes are far beyond "sharp as hell", but have an ISO of about .05-.25 depending on your exact preparation. Panatomic-X was finer-grained than Tech Pan, but also even more toxic than most to manufacture, due to cadmium content. Here are some approximations I was able to dig up, based on 30% contrast (which seems standard? - everyone uses it or something close). Most of these numbers are from the American Institute for Conservation or from published Zeiss test data; I've cited the numbers where appropriate. Interestingly, Zeiss reports wildly higher numbers for certain films. I think this is methodological; Zeiss obtained their data from inspection by microscope, while most others report from scans. It seems like some films just scan (relatively) poorly. Films where this is especially prominent I've called out with an asterisk. You're not giving up a lot of sharpness with TMax 100. I'm fond of Panatomic-X for that application, but it's about the tonal response more than the "fine grain at any cost". Adox CMS 20: ~275 lp/mm (Zeiss) (the manufacturer claims 800 lpm, but everyone else says going over 300 is a fairy tale) Fuji Acros: ~160 lp/mm (Zeiss), 200 lp/mm (Fuji) Kodak Panatomic-X: ~170 lp/mm (AIC) * Velvia 50: 160 lp/mm (Zeiss), 100 lp/mm (AIC) Kodak TMax 100: ~150 lp/mm (AIC), ~180 lp/mm (Zeiss), 200 lp/mm (Kodak) Kodak Tech Pan: ~142 lp/mm (AIC), ~140 lp/mm (Zeiss) Ilford Delta 100: ~140 lp/mm (Zeiss) Portra 160NC: ~100 lp/mm (AIC) Ektachrome G/GX: ~80 lp/mm (AIC) Fuji Velvia 100: ~80 lp/mm (AIC) By comparison: Kodak Tri-X (2004 revision - original version would be a bit less): ~65 lp/mm (AIC), 85 lp/mm (Zeiss), 100 lp/mm (Kodak) Incidentally, Durst claimed that just about everything over 130 lp/mm is unlikely to show up in a darkroom print, and the AIC indicates that most production camera lenses are unlikely to record much over 140 lp/mm in any case (this data is old and is probably broken by the new super-sharp lenses like the Otus and Sigma ART series). Something had to record their 170 lp/mm on Panatomic-X, though, so...
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 03:09
|
|
|
None of those numbers translate to being "fun to shoot"
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 05:30
|
|
|
The Modern Sky posted:None of those numbers translate to being "fun to shoot" For CMS-20 it is an inverse number, like f-stops. Big big number, small small fun, no payoff in the end.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 05:43
|
|
|
I hardly ever develop and scan my own color film anymore, but have had some pretty variable results from different labs in my area. Predictably, the places that are closest to where I live produce the scans with flatter colors and/or digital artifacts in the grain:  ...while the farther-away place gives me the good* stuff:  Having a good lab is great, but you've got to find a good lab. *Disclaimer: photo is not good, but the scan is
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 04:25
|
|
|
Scan em yourself dingus
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 01:23
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:Scan em yourself dingus ansel autisms posted:I just take my film to the lab. who gives a poo poo Ah, sir, I believe you have been intellectually Defeated By Your Own Logic. In the arena of debate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 01:48
|
|
|
scanning and developing are the same thing
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 02:12
|
|
|
drat. I am defeated. I did think it was weird that ansel autisms would've been suggesting anything besides home scanning. Another subject: anyone here know about Exacta cameras? The brand seem like one of the last bastions of cheap, high-quality(??) 35mm film cameras that haven't been inflated by the blogs (the blogs!!) and eBay profiteers. I know they're ergonomically obtuse, but are they badly unreliable? Seems like a lot of the lenses are pretty good. SMERSH Mouth fucked around with this message at 02:43 on Jan 25, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 02:18
|
|
|
nah i've been to his house he only has an enlarger
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 02:41
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:drat. I am defeated. I have an Exakta VX1000. Mine is not in the best condition but it's a beautiful piece of kit. They were kind of the SLR version of Leicas in the day, expensive and high quality but somewhat feature poor. They were not cheap when they were new, but they are cheap now because it's hard to keep them in working condition. They are super complex mechanically and are subsequently much harder to service than the usual mid-60s photo gear.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 05:10
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:Scan em yourself dingus I'd like to but I don't want to shell out the cash for a scanner.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 07:10
|
|
|
a dingus posted:I'd like to but I don't want to shell out the cash for a scanner. I dunno how much film you shoot or how much scanning costs at your lab, but even at my relatively cheap lab, a scanner would pay for itself after 19 rolls.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 16:52
|
|
|
Yeah seriously they aren't a big expense. Get a V550, you don't need anything bigger unless you're shooting sheet film
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 17:43
|
|
|
a dingus posted:I'd like to but I don't want to shell out the cash for a scanner. I bought a V550 and wouldn't give it up. I think it's just too impractical to have anyone else do your scanning. They'll gently caress it up and there is so much to gently caress up that you'll have a nightmare going back and forth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 18:08
|
|
|
A friend of mine sent me his old Canon 1n with battery grip because it was just collecting dust for him (he's had a photo business for decades). I decided to christen it with trying some new rolls of film that I haven't used before. So the question is...do I shoot the roll of Ilford Delta 100, or the Ektar 100 first?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 21:34
|
|
|
Delta if its a disgusting gray winter wherever you are, Ektar if there's colour.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 21:38
|
|
|
Sauer posted:Delta if its a disgusting gray winter wherever you are, Ektar if there's colour. I'm in Raleigh, NC so it depends on the day. Here's what my ME Super and TMax 100 looked like when I went to Asheville the other weekend (where it was much grayer and icy).   
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 21:46
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:I bought a V550 and wouldn't give it up. I think it's just too impractical to have anyone else do your scanning. They'll gently caress it up and there is so much to gently caress up that you'll have a nightmare going back and forth. Any idea how well it works on Windows 10? There are some negative Amazon reviews about compatibility, but im not sure if that's just people being bad with technology.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2019 00:00
|
|
|
My V550 works fine with a surface pro 4.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2019 00:08
|
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted:Any idea how well it works on Windows 10? There are some negative Amazon reviews about compatibility, but im not sure if that's just people being bad with technology. I have a v600 but I’ll assume it’s the same software. After installing the Creator’s Update i could only run one scan before the program crashed. After trying a few solutions I started running the scan software in admin mode and it’s worked fine since.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2019 00:18
|
|
|
I have a v550 and Windows 10 and it works just fine. There was a bug in Windows that prevented Epson Scan from working properly for a bit but that was fixed months ago.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2019 00:25
|
|
|
I can also confirm that the v550 is working fine with Windows 10 for me. In fact, I'm typing this while waiting for a scan to finish. I would say, just download the software and drivers from the Epson website rather than the included disk just to make sure you've got all of the up-to-date versions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2019 05:37
|
|
|
Wanna take your Epson scanning game to the next level? Use a virtual machine with whichever OS you want and use silverfast. When it’s OS reinstall time you won’t have to reset it again and you never have to worry about compatability.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2019 06:16
|
|
|
I've had a lot of problems running Epson scan on windows 10, i had to run all sorts of compatibility modes to get it to function, but it's very jerryrigged now and it might end up crashing again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2019 06:58
|
|
|
Epson Scan was working fine for my V600 but I moved to Silverfast and it's also running fine. My main issue now is that Adobe products won't install on my machine, failing with a P44 error. I'm using a portable installation now that's probably bitcoin mining malware to boot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2019 14:27
|
|
|
Sauer posted:Send him an email with your scans and let him know. He'll fix it but you'll still end up eating a shipping cost. He might have a solution that doesn't involve sending it to him. Figured I'd give an update on my shutter issues given that, WTH, it might help someone else. Eric, who's a nigh-mythical figure in Pentax circles, does seem to have fixed my MX's shutter problem issues after giving it another go-around on his bench. He did blame a "ding" in the camera as a possible source of the problem, though it was there the first time I sent it to him. I've babied the drat thing ever since I got it. In summary: it's all good, but I'll probably try someone else next time I need a CLA.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 04:24
|
|
|
Some cinestill 50D, have to say I'm not sold on it at all for landscapes, most of them turned out pretty poor colour-wise (but that may not be the fault of the film I guess?)  
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 06:10
|
|
|
Also a mix of Tri-X at 1600 (which is just way too contrasty for me, at least in Rodinal) and FP4+ which I actually quite like.  
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 06:12
|
|
|
Blackhawk posted:Some cinestill 50D, have to say I'm not sold on it at all for landscapes, most of them turned out pretty poor colour-wise (but that may not be the fault of the film I guess?) I like these. They evoke the kind of 'everyone's dead now and the planet is getting on with things' Christopher Nolan movie feel.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 06:25
|
|
|
Pentax Eric replaced the electrics and did a CLA on my 6x7 and it only cost me $550 Canadian plus shipping urgh. No complaints about his work though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 06:36
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:Pentax Eric replaced the electrics and did a CLA on my 6x7 and it only cost me $550 Canadian plus shipping urgh. No complaints about his work though. He did my spottie like years ago. His work is so good. Cost me a whole lot less than that though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 08:25
|
|
|
Just ordered a bulk loader, 100ft of kodak vision3 250D and a C-41 dev kit ahhhhhh.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 08:32
|
|
|
Seriously what's making you do that instead of just shooting Portra 400, nearly the same film
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 17:50
|
|
|
The colour shift from crossing cine film in C-41 is the newest thing, everyone is doing it!
Sauer fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Jan 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 17:52
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 18:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 14:18 |
|
|
ansel autisms posted:Seriously what's making you do that instead of just shooting Portra 400, nearly the same film Mostly price (a roll of Portra is ~$18 here, and another ~$25 to develop and scan) but I also find it interesting, I love film for the alchemy aspect of it and like to fiddle with things. If I could have found a bulk roll of normal still colour film I would have bought that instead but that doesn't seem to be a thing that is produced anymore. I haven't noticed any super strong colour shifts in the example pictures I've seen online from people developing in C-41, obviously if you're shooting tungsten balanced film in daylight everything will be blue... I've seen varying degrees of praise and condemnation for using cine film but I've liked the example images I've seen in most cases so eh? Worth a shot. I'll be sure to tell any tales of misery I have in here for laughs if/when they happen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 19:46
|
|