|
I left an unexposed roll of Portra 400 in my checked bag the other day. Is it worth shooting on and getting it processed, or should I just eat the $8 loss?
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 09:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 23:16 |
|
|
Safety Dance posted:I left an unexposed roll of Portra 400 in my checked bag the other day. Is it worth shooting on and getting it processed, or should I just eat the $8 loss? I had 14 exposed rolls go through 4 x-ray checkpoints in 2 days and it was all fine. It'll be fine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 09:46
|
|
|
Checked bags go through the baggage handling XRays which are more powerful than the ones they use at boarding security. I'd shoot anyway just to see what it looks like.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 11:17
|
|
|
I left an exposed roll of Ultrafine 400 B&W in my checked bag recently. Some frames were fogged a little bit, but others seemed pretty clear.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 11:55
|
|
|
Safety Dance posted:I left an unexposed roll of Portra 400 in my checked bag the other day. Is it worth shooting on and getting it processed, or should I just eat the $8 loss?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 02:32
|
|
|
Like how Lomography enthusiasts go for that light-leak look, this film has a radiation leak look. I shot it all in Bruges yesterday, so I'm hoping it turns out okay.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 10:18
|
|
|
rohan posted:Sell it at a markup to the people who keep Cinestill in business. ~*Pre-Distressed Film*~
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 15:21
|
|
|
President Beep posted:~*Pre-Distressed Film*~ This exists. Dubble film is 135 film with pre-applied light leaks. Just in case your Lomo LCA is too reliable, and you want to pay twice as much for lovely film than you would for a roll of Portra.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 19:21
|
|
|
These three shots are from that roll that went through checked baggage:   Does this have a blue cast to it, or am I imagining things? There was genuinely a fair bit of blue in the scene, but I've stared at it for so long that I don't trust my eyes right now. Shot with Fuji 400H. 
President Beep fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Mar 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 20:13
|
|
|
That does seem a little blue to my eyes, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 23:09
|
|
|
President Beep posted:Does this have a blue cast to it, or am I imagining things? There was genuinely a fair bit of blue in the scene, but I've stared at it for so long that I don't trust my eyes right now. Shot with Fuji 400H. Yes, but that's because of poor color correction, not x-ray damage, which looks pretty different. Here's a scan of a 4x5 sheet of Portra 400 I intentionally put through checked luggage on three consecutive flights. To make this even visible I had to use curves to crank up contrast way beyond what the contrast slider maxed out in Lightroom does. If there were a well exposed image you might not even notice the x-ray damage.  I wouldn't intentionally do it to film with images I cared about, but my experience indicates the risk of real issues is way overstated.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 00:43
|
|
|
Oh, for sure. That roll stayed in carryon with me. Any color issues are solely the result of my post processing. The reason that roll of B&W went through checked baggage is because I loaded it from bulk myself and didn’t tape it to the spool well enough, so my Canon A2E pulled it all the way off once I’d shot the last frame. Fo the sake of ease I just waited until we got home so that I could open it in my changing bag. President Beep fucked around with this message at 00:47 on Mar 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 00:45
|
|
|
Can anyone tell me what happened here? img033 by Cody P, on FlickrThere's a big white fog down the middle of these negatives - it's not a fault of scanning, it's on the negative itself, and goes past the frames (I left some of the blank negative on the bottom so it's obvious). On the negative itself, it looks white as well. Anyone has any idea what this is? I didn't notice it when I hung the negatives up to dry, but I may have just missed it. It's happened on two rolls of 120 Illford HP5+, I developed both in a row. Was there some minor light leak when putting the film on the tank reels? A light leak in the camera? A problem with developing?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 04:10
|
|
|
Looks like a Light leak. Does it show up on film that is developed by someone else (a lab for instance)
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 04:40
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:Looks like a Light leak. I've only had one roll developed from this camera (a Yashica Mat 124) from a lab, and it turned out fine. I've developed other rolls from this camera and they turned out fine, but these were my first rolls of Illford.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 04:47
|
|
|
FWIW: if the fog seems not to come from the sides, and it doesn't show clustering around each frame (so it's not consistently stronger around the middle or the edge of the frames), then I don't think it's a light leak in the camera. My bet would be that it's an issue with the handling or the processing of the roll. I don't think I've seen this pattern of fogging before, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 15:43
|
|
|
k-zed posted:FWIW: if the fog seems not to come from the sides, and it doesn't show clustering around each frame (so it's not consistently stronger around the middle or the edge of the frames), then I don't think it's a light leak in the camera. My bet would be that it's an issue with the handling or the processing of the roll. I would've assumed that since it appears white on the negative, it wasn't necessarily a light leak, since wouldn't that make the negative darker? Anyways, it's possible that there was some minor light leaking in the room I developed in - the room has no windows, but light comes in through the cracks under the door during the daytime. I used bed sheets and blankets to plug up all four sides, but it's totally possible it wasn't a complete seal. I'll try developing another roll at night so there's no possibility of leakage. Or I guess I could just buy a dark bag so I could develop at any time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 16:00
|
|
|
But the white spot is on the image, so the negative should be darker, right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 16:02
|
|
|
President Beep posted:But the white spot is on the image, so the negative should be darker, right? It should be. But it's very clearly whiter on the negative. Not sure why it also appears lighter in the scan, maybe the scanner is confused by it or something?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 16:09
|
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted:It should be. But it's very clearly whiter on the negative. Not sure why it also appears lighter in the scan, maybe the scanner is confused by it or something? Woah. That's freakin' weird.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 16:11
|
|
|
President Beep posted:Woah. That's freakin' weird. Yuuuuup, the negative being so light made me wonder if it was due to me messing up the chemicals somehow. But these are the same chemicals I've successfully developed other rolls with, so ????
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 16:18
|
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted:Yuuuuup, the negative being so light made me wonder if it was due to me messing up the chemicals somehow. But these are the same chemicals I've successfully developed other rolls with, so ???? Could the film have been misloaded on the reel? Maybe touching another layer? I really have no idea.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 16:19
|
|
|
President Beep posted:Could the film have been misloaded on the reel? Maybe touching another layer? I really have no idea. I mean anything's possible, but I don't remember running into any problems when loading or unloading the reels. It also happened on two separate rolls - it's possible I messed up twice without realizing either time, but would still be surprising. I just dunno enough about home development to know what could caused it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 16:25
|
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted:It should be. But it's very clearly whiter on the negative. Not sure why it also appears lighter in the scan, maybe the scanner is confused by it or something? Is it whiter on the negative, or clearer? Grey-white haze on a negative is usually "incomplete fixing". Check to see if your fixer is exhausted.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 16:37
|
|
|
Yond Cassius posted:Is it whiter on the negative, or clearer? Grey-white haze on a negative is usually "incomplete fixing". Check to see if your fixer is exhausted. Definitely whiter. What's the best way to check if the fixer is used up?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 16:41
|
|
|
Hey so I just want some opinions on this thing I found. I used to shoot bulk HP5+ 400 and I found an old-ish loader with probably 90% of a 100ft spool left. This has been sitting in zero moisture/temperature control for what I would guess is like 5-8 years. Based on where it was sitting in the garage, I would guess it has seen some extreme heat and extreme cold. I'm talking probably anything between -10C to +30C for extended periods. How would I approach shooting unknown film like this? I'm willing to give it a go, but given the extreme temperature spikes how should I be treating exposure? Any thoughts on what I should be expecting to see, as compared to a properly stored roll of HP5+? I've never shot expired colour or BW before.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 16:48
|
|
|
The great thing about a bulk loader is you can make a test roll with only a few exposures on it. Do a simple bracketing shot with exposures +2. +1, 0, -1, -2 and develop normally.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 16:58
|
|
|
Yeah you know what, sometimes it's the simple answers that elude me. I'll give that a try this weekend, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 17:00
|
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted:Definitely whiter. What's the best way to check if the fixer is used up? Take a test strip of exposed film (35mm leaders are perfect for this, or you can leave an unfurled roll of 120 in the sun for a few minutes, cut it up, and have a year's supply) and drop it into a small amount of fixer. A glass container like a petri dish or a small graduated cylinder is perfect because you'll want to time how long it takes for the film to become visibly clear. I check by seeing if I can read magazine text through it. Ideally you'll have recorded this time when you first mixed up the fixer, and your fixer is depleted when it takes twice as long as it did originally. In practical terms I say more than five minutes is "used up". You can also get "Ag-Fix" test strips which can tell you with reasonable exactness how used-up your fixer is, but they get pricey (about $35-40 for 100 after shipping). Get rid of your depleted fixer either by leaving it in a jar with some steel wool for a few days before pouring it out, or by bringing it to your local photo lab for disposal. If you want to get fancy you can get a "silver magnet" and reclaim the (very tiny) amounts of silver for yourself. After shooting a metric crapton of film you can send it to a refiner and get a few extra rolls to keep going. Cassius Belli fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Apr 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 17:00
|
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted:Definitely whiter. What's the best way to check if the fixer is used up? Put some undeveloped film into a shot glass (just cut a small strip off a leader or something), fill the glass with your fixer and time how long it takes for the film to go completely clear. However long that takes, double it and that's the fixing time for that particular batch of fixer. If it takes more than about 2-3 minutes, then your fixer is exhausted and you should just replace it. Martytoof posted:Hey so I just want some opinions on this thing I found.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 17:01
|
|
|
polyester concept posted:The great thing about a bulk loader is you can make a test roll with only a few exposures on it. Do a simple bracketing shot with exposures +2. +1, 0, -1, -2 and develop normally. I've just started bulk loading and this is beautiful.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 17:13
|
|
|
So I got some new fixer, and the latest roll I developed with it came out perfect! Is it possible for me to put my previously-developed rolls of film into fixer again to re-fix them, or would that ruin them? Thinking about it, after fixing them all I did was wash them with water, so it wouldnt be super surprising if I could just fix them over again...
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2019 04:13
|
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted:Is it possible for me to put my previously-developed rolls of film into fixer again to re-fix them, or would that ruin them? Thinking about it, after fixing them all I did was wash them with water, so it wouldnt be super surprising if I could just fix them over again... You should be fine, unless maybe you were using hardening fixer for some reason. Just make sure to re-wash them thoroughly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2019 05:56
|
|
|
   
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2019 10:55
|
|
|
I went to my local photo lab this time instead of TheDarkroom. Price is about the same, turnaround is quicker, but I have to deal with CDs instead of downloading. Anyway here's Belgium. I didn't notice any effects from the Bruges roll having passed through checked luggage x-ray.    I feel like I underexposed my first roll, so I overcompensated and overexposed these a little bit. Gotta find a middle ground. E. Also, I should take pictures of more than just architecture. Safety Dance fucked around with this message at 05:34 on Apr 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 05:18
|
|
|
Overexposing negative film is fine, usually you'll want to be a stop or so over anyway if you have deep shadows that you want to recover. Especially if you scan them yourself, you can very easily dial back highlights and get detail out of blown areas. Black shadows are lost to you though which is why it's generally best to overexpose if you have a wide dynamic range in the frame.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 07:27
|
|
|
Thoughts on those mid-price 135 compact scanners you see on eBay every now and then? I'm talking about the Minolta Dimage stuff, not the weird $20 sensor based ones. I have an Epson 3200 which I used in the past but both desk and storage space are really at a premium so I'm starting to question the need for a flatbed scanner. I also don't really want to bust out over five hundred on something super expensive since my posting is/was mainly instragram twitter and flickr. I guess bonus if it can scan MF.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 18:11
|
|
|
The scan quality isn't doing these photos any favours
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 05:05
|
|
|
In terms of sharpness or contrast? I'm scanning with a V600 but can't tell if I'm running up against its abilities with 35mm or if I just did an average job scanning slide for the first time. These are off the same scanner and feel sharper to me eyes, but I could also be huffing my own farts. These are also colour negative stock.  
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 05:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 23:16 |
|
|
Martytoof posted:Thoughts on those mid-price 135 compact scanners you see on eBay every now and then? I'm talking about the Minolta Dimage stuff, not the weird $20 sensor based ones. This may be of interest to you: https://www.konicaminoltasupport.com/fileadmin/scanner_minolta/comparison/v_scan_e.htm Apparently vuescan supports most minolta scanners on win10, but make sure it actually works with what you have. A few of them have accessories that let you scan an entire roll on uncut negs, which is awesome, but pretty thin on the ground.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 05:59
|
|
