|
It’s my understanding that Portra and Ektar respond well to overexposure. Can the same be said for Ektachrome?
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 20:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 06:43 |
|
|
President Beep posted:It’s my understanding that Portra and Ektar respond well to overexposure. Can the same be said for Ektachrome? No, they're different film families (C41 for Portra/Ektar/etc vs. E6 for Ektachrome/Provia/Velvia). Slide films form color in areas of low exposed silver, so you want to err a little on the low side. Their exposure latitude is much smaller, though, so you want to emphasize 'a little'.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 20:55
|
|
|
If you want good exposures with slide film, you really have to work for it.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 20:58
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:you really have to work for it. Pshhh. loving pass.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 21:09
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:If you want good exposures with slide film, you really have to work for it. Yeah on the one hand I know people who go the whole hog and carry around a spot meter and take readings from all the different spots in the scene to determine proper exposure (and if they need a grad ND filter for example) but that doesn't really work with transient scenes like that kid running past the window. The results are good enough that I'm happy, I also have a roll of velvia 100 that I'm saving for some mountain landscapes at which point I probably will bother with the tripod and grad filters.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 21:17
|
|
|
Given the ridiculous expense of slide film & processing (in Canada at least) the only thing its getting shot through is a F100 on matrix meter mode if someone gave me some as a gift. I know my hand held meter is dead accurate, but am I competent enough to use it properly? Does my older equipment give consistent exposure (lol no)? Is the lab using consistently maintained chemistry and equipment (lol no*)? I will get some in 120 if they ever do manage to produce it because it looks so good. Still hard to justify any slide film with Ektar existing. * There's only two labs in the country that still do E6 and they're both highly respected prolabs, so their gear and chems are probably okay. Sauer fucked around with this message at 21:34 on May 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 21:31
|
|
|
Blackhawk posted:Yeah on the one hand I know people who go the whole hog and carry around a spot meter and take readings from all the different spots in the scene to determine proper exposure (and if they need a grad ND filter for example) but that doesn't really work with transient scenes like that kid running past the window. The results are good enough that I'm happy, I also have a roll of velvia 100 that I'm saving for some mountain landscapes at which point I probably will bother with the tripod and grad filters. You don’t have to go to that extreme. Provia still gives you a little to work with.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 21:45
|
|
|
Sauer posted:Given the ridiculous expense of slide film & processing (in Canada at least) the only thing its getting shot through is a F100 on matrix meter mode if someone gave me some as a gift. I know my hand held meter is dead accurate, but am I competent enough to use it properly? Does my older equipment give consistent exposure (lol no)? Is the lab using consistently maintained chemistry and equipment (lol no*)? There’s more than two labs for sure. There are already two in Vancouver alone. I shoot my slides with a Nikon f3 and the exposure is fine. Even slides out of my Olympus xa are fine. I barely even do more than a quick incident meter reading with the hasselblad and it’s fine. You’re worrying too much.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 21:47
|
|
|
I recently went through thirty reels of slide film my grandfather had shot on vacations over four decades, mostly on kodachrome, and I was seriously impressed with the color. Temples gilded in gold leaf were shockingly good.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 23:15
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:There’s more than two labs for sure. There are already two in Vancouver alone. I thought the only labs doing E6 were Canada Film Lab in BC and Borealis in Montreal. Everyone claiming to handle E6 contracts out to them.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2019 02:07
|
|
|
President Beep posted:Pshhh. loving pass. When you hit just the right shot on velvia 50, it makes it all worth it. Even the fact that the roll cost 15 loving bux.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2019 02:46
|
|
|
Sauer posted:I thought the only labs doing E6 were Canada Film Lab in BC and Borealis in Montreal. Everyone claiming to handle E6 contracts out to them. The Lab does it http://thelabvancouver.com And there's one london drugs that does it for all of the london drugs locations.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2019 03:55
|
|
|
E6 is magical, I have some chemistry at home for it, but getting it done externally is a nightmare. Totally worth it though, especially as I don't really like Ektar. Ektar always seems too 'crunchy' for my tastes, I have to back off the saturation and contrast a lot in post. Medoim Format Cassovia-22.jpg by Iain Compton, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2019 05:23
|
|
|
nm posted:When you hit just the right shot on velvia 50, it makes it all worth it. Even the fact that the roll cost 15 loving bux. This is very true. Velvia 50 is true film magic when it works perfectly.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2019 07:22
|
|
|
Rollei 400 Infrared, Arax 88, Volna 80mm f/2.8 1/8s at f/16  Infrared003-Edit.jpg by Iain Compton, on Flickr  Infrared008-Edit.jpg by Iain Compton, on Flickr  Infrared019-Edit.jpg by Iain Compton, on Flickr I have no idea where that rough speckle effect comes from, the negatives were clean and so was the scanner glass.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 07:27
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:I have no idea where that rough speckle effect comes from, the negatives were clean and so was the scanner glass. Not as clean as you think.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 07:50
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Not as clean as you think. Could it be something left behind from the water? I use distilled water, but this is Thailand and I'm not 100% confident that there is no mineral content in it.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 08:23
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:Could it be something left behind from the water? I use distilled water, but this is Thailand and I'm not 100% confident that there is no mineral content in it. It does look a lot like what I was used to getting when I did the development with really hard water. The key is to mix the chems with the distilled water and then also use distilled water for the final wash. Perhaps even for the wash before that, depending on how hard you think your water is.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 08:54
|
|
|
Looks like hard water to me too but I'm more concerned with whatever you did to the contrast. Which IR filter did you use to make these mediocre trash piles? What are you hoping to gain from using infrared film?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2019 22:05
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:Looks like hard water to me too but I'm more concerned with whatever you did to the contrast. Which IR filter did you use to make these mediocre trash piles? What are you hoping to gain from using infrared film? I was using an R72 filter. Not a good one though. I have a Hoya R72 for a smaller filter size and it's noticeably darker than this no-brand one I got from a local camera store. Mostly I wanted to experiment and see what IR film could do. I have a few more rolls in the fridge. For this set, I just wanted to figure out what kind of exposure compensation I needed with the filter. I did some bracketing but even the fastest ones are still over-exposed by about 2 stops. I think a lot of the contrast artifacts are from dropping the exposure. I also ran it through a noise reduction plugin and then through SilverFX to try and rescue a bit of the sharpness afterwards. I use distilled water both for mixing chems and for rinsing so I don't know how to avoid the water issue, except by looking for a more reliable brand of distilled water I guess.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 05:06
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:I use distilled water both for mixing chems and for rinsing so I don't know how to avoid the water issue, except by looking for a more reliable brand of distilled water I guess. Hardcore mode: get a countertop still and make it yourself (this is an absolute last resort; the expense is ridiculous).
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 06:01
|
|
|
Aside from the damage to the negatives they look under exposed not over exposed. The three trunks and building shadows are solid black and everything is just gray. Did you let the film roll come to room temp on its own before removing from the package? I had a roll look like that after taking it out of the wrapper too fast from the freezer and condensation built up on the emulsion. You could be more aggressive spreading out the histogram for those images, though it does make the damage more visible: 
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 11:36
|
|
|
I only use rainwater when developing. Also odd units of measurement such as hogsheads and drams.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 12:13
|
|
|
Sauer posted:Did you let the film roll come to room temp on its own before removing from the package? I had a roll look like that after taking it out of the wrapper too fast from the freezer and condensation built up on the emulsion.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 13:34
|
|
|
That could very well have caused your problem. Give them time to get to ambient temperature before you crack the plastic wrap. Gelatin loves to soak up moisture. President Beep posted:I only use rainwater when developing. Also odd units of measurement such as hogsheads and drams. The new hipster fad is developing in beer and piss. Its going to take me a few months to save up the necessary chemistry but I'm going to make developing in masculine emissions a thing.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 16:54
|
|
|
Sauer posted:Aside from the damage to the negatives they look under exposed not over exposed. IR is pretty contrasty by default. You just aren't going to get the trunks and leaves in one shot on film in the 720nm+ range. The leaves reflect a lot of IR which is why they are super white but the rougher brown trunks absorb it. Drum scans might help pull enough dynamic range out to fix the contrast in post but lol. Your best bet for increased dynamic range is to let in more visible light with a less restrictive filter. A red 25a filter passes 590nm and longer that's very popular and gives you a ton of headroom in post.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2019 23:55
|
|
|
Makes sense.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2019 01:26
|
|
|
Infrared is sometimes counterintuitive, I've been using some form of IR camera everyday for the last six months and I still learn something new everyday.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2019 03:16
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:I have no idea where that rough speckle effect comes from, the negatives were clean and so was the scanner glass. Funnily enough a person in a local photography facebook group also appears to have had this issue with some medium format film, and the owner of the local hobby film lab thinks it's from the backing paper due to moisture or age of the film.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 07:55
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:first shot has something right through the guy's face. 
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 11:47
|
|
|
Sauer posted:The new hipster fad is developing in beer and piss. Its going to take me a few months to save up the necessary chemistry but I'm going to make developing in masculine emissions a thing.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 11:48
|
|
|
spookygonk posted:The trouble is it's either too much beer and not enough piss, or no beer and all piss. Lifehack: A lot of beer already is piss.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 13:34
|
|
|
Thinking of doing some semi-stand developing with 100 Delta, but the taking lens on my TLR is on the slow side and maxes out at f/3.5. How does that film handle pushing? e: I plan on using Rodinal 1:100, if that makes any difference.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 17:50
|
|
|
Is using a tripod and cable release an option for whatever you're planning on doing?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 18:06
|
|
|
Don’t have the right kind of cable release for my Yashica Mat. It’s really not a big issue—just curious to know if I can push in a pinch. Eh, on second thought, your suggestion is probably the way to go. Release cables/adapters are cheap. On third thought, that would mean no “walking around” shooting downtown or whatever... President Beep fucked around with this message at 18:19 on May 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 18:10
|
|
|
Shoot digital
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 23:47
|
|
|
I’m just gonna try it and have fun. We’ll see how it goes.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2019 00:18
|
|
|
Where do you live that you can get Delta 100 but not Delta 400, TriX, HP5, or Fomapan 400?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2019 05:00
|
|
|
Oh, I can get all those just the same. I was just curious to know if the option to push was viable with that particular film. It’s my understanding that with stand developing you can do things like shoot box speed for some frames and push with others on the same roll, which could introduce some nice flexibility when using a low speed film stock, especially if you don’t have a very wide max aperture. This really isn’t a problem I’m trying to get around, but more about curiosity.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2019 11:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 06:43 |
|
|
This is what got me pondering my initial question: Shot some Ultrafine Extreme 400 a bit ago and decided on a lark to buy some Rodinal and try stand developing.  It was fun, and I’m now interested in trying it some more with other film stocks, which is what I’ll be doing.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2019 12:27
|
|