|
Martytoof posted:I just took a look at the kickstarter video and lol they pitched one of the use cases as developing film outdoors on the fly with friends Yeah that's a bit far-fetched but it probably is useful for developing on road trips or vacations, if you ever had the need for that.
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 02:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 23:57 |
|
|
Likely, but I can’t imagine a situation where I’d need instant access to negatives that isn’t followed by instant need of a scanner or enlarger. I suppose it’s cool to be able to see results instantly but without additional equipment I can’t imagine it’s useful at all. Though to be fair, “because I can” is a perfectly valid reason to do it, even if I don’t think it’s useful.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 02:40
|
|
|
Yeah, that setup seems like some kind of wacky edge case stuff. Kinda neat in and of itself, but I’m having trouble figuring out its real purpose. I’m gonna say gimmick.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 02:46
|
|
|
Saving money on not needing to buy a dev tank and dark bag if you don't have a dark room? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 02:54
|
|
|
Doesn’t that system cost way more though? Change back and a patterson tank are like $65 or something.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 02:56
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Likely, but I can’t imagine a situation where I’d need instant access to negatives that isn’t followed by instant need of a scanner or enlarger. I suppose it’s cool to be able to see results instantly but without additional equipment I can’t imagine it’s useful at all. The only "good" reason I can think of is if you're about to go through some high power x-ray. President Beep posted:Doesn’t that system cost way more though? Change back and a patterson tank are like $65 or something. I just spent $200 AUD on all the chems (Dev, stop, fix, wet) I needed, 2 reel tank, bag, graduated cylinder, film clips and thermometer, so yes. Speaking of chems, I know you can reuse fixer but can you reuse stop? I'm getting conflicting reports.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 03:30
|
|
|
Megabound posted:Speaking of chems, I know you can reuse fixer but can you reuse stop? I'm getting conflicting reports. You can totally reuse stop. Kodak makes theirs with indicator for exactly that reason; when it changes color it's no good anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 03:32
|
|
|
You can reuse stop bath. Quite a lot actually. You probably have an indicator stop bath that will change colour when it is exhausted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 03:32
|
|
|
Use a trash bag for loading, develop in an old paint can using coffee. Stop the reaction by yelling. This is how you dev on the cheap.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 03:36
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Likely, but I can’t imagine a situation where I’d need instant access to negatives that isn’t followed by instant need of a scanner or enlarger. I suppose it’s cool to be able to see results instantly but without additional equipment I can’t imagine it’s useful at all. Also film that's still in the canister/on the spindle is 100% more portable and a billion percent less likely to get damaged than naked strips of developed negatives.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 06:10
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Likely, but I can’t imagine a situation where I’d need instant access to negatives that isn’t followed by instant need of a scanner or enlarger. I suppose it’s cool to be able to see results instantly but without additional equipment I can’t imagine it’s useful at all. Probably for someone who goes on long road trips, like weeks/months long, and wants the film to be fixed and not left undeveloped for long periods of time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 06:18
|
|
|
Is there a practical reason against leaving film undeveloped for a while? I mean if we're talking timeframes in the order of a few months or so rather than decades. It's $220 for the 135 and 120 modules, plus the optional handcrank and it's bigger than a 2-reel Paterson tank. So it doesn't look as if you are saving a lot of space over packing a changing bag and a tank, but you do get to pay 3x more for some orange plastic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 07:13
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:Is there a practical reason against leaving film undeveloped for a while? I mean if we're talking timeframes in the order of a few months or so rather than decades. Well there's possibility of some fogging but I guess the bigger risk might be accidental heat damage to the film.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 07:43
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:Also film that's still in the canister/on the spindle is 100% more portable and a billion percent less likely to get damaged than naked strips of developed negatives. New from LAB-BOX, the film canister reloader! Only $199.99 for an easy, convenient, "portable" way to load your developed film back into the canisters for portability.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 08:30
|
|
|
Just shoot digital lol
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 16:33
|
|
|
Pretty sure that LAB-BOX thing has been done before, I just can't remember what the previous version was called (to be fair I think the old one was 135 only, so the ability to do 120 as well is kinda different?). Speaking of developing machines I've been talking to a local small film lab owner and I'm attempting to design and prototype a small fully automatic film processing machine (e.g. Phototherm or JOBO autolab), targeted at the small photographic lab market right now who are currently relying on keeping old out of production machines going with second-hand parts but also applicable to hobbyists in the future. It's not a super complicated process to automate, the difficulty is going to be in keeping prices down without the luxury of an enormous market to take advantage of the economy of scale.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 20:34
|
|
|
Blackhawk posted:Pretty sure that LAB-BOX thing has been done before, I just can't remember what the previous version was called (to be fair I think the old one was 135 only, so the ability to do 120 as well is kinda different?). The idea's only been around for the last 120 years or so. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 21:23
|
|
|
You’re probably more specifically thinking of this https://youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=Gdc6T6ydARQ some kinda jackal fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Jun 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 21:28
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:Just shoot digital lol Right, that’s how I scan my negatives.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 02:00
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:You’re probably more specifically thinking of this That's the one, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 09:57
|
|
|
That's ace. I just found a Russian one on eBay for $30 so I'll try it out when it arrives. I hate loading 35mm film in a Paterson tank.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 10:18
|
|
|
The only thing I'm weirded out by (on that older one) is that only half the film is exposed to developer at any time so you have to keep cranking it for full coverage. I wonder how that affects your time and results? At the very worst you can't do things like stand development, and at best you have to adjust your times or methods I guess? Essentially you just can't leave it, so if your recipe calls for "shake it and leave it for a minute" then I guess you need to not do that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 15:04
|
|
|
that's why i though an automated version would be pretty good. it's a caveman jobo like that,
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 16:21
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:The only thing I'm weirded out by (on that older one) is that only half the film is exposed to developer at any time so you have to keep cranking it for full coverage. I wonder how that affects your time and results? At the very worst you can't do things like stand development, and at best you have to adjust your times or methods I guess? Essentially you just can't leave it, so if your recipe calls for "shake it and leave it for a minute" then I guess you need to not do that. You'd have to follow the same recipe as continuous rotating drum style machines, which could definitely be annoying by hand especially for longer development times. The up-side of that kind of system is that you use less chemistry per roll but that's only really a consideration when doing one-shot chemical use and if you're doing a huge number of rolls.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 20:34
|
|
|
Depending on how modular that lab box is I bet it would be fairly straightforward to 3D print a motor attachment and wire up a cheap arduino powered crank
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 20:37
|
|
|
Introducing: Negative Lab Pro v2.0 Heck yeah. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 18:21
|
|
|
Cross processed some XP2 in Ilfosol 3. 8 min dev.  
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 12:59
|
|
|
how exactly did you cross process? i’m no expert but that’s a black and white film and a black and white developer
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 15:57
|
|
|
It’s C41 B&W stock though. I don’t get why.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 16:00
|
|
|
XP2 is a C-41 film, not regular black and white. It uses gray dyes instead of colour dyes. Around here labs will process regular B&W film but charge you out the butt for it (because they're actually sending someplace else). A C-41 black and white film would be cheap as chips to get processed by comparison which I imagine was the point of XP2 and Kodak/Fuji's offerings when they existed. Since there's no silver left in XP2 when C-41 processed, IR dust removal in scanners (ICE, etc...) would also work. I've developed color negative in Rodinal a few times and you get an incredibly dense negative with the orange mask coming out dark brown. Does the same thing happen with XP2?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 16:58
|
|
|
Ah yeah. I remember the c41 b&w stuff being targeted at folks who wanted 1 hour minilab service
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 17:21
|
|
|
Sauer posted:I've developed color negative in Rodinal a few times and you get an incredibly dense negative with the orange mask coming out dark brown. Does the same thing happen with XP2? Nothing strange, XP2 always had a purple tint to it. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 21:01
|
|
|
Sauer posted:I've developed color negative in Rodinal a few times and you get an incredibly dense negative with the orange mask coming out dark brown. Hmm. I’ve just finished shooting a roll of cheap Fuji 400 color film. Shots aren’t anything special. Might give this a try. Were you able to correct the darkened mask? e: Eh, on second thought, the effect doesn’t really look interesting to me. President Beep fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Jun 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 21:11
|
|
|
I didn't like it either and I don't think I've used any images that came out of those rolls.  That was Fuji 400 developed in 1:100 Rodinal left sitting for an hour. It was dense enough that the Flash as I use as a light source when scanning with my mirrorless had trouble punching through the mask and highlights. Didn't even try printing them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 22:26
|
|
|
if you strip the color it's just lovely contrast, not much of an "effect" 
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2019 20:29
|
|
|
I think I've already asked this, and had it answered, just asking to double check. I developed some B&W negatives over the weekend, and the whole roll ended up very grey and low contrast. That means it was likely underdeveloped and/or under-fixed, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2019 20:54
|
|
|
If the shadows look good but the highlights are gray, then yeah probably under developed. If the shadows are blocked up and everything is gray its under exposed. If everything is sort of milky (including the rebate and sprockets) then fixer may be at fault. You can refix and see if that clears things up but you won't be getting any destroyed image back. Here's some more detailed information with example images. Its for microscopy but film is film.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2019 21:07
|
|
|
Tried some Ilford PanF 50, seems pretty good but the contrast in the scene I was shooting was probably a bit much for it.  
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2019 06:01
|
|
|
Blackhawk posted:Tried some Ilford PanF 50, seems pretty good but the contrast in the scene I was shooting was probably a bit much for it. I've definitely enjoyed shooting Pan F but even with low dilution HC110 it's too contrasty for me to depend on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2019 16:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 23:57 |
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:I've definitely enjoyed shooting Pan F but even with low dilution HC110 it's too contrasty for me to depend on. Have you tried Perceptol? I've had good luck with Microdol-X, which should be about the same. You lose a little speed but you're not shooting Pan F for the speed anyways.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2019 17:28
|
|