|
ImplicitAssembler posted:Funny, one of my buddies just did a shoot with formapan and I think it looks pretty good. fomapan sucks, i know what i’m doing
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 03:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 14:06 |
|
|
Imagine having good options but instead skipping out on all of those and using fomapan
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 05:35
|
|
|
heard the pros use it though, heed not this amateur decrying emulsions
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 05:42
|
|
|
I thought the P in HP 5 stood for professional, since it’s a professional film.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 05:58
|
|
|
Bro do you even coat your own glass plates?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 06:11
|
|
|
Cross processed some 30 year expired Agfa Vario-XL becuase I've got a lot of it. Turned out like this: Not a process I'm going to repeat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 07:53
|
|
|
Selling more of my excess cameras in Buy/Sell. Three out of three goons agree, my stuff actually works and isn't "No film to test, no batteries to test, sold as-is, don't know how this works". I promise not to include any Fomapan.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 04:00
|
|
|
Sauer posted:I promise not to include any Fomapan. No sale.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2019 15:41
|
|
|
Anyone else scan here? Maybe I need to gently caress with the settings more, but my plustek with silverfast 8 dust correction wasn't super great. I went in and did a bunch of clone stamping to get rid of dust. If you got silverfast and a plustek, what settings do you use? Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2019 19:47
|
|
|
I don't use the scanner dusting options at all, I just blow my film with a rocket blower before scanning and use content aware fill afterwards. good film hygiene is a must. for the record i also have a plustek and use silverfast clone stamps suck to use but content aware fill will take care of your dust in seconds as long as you have the ability to click on a spot of it e: also black and white films will not work with dust reduction options on your scanner so if you're relying on that, i would imagine that is the root of your problems
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2019 21:34
|
|
|
Ilford is teasing something new: https://twitter.com/ILFORDPhoto/status/1183754106382536704
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 02:23
|
|
|
Single use roll film frames to go with their single user developer packets.
Sauer fucked around with this message at 02:49 on Oct 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 02:32
|
|
|
Sauer posted:Single use roll film frames to go with their single user developer packets. I hope they do that for 4x5 frames.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 04:04
|
|
|
I'm in Mexico City and just learned there's a whole street dedicated to photography. I was going to see if there were any interesting rolls of film to buy. However I'm not sure what constitutes interesting since I've only shot Portra and Illford. Any suggestions?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 14:58
|
|
|
All emulsions are beautiful. Might want to try Fuji Pro 400H to compare to the Portra, but whether or not that's interesting depends on your personality.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 16:06
|
|
|
Portra really does do it the best for 90% of your color negative shooting needs, but I guess maybe look out for Fuji Pro 160. It's not sold on the states as far as I can tell. Pretty sure it's still sold in Japan; maybe they'll have it in Mexico??? Probably not. Kodak ColorPlus is another emulsion not sold in the US that would be more likely to show up in Latin America. It's supposed to have more muted saturation than Gold or Ultramax.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 23:01
|
|
|
Get fomapam
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2019 00:06
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Portra really does do it the best for 90% of your color negative shooting needs, but I guess maybe look out for Fuji Pro 160. It's not sold on the states as far as I can tell. Pretty sure it's still sold in Japan; maybe they'll have it in Mexico??? Probably not. They sell color plus at my local store and you can get it from B&H or Amazon as well. It’s pretty cheap and I don’t like it (YMMV). Fuji C200 is 9.99 for 3x 36ex rolls at B&H and I think it’s much better
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2019 00:35
|
|
|
I like almost all Fuji emulsions from their cheap C200 to their pro 160NS and 400H. IMO Fujis cheap stuff is way nicer than Kodak's cheap stuff.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2019 00:44
|
|
|
Kodak’s color neg is universally better than Fuji’s.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2019 05:39
|
|
|
Except natura
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2019 05:39
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:They sell color plus at my local store and you can get it from B&H or Amazon as well. It’s pretty cheap and I don’t like it (YMMV). Fuji C200 is 9.99 for 3x 36ex rolls at B&H and I think it’s much better drat. Even freestyle has colorplus now. I guess I haven't looked for anything but Portra and Delta 100 in the past year or so.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2019 05:48
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:drat. Even freestyle has colorplus now. I guess I haven't looked for anything but Portra and Delta 100 in the past year or so. Kodak ProImage 100 is getting pretty easy to find as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2019 16:10
|
|
|
Yo. Cinestill 800 is fun. Except the price.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2019 19:12
|
|
|
I wouldn’t know what to do with the stuff and I’ve never considered using it, but I do like what you’ve got going on there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2019 20:49
|
|
|
Its basically "Shoot in the dark, find lights. Halos." People photoshop the poo poo out of their pictures to get the effect, and the film just does it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2019 20:56
|
|
|
the halos don't make photos any more interesting than they were without them
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2019 22:58
|
|
|
Well, I like them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2019 23:59
|
|
|
Don’t worry, his username is literal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2019 00:09
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Don’t worry, his username is literal. Lol. That actually explains a few things.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2019 00:15
|
|
|
President Beep posted:Lol. That actually explains a few things. don't worry, i'm extremely neurotypical
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2019 00:36
|
|
|
i hold the very autistic opinions of valuing the emotional and aesthetic content of photographs over the process and technical aspects of making the photograph itself
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2019 00:42
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:the halos don't make photos any more interesting than they were without them Actual discussion: couldn't that be argued to be true of almost any element in a photo? If you superficially use the halos without any reason then yeah they don't add anything, but if you explicitly plan to use them for a specific feeling, theme, or tone, then doesn't that mean that they are adding to the photo and the photo would be worse without them?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2019 00:44
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Don’t worry, his username is literal. Is the implication here that people with autism cant have informed opinions about photography? Also, he's right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2019 00:49
|
|
|
that's part of interpreting and viewing, though - just like making alt-process prints on specific cotton papers says something very specific about your process (whether you want it to or not) in the same way using film that flares intentionally does. the weight of those choices come through in the image and can detract from the actual intent, unless of course the intent is to show off the process/flaws. consider how the lomography aesthetic "adds" something entirely outside of the subject matter to each image. it's fine, sure, but if you're trying to say something you have to be a bit louder to overcome what's already being said.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2019 00:50
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:Is the implication here that people with autism cant have informed opinions about photography? Agreed, unless your business is the sale of neon signs and neon sign accessories. (All films are fun and good, but I really don't get people who get really deeply into Cinestill, either.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2019 02:14
|
|
|
All good if you don't like it. Fun experiment on a pretty cool film. Not for everyone, but there are my results.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2019 02:25
|
|
|
ASSTASTIC posted:All good if you don't like it. Fun experiment on a pretty cool film. Not for everyone, but there are my results. In all seriousness, as someone who isn’t very experienced and shares your general live-and-let-live take, I can say that there are some apparent film veterans here that dislike this kind of dabbling. I suppose if you’ve seen it all come and go before then it’s tiresome to read about again, but this medium and its possibilities is all very novel and new to a lot of folks. If this subforum was more active it might be nice to have a casual film shooter thread in parallel with this one, but that’s probably not feasible. In the end, it’s a thread shared by people with a wide degree of experience, skill, and motivation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2019 02:54
|
|
|
I'm still on the hunt for a small but durable point and shoot 35 with a decent and fast lens in the normal range. Any recommendations? It needs to be small enough to carry on my bike comfortably.Awkward Davies posted:Is the implication here that people with autism cant have informed opinions about photography? nah I'll own this as a lovely ableist insult and I shouldn't have done it. Bottom Liner fucked around with this message at 03:17 on Nov 9, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2019 03:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 14:06 |
|
|
President Beep posted:In all seriousness, as someone who isn’t very experienced and shares your general live-and-let-live take, I can say that there are some apparent film veterans here that dislike this kind of dabbling. Them old guys still think we should be making prints in a darkroom vs scanning as well. We aren't all Ansel Adams shooting 4x6 or tintype plates. Photography is fun and should be pushed. I have no problem with the lomography/instant film movement because it lit a fire under Kodak's rear end and brought them back from the brink of collapse. Keeping this medium alive through 35mm is so much better than full digital/photoshopped to hell and back/HDR stuff anyways.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2019 06:22
|
|