|
Dudeabides posted:Welp, my ME Super's electronics have died. I changed batteries and opened it up to see if there was anything I could fix but it seems like it's just succumbed to age. Before I just buy a replacement body, I was debating either getting another smaller SLR or maybe even a rangefinder. I have a Canon EOS 1n so I have another 35mm SLR but it's just a bulky camera to carry around for travel. Pentax MX. Can use the same glass you've got now. All mechanical, the only electronics are the meter. All manual. Nearly the same size as the ME Super but a little heavier since is all metal.
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2020 10:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 22:51 |
|
|
Sauer posted:Pentax MX. Can use the same glass you've got now. All mechanical, the only electronics are the meter. All manual. Nearly the same size as the ME Super but a little heavier since is all metal. I may go with this. I don't think I'll miss the loss of the 1/2000th shutter speed if I can just have a mechanical unit. Helen Highwater posted:Spotmatic? It has electronics but only for the lightmeter, everything else is all mechanical. It's pretty svelte too compared to later SLR bodies and there's a poo poo ton of amazing M42 glass around. I have an SP1000 that I'm currently loaning out to a friend. It's my first SLR that was given to me at age 10 and it's a workhorse. I did not however loan out my Super Takumar with the body because it's a beauty of a lens.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2020 15:13
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:New arrival! Bought a whole R kit and was going to resell it all, but yikesaroo, this might stick around for a bit. Holy poo poo what a heavy little bastard, and what a viewfinder... Nice. How is the 35mm summicron R? Cacator posted:Pan F+ developed in Rodinal on a Fuji mini Tiara. Bumped up the clarity and contrast a little in Lightroom, I have no clue on how to do those things during development yet. Sometimes I struggle to see a point to using PANF rather than FP4 unless longer exposure times are needed, but there is a slightly softer and more ‘classic’ look -while retaining g lots of detail- that I feel like it has (post processing clarity slider aside).
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2020 05:16
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Nice. How is the 35mm summicron R? Ha, I had a bunch of Pan F that a friend sold to me for cheap, normally I would go for something a little more versatile too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2020 08:01
|
|
|
OP has an outdated (404) amazon list of supplies to get started with development; is there a newer equivalent goon approved kit list anywhere?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2020 04:57
|
|
|
trashy owl posted:OP has an outdated (404) amazon list of supplies to get started with development; is there a newer equivalent goon approved kit list anywhere? Most of the stuff is pretty generic, you don't need to worry about one brand vs another with the exception of the tank. You will want: A measuring jug that measures up to about a litre in 50ml increments. Can be glass or plastic. A smaller measuring cup that can measure up to 50ml in 1ml increments. Can be glass or plastic. A darkbag or dark tent. Buy a large one rather than the small sizes. A resealable, airtight 1 litre glass jar for your fixer solution. Can be clear or coloured glass. If you are using powder dev kits, then you'll also want a resealable, airtight, brown/amber glass jar for your developer stock solution. A tank. There are two good brands that you'll find everywhere, Jobo and Paterson. Buy one of those in a size that seems reasonable for the volume of film you'll be likely to want to process at once. The standard Paterson tank has two adjustable reels in it and can do 1x120 film or 2x135 at the same time. My experience with no-brand tanks from Aliexpress is that they are not very light-tight. If you are doing C41 or E6 dev then also add the following. Additional airtight, resealable 1l jars for your blix, stab and whatever other baths come with your dev kit of choice. A sous-vide machine. Pick a brand, mine is a cheap no-label $30 machine from Lazada. Clean your glassware thoroughly before using it and label it clearly. You can use the same tank, bag and measuring equipment for all of your different dev processes, but you'll obviously need a separate set of jars for all the chems.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2020 05:40
|
|
|
this is gonna be debatable but I think Rodinal is the best developer in the modern era. The benefits of 1-shot chemistry (fresh mix every time, no replenishment, no contamination), a developer stock that is extremely storable and oxidation-resistant, multiple viable mix ratios for normal vs stand development, and established recipes for pretty much any film, it's a nobrainer. Rodinal does everything at least decent, is super easy to handle, stores forever, and you can do a lot of different techniques with one bottle. I did pretty much all of my controlled development (pushing, etc) with Rodinal and it worked great. Very consistent and predictable developer. Like, I actually used to not really look up specific recipes, as I recall Rodinal 1:100 will develop almost any film to normal in 1h, push +1 stop in 1h:30, and +2 in 2h. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 05:57 on Aug 17, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2020 05:54
|
|
|
Yeah, Rodinal would be my go-to for B&W for exactly those reasons. Unfortunately, here in SE Asia, the only chemistry that's widely available is Ilford LC29 or HC. LC29 isn't bad but it's slower than Rodinal and there are some gaps in the Massive Dev Chart with figuring out dev times for some uncommon emulsions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2020 06:12
|
|
|
But also, HC-110 is good too. I keep Rodinal on hand for anything 100 iso or lower and HC-110 for over that. Rodinal gives apparent sharpness as it doesn't destroy crystal structure but can highlight grain, whearas HC-110 will soften hard edges and keep granier films looking a bit smoother. It also has a shelf life of forever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2020 07:13
|
|
|
I’ve hosed up the least with Rodinal. Like it a lot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2020 08:41
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:this is gonna be debatable but I think Rodinal is the best developer in the modern era. The benefits of 1-shot chemistry (fresh mix every time, no replenishment, no contamination), a developer stock that is extremely storable and oxidation-resistant, multiple viable mix ratios for normal vs stand development, and established recipes for pretty much any film, it's a nobrainer. Rodinal does everything at least decent, is super easy to handle, stores forever, and you can do a lot of different techniques with one bottle. Rodinal is good but I like the results I get from HC-110 more and it has all of the same benefits you list minus what you're saying about Rodinal 1:100.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2020 15:58
|
|
|
I like d-76 and I shoot enough film to follow their mixing and degradation guidelines without worry
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2020 16:40
|
|
|
So my Olympus XA2 underexposes everything now. Like I can set it to ISO 25 and shoot it in a dark room and the shutter is open for half a second max. I've replaced the batteries and cleaned the contacts off and I don't really know what else to do. The stupid things are going for like $100 on ebay now which seems crazy so I don't really want to buy another one. Does anyone know something else I can try?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2020 03:05
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:So my Olympus XA2 underexposes everything now. Like I can set it to ISO 25 and shoot it in a dark room and the shutter is open for half a second max. I've replaced the batteries and cleaned the contacts off and I don't really know what else to do. The stupid things are going for like $100 on ebay now which seems crazy so I don't really want to buy another one. Does anyone know something else I can try? If you adjust ISO while looking through this little plastic "window", do you see anything happen in there? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 20:31
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:If you adjust ISO while looking through this little plastic "window", do you see anything happen in there? Yeah it looks like something is moving in there, but it's hard to see exactly since the plastic cover is a bubble.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2020 15:17
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:Yeah it looks like something is moving in there, but it's hard to see exactly since the plastic cover is a bubble. Well, something should be moving so that part's alright then. Basically it's a hole / group of holes that gradually block off light to the CdS cell to compensate for the ISO change. Does it underexpose consistently, and approx by how much?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2020 19:53
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:Well, something should be moving so that part's alright then. Basically it's a hole / group of holes that gradually block off light to the CdS cell to compensate for the ISO change. Yeah I shot a roll and it was fine at the beginning and by the end it looked maybe about 2 or 3 stops under. So I thought it was the batteries fading, so I put new batteries in and then shot another roll and the entire roll was under except shots with the flash looked ok. Also every once in a while the shutter release just doesn't work. Like the battery check thing works the lights in the viewfinder works, but the button just doesn't go. So it's got problems. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2020 16:32
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:Yeah I shot a roll and it was fine at the beginning and by the end it looked maybe about 2 or 3 stops under. So I thought it was the batteries fading, so I put new batteries in and then shot another roll and the entire roll was under except shots with the flash looked ok. The shutter button is a pretty common problem area on the XA models. Easy to address though: https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137072 The underexposure is weird. Most problems I can think of (aperture not stopping down fast enough, shutter dragging) would lead to overexposure.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2020 18:18
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:The shutter button is a pretty common problem area on the XA models. Easy to address though: I wonder if a capacitor or something is at the end of its life and there isn't enough power to keep the shutter open.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2020 20:44
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:I wonder if a capacitor or something is at the end of its life and there isn't enough power to keep the shutter open. I think the XA basically charges a capacitor via the CdS and once charged the shutter closes. Wouldn't a leaky cap just be slower to charge and cause longer shutter times = overexposure?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2020 21:01
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:I think the XA basically charges a capacitor via the CdS and once charged the shutter closes. Wouldn't a leaky cap just be slower to charge and cause longer shutter times = overexposure? I don't know, we're way outside my wheelhouse... just wildly speculating.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2020 22:30
|
|
|
Hello, lurker and occasional question asker here. Lately I've found myself spending a lot of money on developing film. Between my endeavors and my wife starting a photography MA during this pandemic we're shooting lots of 35 and 120. I haven't even touched the 4x5 yet due to developing costs. So my question is whether those LabBox type things are cost effective or what's the most cost effective way for basic C41 processing. I'm a reasonably handy person.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2020 15:33
|
|
|
The LabBox seems really expensive to me. I don't really know what it gets me that traditional tanks and reels don't, maybe someone else has better insight on that. Anyway, it's cheaper to just buy an old style stainless steel or plastic tank and reels. I like stainless steel more, but others like plastic. You can also buy bigger tanks and more reels so you can do more rolls at once which can be a big time saver.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2020 17:29
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:The LabBox seems really expensive to me. I don't really know what it gets me that traditional tanks and reels don't, maybe someone else has better insight on that. Anyway, it's cheaper to just buy an old style stainless steel or plastic tank and reels. I like stainless steel more, but others like plastic. You can also buy bigger tanks and more reels so you can do more rolls at once which can be a big time saver. It kind of looks like the typical Kickstarter project where you "reimagine" something that fixes an already well working process, make up some bullshit backstory, present it via a snazzy video and charge 300% more than it really ought to cost. I mean, for a couple hundred bucks you can probably score a used Jobo CPE2 and have full temp control and poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2020 19:19
|
|
|
The juicero of film developing lol.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2020 21:52
|
|
|
King of Bees posted:The juicero of film developing lol. Lol. Holy cow.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2020 21:55
|
|
|
King of Bees posted:The juicero of film developing lol. Lol that is so succinct. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2020 21:58
|
|
|
King of Bees posted:The juicero of film developing lol. Lmao fuckin spot on But yeah it's not too hard to develop yourself for 35 or 120. Changing bag, Paterson tank, chemicals, beakers, a funnel or two, and some gloves. Total will probably run about $100-150 usd. I guess you'll also need a thermometer for C41 if you don't have one already, or better yet a sous vide but those get pricey. Worth it if you enjoy cooking though!
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2020 22:07
|
|
|
I have a sous vide and you have my attention! Does b and h or adorama have some kind of "all in" kit that's recommended?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2020 22:11
|
|
|
King of Bees posted:I have a sous vide and you have my attention! Does b and h or adorama have some kind of "all in" kit that's recommended? Idk. I’ve used a few kits from the usual brands you find online and haven’t had any issues. I usually just look for the cheapest.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2020 23:39
|
|
|
King of Bees posted:I have a sous vide and you have my attention! Does b and h or adorama have some kind of "all in" kit that's recommended? Film Photography Project has a variety of chemicals and stuff in their store, they have an all in one kit for C41 but it seems sold out. They have a how-to video on developing yourself, too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osIYS7mayEE Tldr you need a developer and a blix (bleach + fixer) that are heated to a specific temperature, that's where the sous vide helps. After that you use a stabilizer and give it a wash and you're good to go.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2020 00:07
|
|
|
While we're on about misguided attempts at being lazier, are the Plustek film scanners universally just not as good as a flatbed? Flatbeds are so big 
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2020 08:03
|
|
|
Filmscanner.info does nice resolution tests. Probably the only good resource actually. https://www.filmscanner.info/en/FilmscannerTestberichte.html The V500 is about 1700 dpi and the V700 is about 2000 dpi actual resolution. The other models are just cosmetic updates (although V600 does move to a bigger film holder for 120) or software packages, they don’t change the optical path. This is actually not particularly high and they often have flatness issues as well. Good CCD film scanners can get 3000+.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2020 08:14
|
|
|
trashy owl posted:While we're on about misguided attempts at being lazier, are the Plustek film scanners universally just not as good as a flatbed? Flatbeds are so big I use a Reflecta Crystalscan 7200. It is pretty small, easy to use, and gets you around 3300 dpi resolution.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2020 09:56
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Filmscanner.info does nice resolution tests. Probably the only good resource actually. For reference the sensor of the sony A7RII I use to 'scan' my film has a pixel pitch equivalent of about 5600 dpi, so that's about what I get using a 1:1 macro lens when scanning 35mm. Of course the macro lens isn't optically perfect and you have to deal with all the issues inherent in camera scanning like having a good light source and colour management if you're scanning colour negs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2020 09:57
|
|
|
Also note that if you scan MF frames at anything north of 2400dpi, you get comically huge files. If I don't rein it in, my V600 tries to give me ~170MB tiffs for 6x9 frames.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2020 10:27
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:they often have flatness issues as well. Can confirm.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2020 14:30
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:Also note that if you scan MF frames at anything north of 2400dpi, you get comically huge files. If I don't rein it in, my V600 tries to give me ~170MB tiffs for 6x9 frames. So true. I love my v600 along with some glass inserts. It was refurb from b and h and cost about 150 and another 50 for the glass. Our local processor charges ten bux a roll for 35/120 processing only and their scan prices are a joke. Unfortunately we've had to use them because of turn around time due to classwork. I've been doing all our scans for a while now to cut that cost out and now I'm going to pull the trigger and start processing at home. I figure it will pay for itself right quickly and will have a short learning curve for our needs. *famous last words*
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2020 16:26
|
|
|
Scanning at higher resolutions does increase quality though, eg on the Epsons a scan at 3200 will produce more resolution than a scan at 2400 even though the optical resolution of the scanner is really only 1600-2000 depending. 2400 is "missing" some of the resolution. If you are worried about file size then resize downwards to an integer multiple (eg scan at 3200, resize to 1600 dpi). Note that on the Epsons this does not apply to 6400 because the scanner doesn't actually do 6400, it is "interpolating" upwards in software afterwards. You're better off scanning at 3200 and letting Lightroom handle all the resizing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2020 17:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 22:51 |
|
|
King of Bees posted:So true. I love my v600 along with some glass inserts. It was refurb from b and h and cost about 150 and another 50 for the glass. Our local processor charges ten bux a roll for 35/120 processing only and their scan prices are a joke. Unfortunately we've had to use them because of turn around time due to classwork. I've been doing all our scans for a while now to cut that cost out and now I'm going to pull the trigger and start processing at home. I figure it will pay for itself right quickly and will have a short learning curve for our needs. *famous last words* Honestly home developing isn't THAT hard - use a couple test rolls first to ensure you have the process down, then you'll be golden. The problem with home development is laziness will absolutely kick in when you have like 3 rounds of developing you need to do still and you really don't want to spend the next hour sitting there watching timers and poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2020 17:04
|
|