|
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* Which inserts are you using? I’ve tried to contact the Better Scanning dude but haven’t heard back from him. Of course you can’t simply buy the goddamn holders from him—you have to email and ask to be contacted.
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2020 17:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 12:44 |
|
|
President Beep posted:Which inserts are you using? I’ve tried to contact the Better Scanning dude but haven’t heard back from him. Of course you can’t simply buy the goddamn holders from him—you have to email and ask to be contacted. That's the guy. I got them before the pandemic and even then it took like five weeks from start to arrival. They make a big diff especially with 35 imo
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2020 17:37
|
|
|
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. I stitch two 42 MP shots together when scanning my 4x5 sheets and even at that point you can't see the grain yet but you could in theory enlarge up to crazy sizes without losing any detail. It actually feels a bit stupid shooting 4x5 and only ever showing my photos online or printed up to A3 sometimes, it would be cool to see one really huge sometime. In the case of velvia I've actually had to exposure bracket and combine the photos into a HDR image in lightroom to actually capture all the detail. I've found that velvia despite having super dense shadows actually holds a surprising amount of information in there, to the point where my digital camera can't get the whole range in one exposure.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2020 20:03
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Filmscanner.info does nice resolution tests. Probably the only good resource actually. There is one difference - the V500/V700/V750 have a CCFL backlight, whereas the V600/V800/V850 have an LED backlight. I don't know how much of a difference this makes for typical use, but after nearly a decade of frequent use I definitely notice my V700 taking much longer to warm up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2020 23:42
|
|
|
WELP...wife went ahead and ordered the lab box lol. Seriously. I'll.let you know how it goes
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2020 00:50
|
|
|
So we tried the lab box with some one step b w developer it came with and theoretically the system is pretty cool. In practice the 120 didn't seat right onto the reel and the whole roll was wasted by the film winding tight around the hub. There was no way to tell that had happened until the rinse step. Luckily it was a practice roll and nothing important was lost. Doing some inquiries it seems a pretty common problem with 120 and is a combo of user error and poor design and instructions and it really doesn't happen with 35 (but I'm sure I can find a way). Had it been my purchase I probably would've just got tanks. But since it's here we'll figure it out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 20:24
|
|
|
So, film squeegee y/n?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 20:24
|
|
|
King of Bees posted:So, film squeegee y/n? No squeegee since they can scratch the film. Just use your fingers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 20:30
|
|
|
i just use photo flo and let it drip
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 20:57
|
|
|
How does that work (in the process procedure), pros cons, how much does it take?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 21:11
|
|
|
Photo-flo is done after final rinse, 1:200 and I just let it sit for 30sec.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 21:32
|
|
|
Thanks all, just ordered some.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 22:16
|
|
|
Anyone here have experience with an Omega D-II enlarger (note, not the D-2, which is apparently distinct!)? I was using a community darkroom nearby, but since it doesn't seem like that'll ever open again i've been considering picking up an enlarger to print at home. I'm primarily going to be printing 6x9 negatives, so I think that gives me the D-II, D2, Beseler 45, or Beseler 23C as my best options. There's a D-II nearby for $50, but it looks like i'd probably need to source a 105mm lens and a 6x9 negative carrier. Should I go for it, or am I better off waiting for a Beseler to show up, since it's a little more adaptable between formats? From reading a bit it seems like there are a lot more 'gotchas' in terms of parts i'd need with the D-II.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 00:09
|
|
|
I recently started a darkroom thread that's gotten no posts but: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3938540 Enlarger lenses are cheap and plentiful so I wouldn't worry about those. The hardest parts to source would be the enlarger specific hardware, which you can find part numbers for here. You're also going to need to know what head is on it so you can get the right diffusors/condensers for the the lenses you'll be using. From that page there it looks like the heads will be condenser types, condensers will give more apparent sharpness by giving a higher base level of contrast but as the light is highly collimated you'll have to be more careful with dust and spotting. Personally I'd go for an enlarger with a colour diffusor style head so you can forgo the Ilford multigrade filters and have less apparent dust. Another option of machine that may or may not be common around where you are would be a Durst M700/M800, which only do up to 6x9. The mixing boxes only came in 6x6 or 6x9 so they're easier to find for those formats and the negative carrier has blades like an easel so you don't need to worry about multiple masks or multiple carriers when changing format.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 00:30
|
|
|
frogbs posted:Anyone here have experience with an Omega D-II enlarger (note, not the D-2, which is apparently distinct!)? They are pretty huge but very solid enlargers. Used one for about a decade in my home darkroom setup. Had a condenser head for it and some El-Nikkor lenses. Loved that beast.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2020 19:38
|
|
|
I'm going to develop some very old found film soon that came inside some gear I bought. Wondering if anyone has tips on that. Only one roll of Verichrome Pan in 620. The lady I bought it from said it's definitely no newer than the '60s, as the camera it accompanied was given to her at that time and she never used it. Judging from the found film on Flickr Verichrome Pan seems to have pretty exceptional image retention over the decades, so if I don't screw it up I'm hoping there's something there. Lots of conflicting advice online on how to approach it though. The only developer I have on hand is D76, which some people say works fine, but others say they'll come out foggy. I was thinking of getting some HC110 and stand developing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 18:44
|
|
|
I'd do Rodinal stand for 2 hours (which will give you a +2 push development). HC110 stand is fine too but not sure if there are standard push development times and temps, Rodinal is a known quantity for push development.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 19:31
|
|
|
I would just use Diafine on it, give it 4-5 mins in A then same in B, minimal agitation (maybe three twisty inversions at the beginning, then just an inversion a minute or so). Diafine will yank a usable image out of just about anything no matter how old or weirdly exposed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 20:02
|
|
|
Thanks guys I will look into both of those approaches. I've been perusing this guy's website today, as I live in CA and the air is poison right now. Lot's of Verichrome Pan pulled out of old box cameras that comes out well. I wish he gave more details of his process. He also never differentiates between original recipe Verichrome and the Pan, and they're completely different emulsions. http://westfordcomp.com/updated/found.htm
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 20:50
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:I would just use Diafine on it, give it 4-5 mins in A then same in B, minimal agitation (maybe three twisty inversions at the beginning, then just an inversion a minute or so). Diafine will yank a usable image out of just about anything no matter how old or weirdly exposed. yeah actually diafine is probably better.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 21:00
|
|
|
rockear posted:Thanks guys I will look into both of those approaches. I've been perusing this guy's website today, as I live in CA and the air is poison right now. Lot's of Verichrome Pan pulled out of old box cameras that comes out well. I wish he gave more details of his process. He also never differentiates between original recipe Verichrome and the Pan, and they're completely different emulsions. Also be aware that in early 1965, Kodak updated the Verichrome Pan emulsion, and there are slightly-but-meaningfully different development times between the two. Pre-1965 stickers are yellow; post-change stickers are white and have a warning about new development times. The difference is basically nil for these recover-things-after-decades projects, but it'll help you figure out (about) when they were taken.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 21:10
|
|
|
Good to know, thanks. I have the pre-'65 recipe, it would appear.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 21:53
|
|
|
How price sensitive are yellow and orange filters quality-wise? I know one shouldn’t cheap out on NDs, polarizers, etc.; does the same go for film-centric filters? I really need to pick a few up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2020 18:08
|
|
|
I'm curious about that too. Oh and I developed that roll of found film and there was nothing on it.  Just developed my first roll of HP4+ and I love it.  
rockear fucked around with this message at 18:31 on Sep 12, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2020 18:25
|
|
|
Optically, would it make sense to have try and have an optician make a custom loupe for my TLR/astigmatic right eye ? I don't usually wear contacts and shooting with glasses on is miserable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 13:00
|
|
|
unpacked robinhood posted:Optically, would it make sense to have try and have an optician make a custom loupe for my TLR/astigmatic right eye ? Do you have an old pair of glasses that they could use to just grind the lens down into shape?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 13:19
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:Do you have an old pair of glasses that they could use to just grind the lens down into shape? Yeah, but it wouldn't do the magnifying part, would it ?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 13:45
|
|
|
unpacked robinhood posted:Yeah, but it wouldn't do the magnifying part, would it ? Oh, yeah of course. Sorry.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 14:16
|
|
|
I don't know who else like taking a gamble on old camera auctions but goodwill's auction site has some beasts right now like: https://www.shopgoodwill.com/Item/104382576 and this https://www.shopgoodwill.com/Item/104101904 I have had pretty good luck with their auctions so far including stellar deals on a 'blad 500c with accessories, a german rollei SL35 with zeiss lenses and two beseler topcon superd's with the awesome topcor 58mm. I've also had some duds as well, but always in the cheap range on impulse buys, like a canonette QL17 that's all locked up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 21:13
|
|
|
I got my my EOS A2E from Goodwill’s auction site. Love that camera. Oddly enough I found the vertical grip for it via another auction there too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2020 00:05
|
|
|
Its a rabbit hole of temptations
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2020 00:54
|
|
|
I really like the tonality of Acros. Is there anything comparable in a faster speed? Is Acros worth pushing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2020 01:05
|
|
|
I'm a big fan of Acros II and like JCH Street Pan 400 and TMax 400 as well, comparisons: Acros II  TMax 400  Street Pan  Street Pan is a bit pickier with its exposure latitude, so it needs more accurate metering than Acros or Tmax, but I appreciate them all for how they come out direct on negative, with a nice bit of contrast.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2020 01:37
|
|
|
I recently picked up some camera bags on an auction site, with the intention of storing my dslr; I ended up finding two slrs: an AE-1 Program and an A-1. Is there anything I should know if I want to start using them? I’ll be honest I’m pretty new to SLRs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2020 04:24
|
|
|
Youtube could be a great resource for you. David Hancock has videos on both of those cameras that will tell you pretty much everything there is to know about them. If these are too lengthy or dry there's a lot of shorter content on both of them as well. https://youtu.be/yyNv4fGTJ3I https://youtu.be/bX_wrlpljzk Also butkus.org has the pdf manuals for both of them I'm sure.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2020 05:59
|
|
|
Both are great film cameras. The AE-1 only has manual/shutter/auto modes The A-1 has manual/shutter/aperture/auto modes. Which gives you a bit more flexibility and should match the modes on whatever modern Dslr you already shoot with. Look them over for damage to the shutter/lens/mount etc... throw some batteries in and test the various modes with the back open to make sure the shutter and aperture controls are working correctly before throwing any film in. They can run on a stack of 4 lr44 batteries or a single 4lr44 battery which is a stack of 4 bundled as a single battery. You can buy batteries at Walmart but will pay a premium. If you search 4lr44 on Amazon you can get 10 of them for ~$6 shipped usually listed as dog collar batteries. If I remember correctly they use a touch contact on the shutter button to energize the electronics so the batteries will last forever even if you accidentally leave the camera power switch on. If one works and you enjoy shooting film you can fall down the rabbit hole of self developing which is cheap for black and white film especially if you fall down the rabbit hole of reloading film canisters with bulk film. If you poke around antique shops/flea markets/garage sales/Craigslist/Facebook marketplace you should be able to find crazy deals on FD mount lenses and film loading/development gear. I found a complete bulk loading/developing/full dark room enlarger setup with every thing for $100. Probably $1200 worth of gear and when I got there the lady had another $1000 worth of bulk film and photo paper she didn't even mention in the ad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2020 00:54
|
|
|
Christ on a stick, wanted to pick up a Summaron 35/2,8 to replace the one I stupidly sold. Prices are up 100-150% over just 3-4 years ago when it comes to Leica gear. Used to be able to get an M3 here for like 400-450 bucks, good loving luck finding one for even twice that unless it's a complete beater. Maybe it's time to sell stocks and buy vintage gear. Anything else going up like crazy in value?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2020 13:36
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:Christ on a stick, wanted to pick up a Summaron 35/2,8 to replace the one I stupidly sold. Prices are up 100-150% over just 3-4 years ago when it comes to Leica gear. Used to be able to get an M3 here for like 400-450 bucks, good loving luck finding one for even twice that unless it's a complete beater. 645 cameras in my experience of watching auctions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2020 14:14
|
|
|
King of Bees posted:645 cameras in my experience of watching auctions. 645 in general or particular brands/models? Been thinking about getting a Mamiya 645, perhaps I shouldn't wait too long. I managed to score a minty M4 this summer but that was mostly luck I think...
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2020 16:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 12:44 |
|
|
Yeah, the auto focus Mamiya 645 seems to be pretty pricey, and the RB/RZ is popular among the film Youtubers, so that's gonna go up in price too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2020 16:22
|
|