|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2020 15:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 08:28 |
|
|
The last sheet of Ektachrome that I exposed a few weeks ago, didn't process it until now because I couldn't be bothered developing a single sheet. I decided to today as a test for my Chromabox automatic developer, which was a good idea because it uncovered an issue with a flowmeter in the machine I have always been suspicious of. So the developing wasn't perfect and was a bit of a nightmare but got an ok image out of it. This was a 60 second exposure a little before sunrise.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2020 08:29
|
|
|
Megabound fucked around with this message at 13:58 on Oct 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2020 12:05
|
|
|
Haven't shot photos in ages. Decided to break out the 500C/M for my trip to Maine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2020 00:41
|
|
|
birds posted:Haven't shot photos in ages. Decided to break out the 500C/M for my trip to Maine. This is great! Also, I swear to god this is almost the exact same shot as one from the opening sequence of Moonrise Kingdom.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2020 07:28
|
|
|
I hope this is kosher, if not I'll remove it. I have a basic Speed Graphic setup listed in the buy/sell thread, if anybody wants to get into 4x5 for not too much money.  https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3759085&pagenumber=47#post509263499
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2020 18:56
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2020 07:48
|
|
|
Three sheets of Ektar from the weekend. Overcast drizzly day but I think it really brought out the colours of the trees and didn't hurt the waterfalls at all.  
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2020 08:21
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2020 11:12
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2020 17:15
|
|
|
Noob noob here again. I just got a roll of XP2 back, and I noticed that one end is curled like this Is this a property of XP2 or did the lab mess up?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2020 19:21
|
|
|
theHUNGERian posted:Noob noob here again. I just got a roll of XP2 back, and I noticed that one end is curled like this Not really messed up. It's probably the way they dev'd it, something to do with how they put it through a machine or hung it etc. There's always a bit of a curve you just have to flatten it out a bit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2020 19:27
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:Not really messed up. It's probably the way they dev'd it, something to do with how they put it through a machine or hung it etc. There's always a bit of a curve you just have to flatten it out a bit. Cool, thanks. Fortunately it only impacted the edge of one frame, and it was a lovely picture anyway. Another noob noob update: The RZ67 is tons of fun.    I'm not especially happy about the background sky, but that's the hand I was dealt.    
theHUNGERian fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Nov 8, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2020 19:51
|
|
|
 Astroturf by Cacator, on Flickr Cacator fucked around with this message at 23:02 on Nov 15, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 08:54
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2020 00:13
|
|
|
Those are both extremely nice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2020 04:16
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2020 19:29
|
|
|
^ Very nice! What film did you use? Is there a camera bag that will carry an RZ67 + befree tripod + 2 lenses (one already attached to body) + 2-3 backs + light meter? I feel that a backpack (not a shoulder bag) would be best. Protection from light rain would be a bonus.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2020 01:32
|
|
|
theHUNGERian posted:^ Very nice! What film did you use? Top one is Ektar 100, bottom is Portra 400 for like a 2s-4s exposure after sunset. Photography bags are just stupidly expensive. I've been using a Shimoda Explore 30L for hiking, let me see if I can take pictures of setting up my bag with a bunch of poo poo inside of it when I get a minute to set everything up. Basically you're going to want to look for a backpack that has an internal camera unit. I used to use a normal backpack with a pouch that I would stuff my camera into and it was super annoying having to dig through the bag and pull it out, then put it back in. You definitely pay a premium for easy access to your camera but you'll be taking your camera out more.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2020 21:28
|
|
|
https://www.walimex-webshop.com/en/mantona-photo-backpack-luis-black-retro.html I have one of these which I really like, I think you should be able to fit that gear in there. Comes with a rain cover. Not sure exactly how gigantic an RZ67 is but I have no problems fitting my m645 with an extra lens.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2020 23:44
|
|
|
Alright so here's how I've got my lenses + tripod for the heaviest possible pack I can come up with: The 67ii doesn't have any film backs but I've got 3 lenses in there, including a giant telephoto. I've also got a lightmeter and a blower tucked inside. The bag above the camera unit has things like spare batteries, film memo labels, a b/w color filter, and a cable release (usually this ends up in the same pocket as the blower too). I carry film on in a separate top pouch of the bag with all my other goodies (snacks/wallet/keys) since I only need to access it every now and then. You can see my tripod head poking out at the top, there's an entire side pocket along the side of the bag that I just stuff it into and then I strap it along the side of the pack so it's nice and secure. Also, it's very water resistant, I've never had water in any pouch the whole time I've used it so I've never bothered with a rain cover. It's small enough to fit into an overhead compartment if you want to use it for travelling. Before buying the bag I looked at multiple bags and their internal camera unit dimensions. Then I laid out all of my gear into a grid and measured them out to check it would fit inside, leaving a little space between components for the internal dividers. If you have the RZ67 with the WLF you probably won't have to worry about height, but if you are using the prism you might need something really deep.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2020 01:10
|
|
|
Printing this tonight, the sharpness from an enlarging compared to my V600 scans is ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2020 01:32
|
|
|
cerious posted:Alright so here's how I've got my lenses + tripod for the heaviest possible pack I can come up with: Cool, thanks. As much as I would love in-camera metering, I value precise focusing more, so I am sticking with the WLF. And once I started actually using it, I realized that the WLF is the single coolest thing about MF. Being able to use both eyes while focusing loving rules.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2020 18:33
|
|
|
I have a pentax 67 and have used both the WLF and the metered prism and I have to say that for the way the camera works and holds (basically a big SLR) I think it's better with a metered prism/normal prism - other cameras like TLRs and hassleblads make more sense to me with a WLF. I enjoyed the WLF but I really enjoy being able to lift my camera up to shoot over a fence or whatnot or high on a tripod. If I had a different MF camera I'd buy a lightmeter and probably use a WLF. I can't remember if the focusing was easier on the WLF but it definitely can be a pain with the prism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2020 20:54
|
|
|
Whenever I've got the WLF on the Kiev 60 I always catch myself bringing it up to my eye. Just the shape of the thing triggers SLR muscle memory.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2020 23:16
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:I have a pentax 67 and have used both the WLF and the metered prism and I have to say that for the way the camera works and holds (basically a big SLR) I think it's better with a metered prism/normal prism - other cameras like TLRs and hassleblads make more sense to me with a WLF. I've got a WLF too and it's fun every once in a while. It's a bit more of a pain since the prism is already in landscape orientation so trying to rotate to take portrait orientation pictures isn't very easy, unlike the RB/RZ where you just rotate the back or the 6x6 where it doesn't matter. However you can really nail focus with the magnifier, a bit better than the prisms, and you also get 100% coverage instead of 90% or so. But yeah I generally like shooting with the prism more since I'm doing stuff more on-the-go. It's just nice that it was only $100 to play around with a medium format WLF instead of having to buy a whole new camera.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 00:22
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 14:20
|
|
|
After my first 6 rolls of film were developed by a remote lab without issues, this idiot tried out a local lab for a somewhat faster turn-around. Both rolls (Portra and Pro 400H) are curled which makes scanning even more annoying. I noticed that unlike the old lab, this new lab did not give me a flat envelope with my film stored in it. Instead, the film was rolled up in a box with radius of curvature of ~2 inches. Is this sufficient to incur a permanent curl to the film? Or did the first lab do something special to not make the film curl up?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 19:46
|
|
|
theHUNGERian posted:After my first 6 rolls of film were developed by a remote lab without issues, this idiot tried out a local lab for a somewhat faster turn-around. Both rolls (Portra and Pro 400H) are curled which makes scanning even more annoying. I noticed that unlike the old lab, this new lab did not give me a flat envelope with my film stored in it. Instead, the film was rolled up in a box with radius of curvature of ~2 inches. Is this sufficient to incur a permanent curl to the film? Or did the first lab do something special to not make the film curl up? My medium format usually came back rolled up. Seems to flatten out ok.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 20:03
|
|
|
ImplicitAssembler posted:My medium format usually came back rolled up. Seems to flatten out ok. I stuck them in a heavy book and will see if that will flatten them out again. I should have done this right after picking them up from the lab (rather than leave them curled up in the box). Edit: Results from my first session without using a camera as a meter, but instead using an actual light meter. I messed up many frames, but I fortunately realized my error (metering at half box speed AND metering the blacks) soon enough. I also managed to get a pleasant shot using Fuji Pro400H.   Terribly over exposed. I need to revisit this one:   I should have included the full porta potty on the far left. Also worthy of a revisit: 
theHUNGERian fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Dec 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 21:00
|
|
|
Just received my 907X. Nothing interesting, just thought I'd post the first shot out of this camera attached to my 500C/M. Any softness is probably due to the vintage 80mm + my inability to focus on my dog. Taking some getting used to but it's pretty neat.
birds fucked around with this message at 05:21 on Dec 6, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2020 05:08
|
|
|
Looks good. Wouldn’t have necessarily guessed that it was digital. I know the horizontal angle of view of the hasselblad 80mm on 6x6 120 film is roughly equivalent to a 50mm on 2.4x3.6 135 film or FF digital. What is it on the new digital back’s sensor? Like 70mm on FF?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2020 19:19
|
|
|
60mm or so I think. It didn’t come with the mask for the viewfinder though so it’s a total guessing game until I order that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 01:15
|
|
|
ImplicitAssembler posted:My medium format usually came back rolled up. Seems to flatten out ok. I put my rolls inside a heavy book and put some weights on top for 24+ hours, still curly. I'll ask the lab if there are any special instructions I need to give them in order to deliver flat negatives. I am going back to the first lab if they can't deliver.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 02:19
|
|
|
Developed the first shot from my Busch Pressman 2x3 today. This is Kodak X Plus 125 that was inside the Adapt-A-Roll 620 adapter when I bought it. There were 3.5 frames left on the roll. I metered for ASA 50, not knowing what film I was shooting. None of the previous owner's shots came out unfortunately. Good to know this thing works and my bellows patching seems to have worked I guess? I'm assuming that's fogging from film stored in an attic for decades, rather than light leak. I just shot a roll of Portra 400 so we'll see how that looks when I get it back from the lab.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 03:49
|
|
|
theHUNGERian posted:I put my rolls inside a heavy book and put some weights on top for 24+ hours, still curly. I'll ask the lab if there are any special instructions I need to give them in order to deliver flat negatives. I am going back to the first lab if they can't deliver. Note that some films are just more curly than others. What film are you using? rockear posted:Developed the first shot from my Busch Pressman 2x3 today. This is Kodak X Plus 125 that was inside the Adapt-A-Roll 620 adapter when I bought it. There were 3.5 frames left on the roll. I metered for ASA 50, not knowing what film I was shooting. None of the previous owner's shots came out unfortunately. Good to know this thing works and my bellows patching seems to have worked I guess? I'm assuming that's fogging from film stored in an attic for decades, rather than light leak. I just shot a roll of Portra 400 so we'll see how that looks when I get it back from the lab. If the fogging goes across the film even between frames, it could be due to old chemicals as well. I had similar fogging when I developed a roll of 120 with old fixer. CodfishCartographer fucked around with this message at 05:00 on Dec 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 04:58
|
|
|
Thanks for the tip. This whole roll came out almost black, so I imagine at some point the holder was opened and exposed to light. If something similar happens on the next roll I develop I'll know what to suspect though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 07:49
|
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted:Note that some films are just more curly than others. What film are you using? Portra 400 and Pro400H. Both had been through Lab 1 and came out flat as a board, while both came back curly from Lab 2. So I am blaming the lab.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 14:58
|
|
|
film spends most of its life curled tightly around a reel
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 17:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 08:28 |
|
|
When you get the film roll back, just flip it around and roll it back up, and after an hour you’ll be about 95% of the way there
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 17:48
|
|
