|
I want them to get to the point where they’re following the Gillette model, and each roll of film costs as much as a new Leica M6.
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 03:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 19:20 |
|
|
Kodak exists despite itself at this point, I feel they never have an understanding about the market they operate in.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 22:10
|
|
|
Maybe if they gently caress up their own poo poo enough they’ll perform corporate mitosis again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 00:34
|
|
|
I’ve stopped shooting developing and scanning so much film. In the past I’ve been completely spoiled here in Austin. Precision Camera’s photolab has a badass scanner and they generally do a really good job color correcting c35 negatives but still provide TIFFs for further adjustments. I wasn’t getting anything better out of DSLR or flatbed scanning. But it’s expensive and I don’t really want digital scans so much anymore, especially not for sharing online. I want to say that I’m ready to move forward with taking fewer photos and printing them myself. This is something I used to do with 35mm B&W in high school so I figure that’s a good thing to start with. Packed away from long ago, I have a Dust m301 head / lens / bulb and the stand that came with it, plus a bunch of 70mm color filter squares. Does anyone know some good resources to start re-learning this process and find out what else (besides a literal dark room) I need to get? Books of course, but maybe some YouTube videos? Also, how much harder is color printing from c41 negatives? I remember getting nice 8x10s with Tri-X, doing some dodging and burning, etc.. In terms of technical difficulty, is color printing pretty much the same basic process except no safelight? Could I get good color results with that Durst 301, perhaps with a particular bulb and a better lens than the single coated isco that it came with?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2023 19:45
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:I’ve stopped shooting developing and scanning so much film. In the past I’ve been completely spoiled here in Austin. Precision Camera’s photolab has a badass scanner and they generally do a really good job color correcting c35 negatives but still provide TIFFs for further adjustments. I wasn’t getting anything better out of DSLR or flatbed scanning. The Naked Photographer on Youtube is a good darkroom channel, I'm sure other people will have some good recs. You also used to trip over an old darkroom book or two every time you went to a thrift store or similar, that info would all still be good. One nice thing about the modern world is that red LEDs will probably be paper safe, which is nice because they'll be cheaper and easier to find than a proper safe light. Do test it first to be sure. Ilford makes a pop up darkroom tent which I have, it's pretty well made (well, they kinda cheaped out on the carry bag, but the tent and poles feel very solid and robust). If you are on a budget and have the space, you can also buy a cheap 2m tall hydroponic grow tent on eBay and set that up in your garage/spare room (they're a bit of a pain to set up and pack so it really works best if you can leave it up as a semi-permanent thing). If you shorten the poles a little bit, you'll be able to flip it inside out so the reflective side is on the outside and black is on the inside. If you go this route, or just otherwise have a small space (mine is in a cramped utility closet), something I picked up from another YT video is using one of those plastic document filing drawers for your trays. 5 drawers seems to be most common, I put my developer in a proper 8x10 tray on top of it, then the top drawer is presoak, second one down is rinse, then stop, then another rinse, then fix, then it goes into an off-grid sink* for a quick rinse. Most have little catches at the back so you don't accidentally yank them all the way out, I melted them off with a soldering iron so it's easier to remove the drawers when you go to dump the chems. *You probably already know this, but just in case: you don't actually need a sink with running water in a darkroom, just enough to do a quick rinse after fixing. You can wash your prints in daylight, I do mine in the bathtub downstairs. For the darkroom rinse, I rigged something up using two jerry cans (one up on a shelf to supply the water, the other on the floow to collect it) and an old sink I got at the junkyard and made a crude frame for. A tray is probably fine if you change the water semi-regularly, this just makes the rinse easier, and makes it easy to dispose of waste chemistry.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2023 20:27
|
|
|
Has anyone gotten pushback from TSA asking for film to be hand checked recently? Particularly at MDW or SAN? Trying to figure out if I need to account for extra time to deal with that on a trip next week.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2023 20:49
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Also, how much harder is color printing from c41 negatives? I remember getting nice 8x10s with Tri-X, doing some dodging and burning, etc.. In terms of technical difficulty, is color printing pretty much the same basic process except no safelight? Could I get good color results with that Durst 301, perhaps with a particular bulb and a better lens than the single coated isco that it came with? We have a wet printing thread. I'm seconding The Naked Photographer as a great YT channel for learning printing. He's very matter of fact. C41 is a bit more involved than B&W and requires some extra gear. You have the additional step of dialling in your colour as well using CMY filters that require a colour head on your enlarger and you need a colour print inspection kit for identifying colour shift. You can get colour safe lights but they're usually very expensive. As for the advice above on the safety of LEDs The Naked Photographer has a video on testing different light sources and I wouldn't trust em. Get a real safe light with an Ilford 902 filter in it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2023 21:10
|
|
|
Emily Spinach posted:Has anyone gotten pushback from TSA asking for film to be hand checked recently? Particularly at MDW or SAN? Trying to figure out if I need to account for extra time to deal with that on a trip next week. Unless you're flying with 3200ISO film I don't think you have anything to worry about from passing it through the x-ray (if it's in your carry on). I pushed 400 to 1600 and that didn't have any problems either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2023 22:43
|
|
|
Thanks for the darkroom advice. Fortunately I have a garage with enough space to rig something up..
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2023 22:54
|
|
|
Cacator posted:Unless you're flying with 3200ISO film I don't think you have anything to worry about from passing it through the x-ray (if it's in your carry on). I pushed 400 to 1600 and that didn't have any problems either. Not true as all major airports/hubs have switched over to CT scanners and they damage film of all ISO speeds.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 01:05
|
|
|
VoodooXT posted:Not true as all major airports/hubs have switched over to CT scanners and they damage film of all ISO speeds. When was this? I flew through Newark in November with a shitload of film and didn't bother with a hand check.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 02:21
|
|
|
Cacator posted:When was this? I flew through Newark in November with a shitload of film and didn't bother with a hand check. Apparently it's been happening the past year. There was a huge discussion about it on other forums and people were reporting the major hubs were all CT scanners, with a few people testing whether the CT scanners destroyed only high ISO films and the consensus was no film was safe from CT scanners. EDIT: Apparently Kodak and Fujifilm put out something back in 2020 saying "yeah get your film handchecked if you see a CT scanner" VoodooXT fucked around with this message at 02:38 on Feb 1, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 02:36
|
|
|
I took a B&W darkroom class at the local art museum a while back and it was a blast. What sucks though is that it’s just about the only darkroom in the area and you have to be actively enrolled in a 12 week class or w/e to use it. Really wish there was one I could use ad hoc, but I don’t even know if something like that made sense during film’s heyday. I’ll probably just set up my own someday but I’ll probably also end up with too many prints due to not wanting to waste chemicals.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 03:01
|
|
|
The CT scanners don't cause a huge amount of damage, it's mostly noise and a slight base fog that can be edited around https://petapixel.com/2021/07/06/what-happens-if-your-film-goes-through-the-tsas-ct-scanners/ Now obviously no damage is better than running it through a scanner but unless you're really peeping (or using high ISO film) you should be able to edit around it. I had 2 camera loaded rolls go through 2 CT and 3 XRay on my last trip and they came out fine, 100 speed film. 120:  35: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 03:07
|
|
|
I’ve taken HP5 through four x-ray machines with no noticeable fogging. It’s also my understanding that poo poo gets nuked in checked baggage so go with the former for sure.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 03:14
|
|
|
Do the lead-lined bags they sell for carrying film through airports help at all? I've always wondered about those. It seems like an easy way to get pulled aside and have your luggage gone through tbh.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 04:02
|
|
|
They probably work. But as soon as the xray operator detects a bag they can’t see through you can bet you’ll then be getting your film checked by hand but they’re gonna be pissed about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 04:16
|
|
|
this shot has a very nice contrast
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 05:33
|
|
|
ishikabibble posted:Do the lead-lined bags they sell for carrying film through airports help at all? I've always wondered about those. It seems like an easy way to get pulled aside and have your luggage gone through tbh. No, they just crank the power on the machine to see in anyway. eggsovereasy posted:this shot has a very nice contrast Thanks kindly
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 09:49
|
|
|
theHUNGERian posted:... newbie ramblings ... I finally sat down, thought things through, and did the curves for Delta 100 and 400. The big change I made was to add more developer as the spec sheet recommends 62.5 mL per roll of 120, and I had been using more like 45 mL per roll. Have not yet carefully checked for the staircase effect that I see in massively overexposed areas, but so far so good. My way of developing (DD-X, 1:5.3, rotary, 9 minutes, 20 C) results in Delta 100 being actually ISO 100, and Delta 400 being ISO 400. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2023 02:59
|
|
|
Holy poo poo. You are like the polar opposite of my slapdash (un)methodology. e: That being said, I have at least been adding development details to my film scans’ metadata. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2023 03:02
|
|
|
I used to like "meter at half box speed; meter highlights and shadows, average them", but then I noticed scratches on my negatives ... so I started developing my own film ... and things were not always working great with the highlights ... so I had to put in   I do photolithography as part of my work, so it was actually relatively straightforward. Edit: And I recently scored a 5-pack of BW400CN in 220 with an unknown storage history, so I wanted to test my method on cheaper film first. theHUNGERian fucked around with this message at 03:14 on Feb 6, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2023 03:08
|
|
|
 So, what happened here? The film had a few dark spots with these shadows (or the opposite I guess) of section of film over it. The spots would have been on the same line on the spiral I think. I had lots of trouble loading the film on the spiral since it has such a thin base so I'm guessing it didn't sit well on the spiral and the developer didn't get to all of it. Is that plausible? I loaded the tank in a bag so I don't think I accidentally exposed it at any point but it was such a frustrating process it's not 100% impossible. Did a stand development with another roll of the same film in the tank and that came out ok so I don't think there were any issues with that part. Some of this roll came out ok too. Edit. I checked the film again and I must have gotten some light on it through the sleeves of the bag somehow. Havana Affair fucked around with this message at 14:34 on Feb 22, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2023 12:16
|
|
|
Looks like the film was touching in that spot so the developer didn't get to it
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2023 12:35
|
|
|
It's been about a year since I developed any film. I shoot TX400 almost exclusively and tried Xtol then, developed maybe 4 rolls from that whole gallon batch of chemistry. I hear it keeps for maybe 6 months. I ran a test strip yesterday and yeah, the fully exposed leader was pretty thin. Got some of my old favorite developers on the way now. Some Diafine and Acufine. I have loved this stuff since I discovered it 25 years ago. Back then I shot mostly live music so everything I shot was pushed to 1250 or 1600 and dunked in one of these two developers. The prompt for all this personal film development revival is that I uncovered three daylight bulk loaders at the bottom of a box last weekend. I picked em up in DC at least 15 years ago and never touched them. They still have film loaded. Labeled "Tri-X," "Plux-X," and "Day." The test TX strip I did didn't seem fogged much but again I think my developer was bad. When I get fresh chemistry I'll test again and see what this daylight balanced color film is. I'm guessing some kind of Ektachrome according to the old tape labels visible under other tape layers on the other bulk loaders. Any recs from personal experience shooting decades old expired bulk reels like this? Especially the slide film. I do all of my own developing (B&W, C-41, E-6). Seems I have plenty of film to do some test exposures with to dial things in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2023 16:09
|
|
|
Odoyle posted:It's been about a year since I developed any film. I shoot TX400 almost exclusively and tried Xtol then, developed maybe 4 rolls from that whole gallon batch of chemistry. I hear it keeps for maybe 6 months. I ran a test strip yesterday and yeah, the fully exposed leader was pretty thin. Got some of my old favorite developers on the way now. Some Diafine and Acufine. I have loved this stuff since I discovered it 25 years ago. Back then I shot mostly live music so everything I shot was pushed to 1250 or 1600 and dunked in one of these two developers. I think the general rule for expired film is to overexpose by a stop for every decade it has been expired. Not sure if that applies to slide film though. I have a similar question! Someone is selling an unopened 100ft bulk roll of Kodak Panatomic-X that expired in 1980 that I'm picking up tomorrow. Googling around says this poo poo doesn't really expire partly because its such a slow speed film at 32 iso. Is that true? Can I just dev as if it was new?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2023 01:11
|
|
|
Diafine arrived today. I mixed it up and did the same test. Equally thin negatives. Rebate barely visible and the leader just as thin as with the old Xtol. Hmmm. I just assumed fogging was the big problem with expired stock. Apparently it’s both fog and reduced sensitivity. At least that’s what I reckon from this very limited experience.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2023 01:24
|
|
|
Ziggy Smalls posted:I have a similar question! Someone is selling an unopened 100ft bulk roll of Kodak Panatomic-X that expired in 1980 that I'm picking up tomorrow. Googling around says this poo poo doesn't really expire partly because its such a slow speed film at 32 iso. Is that true? Can I just dev as if it was new? Pretty much. I've shot Panatomic-X that expired in the 50s at 25 and it worked pretty much where I wanted it to (and I tend to overexpose print film a smidge as a matter of practice).
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2023 01:40
|
|
|
Does anyone know whether DS Colour Labs will process Fujichrome Velva 100? I've tried contacting them but they don't respond. Developing Velvia 100 is forbidden by the EPA in the US but I've got several rolls that need processing. It's been more difficult than I would have imagined to find a photolab that both processes E6 pictures and ships internationally.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2023 08:29
|
|
|
Ziggy Smalls posted:I think the general rule for expired film is to overexpose by a stop for every decade it has been expired. Not sure if that applies to slide film though. If you're doing bulk just roll up a 12 shot test roll and do a +1 +2 stop bracket, Dev to fresh instructions and see what comes out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2023 10:00
|
|
|
the Spain Virus posted:It's been more difficult than I would have imagined to find a photolab that both processes E6 pictures and ships internationally.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2023 18:59
|
|
|
Developing at home rules and if it’s practical and economical I 100% recommend it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2023 23:48
|
|
|
Odoyle posted:How averse are you to developing at home in your sink?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2023 23:59
|
|
|
the Spain Virus posted:Developing Velvia 100 is forbidden by the EPA in the US I had to look this up and holy poo poo, I didn’t know you couldn’t even process Velvia 100 anymore.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2023 00:26
|
|
|
What's special about Velvia 100? It's standard E6 process right? As far as i know. CeWe (Germany) and Fujifilm (The Netherlands) still develop it. Velvia 100 is not available for sale anymore, though. CeWe development is around 6 euro, Fujifilm via the Hema department store chain is 3,75. Fuji's "hema" development is of decent quality, always got great colors out of it, but there's a significant chance of long straight scratches. Almost all dutch photography shops send their E6 stuff to Fujifilm Steenbergen. Odoyle posted:The prompt for all this personal film development revival is that I uncovered three daylight bulk loaders at the bottom of a box last weekend. I picked em up in DC at least 15 years ago and never touched them. They still have film loaded. Labeled "Tri-X," "Plux-X," and "Day." The test TX strip I did didn't seem fogged much but again I think my developer was bad. When I get fresh chemistry I'll test again and see what this daylight balanced color film is. I'm guessing some kind of Ektachrome according to the old tape labels visible under other tape layers on the other bulk loaders. I've shot 10 year expired, non-cold stored 400 iso slide film and it came out somewhat flat with low density in the blacks. I have the slides somewhere, but haven't yet scanned them. If you got a lot of it, it's worth experimenting with your development to dial it in. I also tried to get 40 year expired Agfachrome E6 developed at the dev plant, but they did not believe it was e6 (it really was!) and refused to develop. E4 in E6 chemistry ruins the chemistry because the emulsion requires hardener. I also have a daylight bulk loader with about 30 year old Tri-X (edge marking says kodak safety film 5063) in it. I shot it at 200, develop Rodinal 1:50 with a time of 13:30 at 19-20 degrees C. The base fog is intense. It's usable, but only if your scanner (or printing setup) can punch right through the fog.   'Scanned' by taking a picture of it on a light box. This one was pretty overexposed afaik but i haven't found this particular negative strip. Didn't get around yet to scanning these. You can see that there are some artefacts from the sprocket holes, idk what caused those. LimaBiker fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Mar 3, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2023 16:24
|
|
|
Putting this in its own post because it's such different a subject. About 5 years ago i was involved with a squat called (translated) The Binoculars. I offered to get them a nice graphical-looking logo for use on zines and stuff. I bought two rolls of Adox CMS20 film. 20 iso film that's actually meant for use as microfiche film, but spooled up on 135 format rolls. Because i didn't need 36 pictures of monochrome binoculars i also took a few shots elsewhere and some flash shots during a party at the squat, and then snipped the film in half, shoved it into a black film canister to develop 'soon' (didn't want to gently caress up the whole roll of film if my dev time and exposure were off) and saved the rest of the film in the fridge. Life was turbulent, the squat got evicted quite soon after taking the pictures, and i essentially forgot about the exposed film sitting in the canister for a long time. Yesterday i finally developed the pictures.      I'm very happy with how they came out. I expected even harder contrast. Development 11 minutes in Rodinal 1:50. Agitation 1 min continuously, then 1 inversion per minute. Exposed at box speed. Lens used: Auto Rikenon 55mm/1:1.4 Even at 100% crop there's just not a trace of grain visible. To get 'real' grey scales, Adox sells a developer specifically meant for this type of film. But other people use Rodinal 1:100 or 1:200 semi stand. Never tried that, probably won't bother with that because i really dig the look. LimaBiker fucked around with this message at 16:49 on Mar 3, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2023 16:37
|
|
|
LimaBiker posted:What's special about Velvia 100? It's standard E6 process right? Nothing special about processing it, it's just E6, but it uses a banned chemical in the emulsion, see the Fuji notice for the ban on processing/sale. The ban went into enforcement in September 21. I had 5 rolls of it in 120 that year, which I was able to quickly shoot and process in July after a trip to Iceland.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2023 17:21
|
|
|
the Spain Virus posted:Does anyone know whether DS Colour Labs will process Fujichrome Velva 100? I've tried contacting them but they don't respond. https://www.thelabvancouver.com/services/film-processing/ The Lab is expensive, but can do it. (In Vancouver, BC).
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2023 19:02
|
|
|
The lab also sucks at not loving up your film
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2023 22:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 19:20 |
|
|
I mostly developed my own stuff and only used The Lab when I ran out of chems (C-41) or the odd E-6, but never had any issues.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2023 04:56
|
|