|
DNova posted:I have a box full of expired superia 110 that I'd like to use. Trouble is, nobody seems to be processing 110 anymore. While there are a couple of places on the internet that still process and print 110, I'm wondering if I can process them with B&W chemicals. How are you going to develop it? Do you have a reel that can handle 110 film? Honestly, I think 110 is one of those formats that is just not worth the trouble. It's always sucked. You might be better off selling it on eBay to the Lomo people.
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2010 01:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 09:12 |
|
|
killabyte posted:How are you going to develop it? Do you have a reel that can handle 110 film? I'm positive it's going to suck, but that's not really the point. So I need to get a reel for 110 film, is that the only thing I would need that a rental darkroom might not have? Hmm, after checking ebay it seems this film might actually be worth something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2010 01:35
|
|
|
DNova posted:I'm positive it's going to suck, but that's not really the point. So I need to get a reel for 110 film, is that the only thing I would need that a rental darkroom might not have? Most likely all you need is the reel and a tank it will fit in. You are better off selling it and buying some other film.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2010 02:14
|
|
|
Scored a Minolta X-570 at the flea market today for $15. The lens it came with had a little fungus and the light seals needed to be replaced but it works fine otherwise. Neat little camera that just screams "1980s".
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2010 05:15
|
|
|
So I might have a chance to get some Kodachrome...but it expired in 1980. Any thoughts on if i should even bother? I can't find kodachrome anywhere and would like to shoot a few more rolls before it's gone for good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2010 06:50
|
|
|
I've been looking through my old scans of film, both 135 and 120, and I've been noticing particular lens' and films working together quite well, and others not so much. In particular, my Minolta Hi-Matic 7sII with its Rokor f/1.7 lens shoots Ilford XP2 really nicely, yet I've tried both Fuji and Kodak colour negatives/slides and they just don't seem to work so well, the colour never seems right. Also going through the Kodachrome shots, I've found that images shot with my Pentax-SMC 50mm f/1.7 have much richer colour compared to the 28mm f/2.8 that I used on a number of landscape shots. Does anyone else have recommendations for film/lens combinations that work well?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2010 13:16
|
|
|
Question for all of you. I just saw a good deal for a canon AE-1 with a 50mm 1.4 and other lenses for 50 dollars and have been looking into trying out film/good manual focus lenses. The question I have is though, if I don't have the space/resources/time to do my own lab work, what are my options really? Is it one of those things where getting 35mm film developed now costs a lot and isn't done well?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2010 21:55
|
|
|
Blindeye posted:Question for all of you. I just saw a good deal for a canon AE-1 with a 50mm 1.4 and other lenses for 50 dollars and have been looking into trying out film/good manual focus lenses. The question I have is though, if I don't have the space/resources/time to do my own lab work, what are my options really? Is it one of those things where getting 35mm film developed now costs a lot and isn't done well? It's about as cheap as it always has been. Developing C-41 (regular print film) costs $2-2/roll where I am, I think a CD of the scanned images is $5. The resolution is nothing to write home about though; fine for the web but not really useful if you're printing. Now that I have a scanner that handles negatives, I only do it when I'm feeling exceptionally lazy and want to get them online in a hurry. It's not that the developing itself isn't done well (most of those machines they just put the film in one end and wait for it to come out the other automatically) but if it's not a pro lab you can count on your negs picking up scratches and whatnot from being manhandled by the indifferent employees. That's one of the things that drew me to processing my own B&W; full control over the whole process. It's really not terribly involved; it takes like 15 minutes and most tanks can do two rolls at a time. People are often selling the stuff on Craigslist for almost nothing since everyone's going digital.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2010 22:19
|
|
|
Just to chime in, as far as space needed: I keep all my developing supplies in a plastic storage tote. I do my developing at my kitchen sink and I hang the negatives to dry on the shower curtain rod in the bathroom. The chemicals aren't even all that smelly so when I'm not actively developing nobody has a clue that I do it at home.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 02:24
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:It's about as cheap as it always has been. Developing C-41 (regular print film) costs $2-2/roll where I am, I think a CD of the scanned images is $5. The resolution is nothing to write home about though; fine for the web but not really useful if you're printing. Now that I have a scanner that handles negatives, I only do it when I'm feeling exceptionally lazy and want to get them online in a hurry. Which scanner have you gone with and does it give nice results? I'm still trying to decide between a flatbed canon or epson, or possible a dedicated 35mm one. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 11:28
|
|
|
EvilRic posted:Which scanner have you gone with and does it give nice results? The V500 is great for the price, I have one and it works very well. Overall the Epsons seem very popular around here. Neither will do 4x5 negative scans, which probably isn't an issue for most people. Someday you may want medium format though. Keep in mind you probably won't get real 6400 DPI resolution from any consumer scanner, so take the promised resolutions with a grain of salt. That said, there's plenty to work with. e: It's a bit of a special case, but if you have boatloads of 35mm to digitize, the CoolScan 9000ED is a kickass scanner. It has a hopper feed that's a bit problematic, but it should be a bit easier to babysit. If you've got the cash to float, buy used, scan your stuff, resell it, and think of the difference as the cost (lower selling price, PayPal fees, Ebay fees, or whatever) of renting it. It shouldn't depreciate much. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 14:04 on Aug 2, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 13:52
|
|
|
EvilRic posted:Which scanner have you gone with and does it give nice results? Yeah, I've got a V500. It's given me no major troubles, although it's been having weird connection issues since I reinstalled Windows last month.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 18:11
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:The V500 is great for the price, I have one and it works very well. Overall the Epsons seem very popular around here. Neither will do 4x5 negative scans, which probably isn't an issue for most people. Someday you may want medium format though. fwiw it does 4x5. you just have to scan it twice and auto-stitch 
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 22:36
|
|
|
guidoanselmi posted:fwiw it does 4x5. you just have to scan it twice and auto-stitch What do you use for a holder?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 22:56
|
|
|
heh what holder?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2010 05:20
|
|
|
What up in this film thread bitches????  The amount of  on my face right now is off. the. charts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 00:37
|
|
|
Because you own the ugliest (film) camera ever produced?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 00:39
|
|
|
 drat you're right. And here I thought the important thing was build quality, features, and optics.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 00:42
|
|
|
gently caress you, McMadCow. Just, gently caress you. Also, why'd you get the zoom?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 00:44
|
|
|
I've had the zoom for years. I got it because it's a constant aperture. I'm actually planning on selling it real soon though. Probably get the 35 f2 in its stead. I'm just going to stick with primes. Next up is the 180mm f2.8, I think. I have no idea how this thing works yet. I've been using an R4 for almost 6 years and that thing is the definition of simplicity. This thing has all sorts of gizmos on it that I need to learn. As far as the ugly shape goes, it actually allows for a real easy ergonomic grip on it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 00:48
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Because you own the ugliest (film) camera ever produced?  
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 01:25
|
|
|
drat you MadCow, drat you to hell! Jealous
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 01:39
|
|
|
guidoanselmi posted:Call and raise you:  McMadCow posted:What up in this film thread bitches???? I've always wanted to ask you, how come you favor a 35mm system over a Hasselblad or something?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 02:15
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Call and raise you: dear God I want that so badly
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 02:49
|
|
|
KosherNostra posted:So I might have a chance to get some Kodachrome...but it expired in 1980. Any thoughts on if i should even bother? I can't find kodachrome anywhere and would like to shoot a few more rolls before it's gone for good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 03:00
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Call and raise you: That is way better looking than any of the rounded plastic Nikons and Canons of the 90s.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 04:07
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Call and raise you: One of those silly things is sitting on the shelf at the camera shop right across the street from me. It's been there for about six years now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 05:14
|
|
is go
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:I've always wanted to ask you, how come you favor a 35mm system over a Hasselblad or something? I like the spontaniety I get with 35mm. I stage shots a lot, but once I'm in a shooting position I recompose a lot and I'm always on the lookout for the model to do interesting things. 35mm is small enough and fast enough that I can keep on top of that. I'm definitely shooting a lot more mmedium format lately, though. I have a 6x6 and a 645 system and between them MF is probably about 1/3 of the shooting I'm doing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 05:54
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:That is way better looking than any of the rounded plastic Nikons and Canons of the 90s.  It really looks like a sub-holga knock-off camera that you see in dollar stores.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 07:28
|
|
|
I don't really understand film expiration. What's the likelyhood of Fujichrome Provia 400F that expired in 2005, being worth a go? I don't mind, infact i would like it, if it came out with interesting colour distortion etc but if it's just going to be a total waste of time i'd rather just bin it. I don't think it's been kept refrigerated in the last year or 2. I assume it's pretty useless? Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 19:36
|
|
|
I'd say its probably fine, but there's a chance it could come out looking grainy. You could try shooting at ISO 200 and getting it processed in C-41.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 19:43
|
|
|
EvilRic posted:I don't really understand film expiration. It's basically the manufacturer's guarantee that the film will be within spec (barring you doing something like keeping it on the dashboard of your car 24/7 or something) until a certain point. They give themselves some wiggle-room, which is why not all expired film is bad (or even noticeably different). It will depend on the type/make of film, how it was stored, and any variables that occurred during the manufacturing process.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 21:22
|
|
|
EvilRic posted:I don't really understand film expiration. I routinely use 99-cent rolls of medium format color film (iso 100) that expired 10+ years ago. 2005 and partly refrigerated should be just fine, I'd think. If you're doing paid work (especially studio work) that has to be reliable and consistent between rolls, don't use expired film. Otherwise, it probably doesn't matter much. You might see a bit more graininess. If it was really badly stored (too hot, too humid) or quite old, you'll start getting color shifts (either discolorations within the image, or a general hue change throughout), base fogging, and some loss of film speed. Dr. Cogwerks fucked around with this message at 06:39 on Aug 6, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 01:12
|
|
|
Dr. Cogwerks posted:I routinely use 99-cent rolls of medium format color film that expired 10+ years ago. 2005 and partly refrigerated should be just fine, I'd think. One thing I will caution people on is using expired high speed film. I don't think I would trust 800+ speed film if it is more than a couple of years out of date. It is much more sensitive to cosmic rays (which eventually does in ALL film), so shooting it is likely to yield poor results.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 05:39
|
|
|
killabyte posted:One thing I will caution people on is using expired high speed film. I don't think I would trust 800+ speed film if it is more than a couple of years out of date. It is much more sensitive to cosmic rays (which eventually does in ALL film), so shooting it is likely to yield poor results. I agree with this, I've had some really lackluster results with a batch of expired Superia 1600 I bought on eBay, and it only got worse as time passed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 06:37
|
|
|
I don't want to cause trouble - but I figured I should cross post this here http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3163404&pagenumber=142#post380617290 I'm a strictly digital guy who's only been shooting for about 1 1/2 years. I miiight keep the best example of each camera but the rest has got to go. I'm fairly certain there's no SUPER lenses in there. So what do I do?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 19:50
|
|
|
Pretty noob question here but I recently picked up a spotmatic on craigslist and I believe I have successfully loaded film. However the frame indicator didn't exactly line up with 0 when I advanced it, and is a little past it. Does this matter? edit: I thought about it and it doesn't matter. I guess the only content I can add is that the Wein zinc-air cell battery I ordered from B&H works great if you ever need one. Hollis Brown fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Aug 6, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 20:24
|
|
|
JizJizJiz posted:So what do I do? If I where you? Keep it all, regardless of using it or not, I would still keep it all, but I love collecting stuff and would honestly just love to have a couple of shelves lined with that stuff. I suppose its better letting it go to a good home, where people could actually use it, but I would keep it all, hands down.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 23:28
|
|
|
Hollis Brown posted:Pretty noob question here but I recently picked up a spotmatic on craigslist and I believe I have successfully loaded film. However the frame indicator didn't exactly line up with 0 when I advanced it, and is a little past it. Does this matter? The only way to find out for sure is to shoot a test roll. It's a possibility that the actual frame spacing may be off, but generally the frame counter isn't a huge thing to get worried about.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 23:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 09:12 |
|
|
fronkpies posted:If I where you? Keep it all, regardless of using it or not, I would still keep it all, but I love collecting stuff and would honestly just love to have a couple of shelves lined with that stuff. My inner demented self agrees - but it defies all logic. I think at most, I will keep the best condition piece of each variety.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2010 23:40
|
|