|
Dr. Cogwerks posted:edit: there was a winning kickstarter that was someone leaving disposable cameras out and seeing what happened to them fwiw... ah here we go: http://kck.st/cFDZub
|
#
?
May 3, 2011 00:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 03:54 |
|
|
Dr. Cogwerks posted:Pentax ZX-M body with a spotless SMC A 50mm f/2  Jerk. Why are there no stores like this anywhere near me?Dr. Cogwerks posted:edit:
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2011 01:37
|
|
|
Just pulled a roll out of the tank with 32 blank frames on it, time to ditch that camera I think.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2011 03:52
|
|
|
charel posted:Just pulled a roll out of the tank with 32 blank frames on it, time to ditch that camera I think. Testing out the new Olympus Pen Half Frame camera and realized with horror after walking around half of L.A. and taking 70 photos that the film leader hadn't caught when I loaded it.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2011 04:32
|
|
|
Sushi in Yiddish posted:Testing out the new Olympus Pen Half Frame camera and realized with horror after walking around half of L.A. and taking 70 photos that the film leader hadn't caught when I loaded it.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2011 04:44
|
|
|
Now class, this is why we sacrifice a frame or two at the start of the roll and ensure it's feeding correctly before we close the back. (I've done this too, never again)
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2011 05:17
|
|
|
At least photo labs don't charge for blank rolls. Charging for that would truly be kicking a person when they're down.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2011 05:21
|
|
|
HPL posted:At least photo labs don't charge for blank rolls. Charging for that would truly be kicking a person when they're down. Some do. 
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2011 05:55
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:How do Ektar 100 and Velvia compare under overcast/in fog and in bright sun? I've found when you shoot Ektar in the bright sun the colours go a little weird/strangely saturated, I really don't like it, In the shade its very nice. If its bight I'd go slide film every time, personally I like Ektarchrome GX or VS depending if you want heavy saturation or not. Sushi in Yiddish posted:Testing out the new Olympus Pen Half Frame camera and realized with horror after walking around half of L.A. and taking 70 photos that the film leader hadn't caught when I loaded it. Did this with a roll of Kodachrome and found out when Dwayne's sent back a envelope instead of a little yellow box. Good times.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2011 07:32
|
|
|
HPL posted:At least photo labs don't charge for blank rolls. Charging for that would truly be kicking a person when they're down. On the other hand, a roll costs effectively the same amount of money to develop whether its blank or not. Do you expect the lab to eat it because of your misfortune/mistake?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2011 07:56
|
|
|
Is film still practical for landscape photography? I was discussing the merits of analog photography with my girlfriend when she mentioned that she thought that film should be used for everything but landscape. Her reasoning is that digital is much cleaner (you're trying to get the detail of the landscape). I told her that you can still get cleaner photos with a full frame camera and some low ISO film. Granted, digital is easier, getting the same shots with film is far more impressive.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2011 09:00
|
|
|
Miskatonic posted:Is film still practical for landscape photography? I was discussing the merits of analog photography with my girlfriend when she mentioned that she thought that film should be used for everything but landscape. Her reasoning is that digital is much cleaner (you're trying to get the detail of the landscape). I told her that you can still get cleaner photos with a full frame camera and some low ISO film. Granted, digital is easier, getting the same shots with film is far more impressive. If you throw medium or large format into the mix then it gets even easier, you can get hilarious detail out of a 6x6 or 6x9 negative, and 4x5 is many times even that. I would argue the direct opposite of her, that film is best suited for landscapes and digital is better at the other stuff. Like sports photography, or low light with no flash. Yes digital noise sucks but color films pretty much top out at 800 iso and you can jump into the several thousands range with your average SLR and still get usable results.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2011 09:23
|
|
|
Miskatonic posted:Is film still practical for landscape photography? I was discussing the merits of analog photography with my girlfriend when she mentioned that she thought that film should be used for everything but landscape. Her reasoning is that digital is much cleaner (you're trying to get the detail of the landscape). I told her that you can still get cleaner photos with a full frame camera and some low ISO film. Granted, digital is easier, getting the same shots with film is far more impressive. That is ridiculous and she has obviously never seen anything done with medium and large format film, or even low iso 35mm.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2011 09:50
|
|
|
Miskatonic posted:Is film still practical for landscape photography? I was discussing the merits of analog photography with my girlfriend when she mentioned that she thought that film should be used for everything but landscape. Her reasoning is that digital is much cleaner (you're trying to get the detail of the landscape). I told her that you can still get cleaner photos with a full frame camera and some low ISO film. Granted, digital is easier, getting the same shots with film is far more impressive. my mamiya 645 says yes
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2011 09:54
|
|
|
You can produce acceptable landscapes with a loving iPhone, so I don't understand why you'd eliminate film from the list of acceptable tools.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2011 10:58
|
|
|
Rontalvos posted:Now class, this is why we sacrifice a frame or two at the start of the roll and ensure it's feeding correctly before we close the back. Just watch the rewind knob for the first few shots. Miskatonic posted:Is film still practical for landscape photography? Negative film does highlights so much better than digital it's pretty much mandatory if there are clouds anywhere in the shot.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2011 14:03
|
|
|
Miskatonic posted:Is film still practical for landscape photography? I was discussing the merits of analog photography with my girlfriend when she mentioned that she thought that film should be used for everything but landscape. Her reasoning is that digital is much cleaner (you're trying to get the detail of the landscape). I told her that you can still get cleaner photos with a full frame camera and some low ISO film. Granted, digital is easier, getting the same shots with film is far more impressive. I specifically use film for my landscape work due to it's dynamic range.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2011 15:39
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:I specifically use film for my landscape work due to it's dynamic range. Typically how many stops of dynamic range do you get with film vs say, a top of the line DSLR? Also, how much HDR do you have to do to match the dynamic range of film?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2011 15:55
|
|
|
echobucket posted:Typically how many stops of dynamic range do you get with film vs say, a top of the line DSLR? I probably get 3 or 4 more stops with negative film than with my D700. I haven't done any actual tests though, I just know that on higher contrast days film equals better highlights.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2011 16:15
|
|
|
"Rontalvos" posted:If you throw medium or large format into the mix then it gets even easier, you can get hilarious detail out of a 6x6 or 6x9 negative, and 4x5 is many times even that. Hey that new portra looks pretty good at 1600/3200. Also how common is the rewind up to the leader in electric cameras?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2011 16:25
|
|
|
Fiannaiocht posted:Also how common is the rewind up to the leader in electric cameras? Some will do it, but it's not something I've seen as common. But fancy cameras will wind the entire roll on and then work backwards (so each shot goes back into the canister), which I think is so cool.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2011 17:06
|
|
|
How do you set extended, 20 minute exposures on old film bodies such as my FM2? I realize that there is a timer mode but it doesn't last very long at all.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2011 05:59
|
|
|
Miskatonic posted:How do you set extended, 20 minute exposures on old film bodies such as my FM2? I realize that there is a timer mode but it doesn't last very long at all. You use bulb mode and a locking cable release and time it yourself.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2011 06:01
|
|
|
"Miskatonic" posted:How do you set extended, 20 minute exposures on old film bodies such as my FM2? I realize that there is a timer mode but it doesn't last very long at all. Edit: argh.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2011 06:01
|
|
|
Is there anything such like as a radio-controlled mechanical cable release?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2011 06:54
|
|
|
Rontalvos posted:Now class, this is why we sacrifice a frame or two at the start of the roll and ensure it's feeding correctly before we close the back.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2011 07:42
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:Is there anything such like as a radio-controlled mechanical cable release?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2011 09:37
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:I've never seen one, but they probably wouldn't be that hard to make. They do however make ridiculously long cable releases and there are timed releases. What would be the intended use? telephoto self-portrait while I am standing on that hill over there
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2011 09:59
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:Is there anything such like as a radio-controlled mechanical cable release? It'd be easy to do, just a transmitter/receiver and a solenoid. drat, now I want one.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2011 12:08
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:It'd be easy to do, just a transmitter/receiver and a solenoid. drat, now I want one. Search APUG some dude made one a few years ago. It was part of some crazy scheme to photograph his own wedding with his Hassie (I think).
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2011 14:02
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Search APUG some dude made one a few years ago. It was part of some crazy scheme to photograph his own wedding with his Hassie (I think). Talkin bout this?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2011 14:15
|
|
|
$200 seems like quit a bit of overspending. I bet I could do it with a short cable release, a tiny solenoid, a couple of rechargeable AAs, and some MICROCHIPS.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2011 15:18
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:$200 seems like quit a bit of overspending. I bet I could do it with a short cable release, a tiny solenoid, a couple of rechargeable AAs, and some MICROCHIPS. As an electrical engineer my professional opinion is that you sir, are very right.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2011 16:12
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:Is there anything such like as a radio-controlled mechanical cable release? One of the more hard-to-find accessories Minolta made for the X-700 was an IR remote system, I don't know how it triggered the shutter. Did Nikon make something similar?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 06:02
|
|
|
Today's my birthday, and while friends are at work I figured I'd go ahead and use it as an excuse to get started wet printing. I know you're supposed to use separate fixer for film/paper (because stuff from the paper can mess with developing film, right?), but I just mixed up my second thing of fixer and am still waiting for it to settle. Am I okay switching my film fixer to use on paper, and just using the fresh batch of fixer with film later on? Impatient... edit: settled enough for dicking around, using fixer stock and pouring back. First test strip came out lovely, I don't know why my book says "exposures should generally never be less than 2 or more than 10 seconds", then tells you to make a test strip out to 25 seconds with 5 second intervals, ugh (and why I listened to the second part). I used a Grade 3 filter but the 5 second one came out really low contrast, I wonder if my safelight (on the other side of the room, pointed away) is fogging the paper? I remember McMadCow hated on the Arista EDU stuff for that reason. I'm pretty sure mine's OC, which the box says is okay. Going out to lunch, will try again later! Pompous Rhombus fucked around with this message at 17:27 on May 5, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 15:46
|
|
|
happy birthday! 
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 18:36
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:edit: settled enough for dicking around, using fixer stock and pouring back. First test strip came out lovely, I don't know why my book says "exposures should generally never be less than 2 or more than 10 seconds", then tells you to make a test strip out to ugh (and why I listened to the second part). I used a Grade 3 filter but the 5 second one came out really low contrast, I wonder if my safelight (on the other side of the room, pointed away) is fogging the paper? I remember McMadCow hated on the Arista EDU stuff for that reason. I'm pretty sure mine's OC, which the box says is okay. Going out to lunch, will try again later! Really, I think the aperture of the enlarger lens is going to dictate how long the exposure is going to be. What was your aperture at? At f8, a decent exposure should probably be around 10ish seconds, f11 it'll be around 20, etc. But it also depends on the negative as well. edit: Happy Birfday!!
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 19:21
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:edit: settled enough for dicking around, using fixer stock and pouring back. First test strip came out lovely, I don't know why my book says "exposures should generally never be less than 2 or more than 10 seconds", then tells you to make a test strip out to 25 seconds with 5 second intervals, ugh (and why I listened to the second part). I used a Grade 3 filter but the 5 second one came out really low contrast, I wonder if my safelight (on the other side of the room, pointed away) is fogging the paper? I remember McMadCow hated on the Arista EDU stuff for that reason. I'm pretty sure mine's OC, which the box says is okay. Going out to lunch, will try again later! I've never had problems with long exposures. Some of the prints I sent out for the exchange were exposed for a total of 40 seconds. I stopped down quite a bit because I found the images to be sharper at f/8-f/11. Either my lens is a bit sharper like that or it increases the depth-of-field on the film or on the paper. gently caress regular filter printing, split grade printing is the way to go. Here's what you do. Run two test strips, one at a grade 5 and one at a grade 0. For the 0, pick the exposure which gives you the highlight detail you want (only look at the highlight detail, ignore the rest of the image). For the 5, pick the exposure which has the right shadow detail (again, ignore the rest). Combine these exposures and tweak as necessary. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 19:37 on May 5, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 19:22
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:gently caress regular filter printing, split grade printing is the way to go. Here's what you do. Run two test strips, one at a grade 5 and one at a grade 00. For the 00, pick the exposure which gives you the highlight detail you want. For the 5, pick the exposure which has the right shadow detail. Combine these exposures and tweak as necessary. McMadCow had an awesome post about split filter printing awhile ago in the print thread. It was pretty comprehensive. Here it is: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?noseen=1&threadid=3194159&pagenumber=2#post367635098
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 19:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 03:54 |
|
|
I'm still getting grey morasses of no contrast, cannot get a white tone to show up. I think my problem may have been developing time: I was using developer at 1:2 and only developing 2 minutes, when for fiber paper it should be 2-4 according to the box. I left something in for like 6+ and it turned totally black. edit: even the parts of the paper that were covered by the easel are grey instead of white. I'm not going to do any split filtering until I get regular RC printing figured out! Pompous Rhombus fucked around with this message at 21:35 on May 5, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 21:12
|
|