|
Martytoof posted:Humm. I found a roll of HP5+ 120 in a fridge I was getting ready to throw away, shot at an unknown ISO from a few years ago which apparently I just forgot to develop. What's the safest way to develop this in HC 110? Timed for ISO800? There's a good chance it's either 400 or 1600 since I either shot straight or pushed to 1600, I didn't really do in-between pushing. In other news, I got a single roll of HP5 153-72 today. Yeah, a 72 exposure roll. I'm almost tempted to just set my camera to high-speed drive and finish it in a single go.
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2011 23:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 06:55 |
|
|
q!=e
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2011 23:17
|
|
|
Good luck processing that!
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2011 10:06
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Good luck processing that! Gonna have to be two reels and hope like hell you don't chop a frame in half I guess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2011 22:03
|
|
|
Actually the guy also gave me a special processing tank and reel that fits those long rolls, so that's awesome. Here's compared to a regular Paterson reel. I don't have any regular size steel reels to compare against. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2011 22:52
|
|
|
I just bought a black Olympus OM-4Ti on eBay for $350 in excellent condition. It comes with a 50mm f/1.8 lens, a 35-70 3.5-4.5 zoom, a bunch of accessories, and an OM-PC in excellent condition. I can't wait for this thing to arrive 
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2011 05:00
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Actually the guy also gave me a special processing tank and reel that fits those long rolls, so that's awesome.  of him.atomicthumbs posted:I just bought a black Olympus OM-4Ti on eBay for $350 in excellent condition. It comes with a 50mm f/1.8 lens, a 35-70 3.5-4.5 zoom, a bunch of accessories, and an OM-PC in excellent condition. I can't wait for this thing to arrive
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2011 10:48
|
|
|
Crosspostin' from SAD. Turbine Mast by atomicthumbs, on Flickr HP5+, shot at 1600 in the rain and developed in D76 for 18 minutes, agitating every 30 seconds. HP5+ pushes better in D76 than it does in Rodinal; it's probably even better in Xtol but I'm too lazy to find a bucket to mix it in. evil_bunnY posted:That's pretty I should start a Titanium Camera Corner thread when this thing arrives atomicthumbs fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Oct 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2011 21:59
|
|
|
My updated entry for the photocontest; shot on the new Kodak Portra 400 Symmetry by alkanphel, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2011 10:34
|
|
|
I though you guys might enjoy this article about darkrooms slowly being abandoned in London. http://www.npr.org/blogs/pictureshow/2011/10/11/141087566/the-last-of-londons-darkrooms
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2011 22:04
|
|
|
echobucket posted:I though you guys might enjoy this article about darkrooms slowly being abandoned in London. Enjoy? You sicko.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2011 22:14
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Enjoy? You sicko. Perhaps "enjoy" was the wrong word.. maybe "find interesting" would have been more appropriate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2011 22:28
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Enjoy? You sicko. Hahaha I want to put one together here in Japan, but since I'm not in a major metropolitan area, finding used stuff locally for cheap is pretty much not going to happen (and even then, it'd be difficult). I was looking at stuff on Yahoo! Auctions (kind of the local eBay here) and a basic 6x7 setup with a lovely lens but all of the bits and pieces needed to get started went for over $500. I can pick up a medium format enlarger for around $100-150 on Yahoo, but all the accessories nickle-and-dime it way up  I still want one, but I think I should buy a negative scanner first, and figure out if I'm staying for a second year. Alternatively, I may try and pick one up for cheap on Craigslist when I go home in March, and jam it into a suitcase to bring back with me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 00:36
|
|
|
Just picked this up tonight: Pentax ME Super by Execudork, on Flickr I had thought the ME Super wouldn't work without functioning batteries, but this one will trip the shutter even though the light meter isn't turning on and I can't adjust the shutter speed in M mode. But I'm hoping new batteries will solve those problems. The viewfinder is every bit as bright as the internet told me it would be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 04:08
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Just picked this up tonight: With a dead battery the ME super should fire the shutter at 1/125th.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 08:02
|
|
|
Can someone humour my stupid question? I know you can't run film through X-Ray machines. That much I remember from when I was 10 and used film. What I can't remember if is this applies to both developed and undeveloped film. So if I'm going on a plane and I have a film camera, should I put it in my checked baggage to avoid the X-Ray machine? And what about the film I've already developed? Checked baggage as well? Thanks guys.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 12:58
|
|
|
HookShot posted:Can someone humour my stupid question? I know you can't run film through X-Ray machines. That much I remember from when I was 10 and used film. It's only fast undeveloped film (ISO 1600 or more) that can be affected. Checked baggage gets even stronger x-rays than carryons, so don't check any film. If you're paranoid ask for a hand check - have all of your film in a ziploc bag. I've done this many times and never gotten any hassle aside from one overzealous TSA agent wanting to open the boxes the film canisters came in.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 13:03
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Just picked this up tonight: Congrats! My ME is probably my favorite camera for just blowing through a roll. That screen is huge, it has a split prism, etc. The plain ME goes for like $20, which is an absolute steal. Plus, the Pentax glass is pretty drat good, particularly the SMC Pentax (no -M) series. Pompous Rhombus posted:I still want one, but I think I should buy a negative scanner first, and figure out if I'm staying for a second year. Alternatively, I may try and pick one up for cheap on Craigslist when I go home in March, and jam it into a suitcase to bring back with me. I'm so jealous, you can just point a camera in any direction in Japan and get a gorgeous shot. Post some here, please.  If you need help with cross-shipment, I'm down, shoot me a pm or hit me up on AIM.
Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 13:21 on Oct 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 13:18
|
|
|
HookShot posted:Can someone humour my stupid question? I know you can't run film through X-Ray machines. That much I remember from when I was 10 and used film. As already said you want to avoid putting it in the hold at all costs, that is a surefire way to get fogged film because of the intensity of those xray machines. The carry on scanners wont damage your film (ISO 400 and under) unless they end up scanning your bag over and over, but for a normal trip it will be a-ok. Personally I wouldn't bother even asking for a hand check. It'll be fine unless it's high speed. Airport xray machines wont do anything to developed film whatsoever. l33tc4k30fd00m fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Oct 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 14:11
|
|
|
Airport security lines usually do mention what film is safe to go and what isn't (I've always seen them list 800 or slower as being OK), but I'd just put all the unexposed film in a baggie and let them hand-inspect it. Exposed film is fine regardless of speed as far as I've heard.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 15:47
|
|
|
Developed film is fine, exposed is not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 19:39
|
|
|
Thanks guys, that's perfect. I've only got ISO 200 film at the moment, so that's pretty slow. Hopefully I should be ok and I'll bring a ziplock baggie as well just in case I decide to go the hand checked route.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 22:54
|
|
|
I usually travel with 400, and always get it checked by hand. Im just too neurotic something will happen to it...
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 23:31
|
|
|
Nilson posted:I usually travel with 400, and always get it checked by hand. Im just too neurotic something will happen to it... I often push my 400 to 1600 or 3200, so it's not out of line to ask it to be checked. I've never been given crap about it, just have it out and ready, and if you can get the attention of the screener (without being obnoxious) and let them know while you're still in the queue, so much the better. Paul MaudDib posted:I'm so jealous, you can just point a camera in any direction in Japan and get a gorgeous shot. Post some here, please. I love it here, although it sucks not having my own vehicle to access all of the cool stuff in and around my prefecture I found out yesterday I'm going to have to go for the chuugata (medium motorcycle) license instead of the light one, which is significantly harder. Might just pony up the $1000 for driving school; I don't mind paying to take the test like 8 times, but taking a day (or even half day) off work every time I attempt the test would suck. I've been a Bad Photographer lately; I still have a massive backlog of stuff from my roadtrip in the States to process/scan, so I feel bad about adding more on top of it. I think I've run 7 or so rolls through my Hassie since I got here. Most of the stuff taken with my NEX that hasn't seen the light of day yet too... Pompous Rhombus fucked around with this message at 00:50 on Oct 13, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2011 00:38
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:With a dead battery the ME super should fire the shutter at 1/125th. Paul MaudDib posted:Congrats! My ME is probably my favorite camera for just blowing through a roll. That screen is huge, it has a split prism, etc. The plain ME goes for like $20, which is an absolute steal. Plus, the Pentax glass is pretty drat good, particularly the SMC Pentax (no -M) series. I've never used a split prism before, I get the impression it's like a teeny-tiny rangefinder, which is pretty cool if true.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2011 03:25
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:The lens is very impressive, I'm going to have to check out the no -M stuff sometime. Pentax definitely has a cult following. The no -M stuff was only made for a couple years while Pentax was transitioning from the Takumar M42 lineup before they launched the M lineup, so a lot of them are cult lenses. Many are unusual, rare, or a carryover from the Takumar line. For example, the K50/1.4 is the Takumar lens formula in a K mount, slightly different from the M50/1.4. The K35/3.5 is a carryover too, and the same as the medium format P67 75/4.5. There's a 55mm (not 50mm) f/1.8 and f/2, which are again holdovers. The K28/2 is a legend, it was the result of collaboration with Zeiss and used a floating CRC group. But it was $471 in 1978, which was an incredible sum (the 50/1.2 was $290), so they're super rare. The later -M is different, it's simpler and lacks the floating group. A lot of the lenses really are pretty cool if you can pick them up. All of them feature even higher build quality and many of the optical designs are slightly better than the -M. Yep, the split-prism is basically a SLR rangefinder. I find them super easy to use and even have a split prism screen on my P67. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 04:46 on Oct 13, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2011 04:37
|
|
|
dukeku posted:Developed film is fine, exposed is not. Whoops 
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2011 12:34
|
|
|
Blargh. I bought a pair of Kodak SR76 / SR44 batteries, for $5 each, and one of them is defective, so I can use EITHER my Pentax ME Super OR my Minolta X-700, but not both without re-arranging batteries.  These batteries apparently cost $5 everywhere, except one on-line site that claims to ship to Canada but that's a filthy lie because it's not actually possible to register a Canadian address. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2011 02:22
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Blargh. I bought a pair of Kodak SR76 / SR44 batteries, for $5 each, and one of them is defective, so I can use EITHER my Pentax ME Super OR my Minolta X-700, but not both without re-arranging batteries. Shop around. There are lots of places that sell those kinds of batteries for reasonable prices. Also, try eBay, but make sure you check the mAh rating on the batteries. They should be 200mAh or so for SR44 batteries. The cheaper ones are the LR44 batteries, but they have lower ratings and don't last as long.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2011 03:04
|
|
|
HPL posted:eBay Why didn't I think of that? For less than $2 I've ordered a pack of 10, from a seller in  Even if they suck (advertised at 165mAh), hey, I've got 10 of 'em. Thanks for reminding me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2011 04:10
|
|
|
HPL posted:Shop around. There are lots of places that sell those kinds of batteries for reasonable prices. Also, try eBay, but make sure you check the mAh rating on the batteries. They should be 200mAh or so for SR44 batteries. The cheaper ones are the LR44 batteries, but they have lower ratings and don't last as long.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2011 09:47
|
|
|
I bought an N90s for $50 bucks and this is my first time ever taking pictures on film. Should I just take them to my camera store to have them developed? How do you get film -> digital pictures so you can post in on the interwebs? I bought 1 roll of BW400CN and 1 roll of Kodak Gold as my first noob attempts at film pictures.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2011 17:23
|
|
|
tijag posted:I bought an N90s for $50 bucks and this is my first time ever taking pictures on film. Should I just take them to my camera store to have them developed? How do you get film -> digital pictures so you can post in on the interwebs? Both BW400CN and Kodak Gold are C-41 type films. While it is possible to develop them at home it requires much more precision (and expensive equipment) than traditional B/W films. Take them to a shop. You can either scan the negatives or the prints, if you get prints made. A good negative scan is better than a good scan of a print, but is also more involved. I'd suggest initially just asking the shop to also make scans, you'll probably get low-quality minilab scans, about the same quality as a cheap scanner will get from a minilab print.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2011 18:07
|
|
|
tijag posted:I bought an N90s for $50 bucks and this is my first time ever taking pictures on film. Should I just take them to my camera store to have them developed? How do you get film -> digital pictures so you can post in on the interwebs? I too have an N90s, great camera! If all you're wanting to do is get your film developed and scanned to a cd, just go to any drugstore (cvs, walgreens, etc) and ask for only the negatives and a cd. Usually runs around 10 bucks a roll in my area. Keep in mind that drug stores' scans quality can greatly differ from one store to another. The scans they provide should be decent if all you want to do is post them on the internet. If you are looking for high quality prints, I would look for any local camera stores. The one I go to is much more expensive but delivers consistent quality results. Now, when it comes to b&w film, your bw400cn is good to be developed anywhere as it uses c-41 chemicals, however, if you ever decide to get true black and white film, make sure you let the lab know that so you don't end up with a blank roll. Posted this from a phone so apologies for any grammar issues.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2011 18:15
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Both BW400CN and Kodak Gold are C-41 type films. While it is possible to develop them at home it requires much more precision (and expensive equipment) than traditional B/W films. Take them to a shop. So I should just have the shop develop the film and then scan them? And I get the file as like a TIFF or something?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2011 18:18
|
|
|
Usually a low quality jpeg.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2011 18:20
|
|
|
That's disheartening. I'm not about to jump into developing my own film atm. However if I like the results of shooting on film, what kinds of films should I branch out into trying?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2011 18:26
|
|
|
tijag posted:I bought an N90s for $50 bucks and this is my first time ever taking pictures on film. In this instance I would say take it to the store in any event, just so you can make sure your camera is working right, not leaking light, etc. There's a chance that the photo lab could gently caress up your negatives, but if you're also learning to develop at home there's probably a bigger chance that you would gently caress up your negatives (but not a huge chance, I've gone through a lot of rolls and have yet to gently caress one up). This way at least you'll be able to tell that you have a good working camera. Develop your next roll at home after that
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2011 18:26
|
|
|
The new Portra 400 is probably the best all around color negative film out there. Tri-X 400 for black and white.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2011 18:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 06:55 |
|
|
I always preferred HP5+ to TriX for some reason, but can't put my finger on why.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2011 18:28
|
|