|
XTimmy posted:"i want a poloroid that prints out big prints. not like them stupid izone cameras. i was thinking the 600, and i want to be able to buy cool film to have cool effect on the prints and all." There is only one supplier of Polaroid film left: Impossible. http://the-impossible-project.com/ They make PX600 and PX100 film. Sometimes they have batches of special film like when a batch didn't work or a experiment failed. But including old stock there are maybe 5 types of polaroid film available? Not exactly a lot of choice in cool film.
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 19:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 13:58 |
|
|
manned up and took apart the shutter dial on my ME, and after about 5 dropped screws and one screw that got launched by a spring that I didn't notice in the manual, followed by the plastic ring cracking as I tightened the last screw, and everything works again. Probably time to start picking up some developing materials to see how this film came out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 23:28
|
|
|
Doubleposting with a question, if I ordered everything in this list here http://www.amazon.com/registry/wishlist/26ER0D27LM57X/ref=cm_wl_rlist_go_o plus some hc110 (I'll probably order from http://www.freestylephoto.biz because things are cheaper and in stock, but it's easier to link stuff this way) I'd be all set to develop B/W, right? Going to be developing Tri-X for sure, so if there are better chemical options for that, I'd appreciate opinions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2012 04:10
|
|
|
NihilismNow posted:There is only one supplier of Polaroid film left: Impossible. I was looking at them the other day and apparently you have to leave the prints in a bag with silica for a month or they fade and discolor worse than they already are. But don't worry they'll sell you the silica for $5 on top of the $24 you already spent for 8 shots.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2012 04:48
|
|
|
What's that big bottle in white? Don't recognize it. But yeah whatever it is you also want a stop and some photoflo would be good too (dunno if that bottle replaces one of those). Some air compression bottles are a good investment, as is a good thermometer. An extra reel is good too (if you turn your tank upside down your reel may slip to the top of the tank and stay there when you turn it back and only half develop, a reel on top keeps it all snug, plus you can do two rolls).
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2012 04:49
|
|
|
NihilismNow posted:There is only one supplier of Polaroid film left: Impossible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2012 05:22
|
|
|
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-11/struggling-kodak-disbands-film-group2c-shares-soar/3767134 Looks like the Kodak restructuring is underway, with the company going from 3 to 2 devisions, where the film guys are getting lumped in to the new Consumer devision. They're looking to focus on developing their inkjet printer business, great idea with all the push towards paperless offices.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2012 05:55
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Doubleposting with a question, if I ordered everything in this list here http://www.amazon.com/registry/wishlist/26ER0D27LM57X/ref=cm_wl_rlist_go_o plus some hc110 (I'll probably order from http://www.freestylephoto.biz because things are cheaper and in stock, but it's easier to link stuff this way) I'd be all set to develop B/W, right? you don't need the gloves. You can buy a bigger tank for the same if you ever want to do multiple 120 rolls; that'll do 1x120 or 2x135 (I think). corollary: those reels are poo poo. You'll be ok for 135, but the AP compact reels are light years better and less frustrating. Frustration is bad because your hands will sweat in the bag, and wet hands will make the film stick, and that'll eventually tear the film. If you stick to 135 then it's less of a drama. I use clothes pegs because there is nothing to buy. One or two for the top to hold the film, two for the bottom to act as weights. Hung from a wire hanger off the shower screen rail. You won't need 7 graduates, you'll need one measuring cup 500-1000ml with a resolution of ~10ml, and one 10ml syringe. I buy my syringes from the chemist down the road (and I slip in that it's for film processing to avoid weird looks). They cost about $0.30. Also, if you go that route, you might want to ask if they have a mixing cannula - they're long thin plastic straw attachments for the syringes that are wide bore (HC110 is as thick as maple syrup) and not at all useful for injecting - my pharmacist suggested it to me for use as a straw with highly viscous liquids; it's what he uses to mix concentrates. They're great for when the fluid level drops a bit and you can't reach the bottom of the bottle with the syringe alone (and don't bother using a needle because they're too thin to suck that stuff up). Missing: thermometer. Needs to be accurate and resolvable to ~0.2C @ ~25C (you can convert to F). You no-poo poo need one. Again, I asked my local pharmacist and he didn't have any for sale (people thermometers don't work at such low temperatures), so he ripped his alcohol room thermometer off the wall and gave me that. My local pharmacist is awesome. In fact, talk to your local pharmacist about gear for measuring and dispensing chemistry like that; they're a way underrated resource in photographic circles. Just tell them volumes, temperatures and tolerances and estimate viscosity and they'll tell you what you need. edit: as for Tri-x specific, all you'll get is opinions. It's very subjective. I've only used HC110 and I'm happy enough with the results. Captain Postal fucked around with this message at 12:26 on Jan 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2012 12:20
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Doubleposting with a question, if I ordered everything in this list here http://www.amazon.com/registry/wishlist/26ER0D27LM57X/ref=cm_wl_rlist_go_o plus some hc110 (I'll probably order from http://www.freestylephoto.biz because things are cheaper and in stock, but it's easier to link stuff this way) I'd be all set to develop B/W, right? I prefer the powdered Kodak fixer and Photoflo over the liquid Kodafix and permawash listed there (cheaper and easier to ship/store), personally. That's a decent tank (I started with the same), but I now have a 3x35mm/2x120 (and 6x 4x5, thanks Mod Reels!) tank that's my mainstay, and an 8x35mm/5x120 monster that I haven't worked up the stones to try yet. You'll be fine with that one, but the 3x35mm/2x120 one is great to have. If you're shooting 35mm Tri-X (not to mention ordering from Freestyle), you should order Arista Premium 400 instead. It's cheaper, re-branded Tri-X  I don't remember if I posted it in this thread or the large/medium format megathread, but does anyone have recommendations for reels for 120? I've had a real bitch of a time with some of mine, ruined one of the last two rolls I developed. Part of that was probably because I was using a changing bag, which I hate, but the reel was objectively being a piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2012 13:26
|
|
|
Spedman posted:http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-11/struggling-kodak-disbands-film-group2c-shares-soar/3767134 I think that's bad news for the film division. They need to cater to the pro/cinematographer markets, not try to compete to be Grandma's 35mm Film Provider, and that's the message I'm getting from putting them in the consumer department. I think this makes the film division much less likely to get picked up separately, because now you will be buying the inkjet printer division too (which will make the purchase riskier and more expensive). I'd say you should start buying up bricks of Portra 400 or Ektar soon if you want it 
Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 14:32 on Jan 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2012 14:24
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:I don't remember if I posted it in this thread or the large/medium format megathread, but does anyone have recommendations for reels for 120? I've had a real bitch of a time with some of mine, ruined one of the last two rolls I developed. Part of that was probably because I was using a changing bag, which I hate, but the reel was objectively being a piece of poo poo. Get the kind with the wide flanges, that helps guide the wider 120 film onto the reel better. Also, the reel needs to be bone dry or else the emulsion will soak the water up and start gelling onto things. It's worse on 120 than on 35mm because the film can bow much more easily. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 14:37 on Jan 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2012 14:31
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:I think that's bad news for the film division. They need to cater to the pro/cinematographer markets, not try to compete to be Grandma's 35mm Film Provider, and that's the message I'm getting from putting them in the consumer department. I think this makes the film division much less likely to get picked up separately, because now you will be buying the inkjet printer division too (which will make the purchase riskier and more expensive). I'd say you should start buying up bricks of Portra 400 or Ektar soon if you want it drat it Kodak! Really? Printers? Nobody cares about (inkjet-)printed ANYTHING anymore, since the majority of America lives its life on Facebook or e-mail or whatever. Kodak is like the goofy character that means well but just can't do anything right. Well, nowadays at least. Not historically.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2012 15:07
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:drat it Kodak! Really? Printers? Nobody cares about (inkjet-)printed ANYTHING anymore, since the majority of America lives its life on Facebook or e-mail or whatever. Consumer inkjet printing is literally a dying business. If I'm going to do a big batch of prints, it's cheaper to go to Walmart and use their Fuji machine (but servicing those is a Professional segment). I print so infrequently that I would be perpetually unclogging the heads, so it's pretty much just a better idea to use Walmart across the board. Anything else is laser printed because it's cheaper and better quality. Pros need the control and have some volume, but I'm guessing Kodak won't be able to compete with a nice Epson large format printer with bulk ink heads and all that, and I'm also guessing they won't even try. They're probably going to try for the totally saturated cheap consumer inkjet market, but I highly doubt they can break HP and Epson's lock on the market.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2012 15:56
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:you don't need the gloves. You don't NEED them, but I highly recommend them and use them every time. Fixer is stinky as hell and the chemicals make your skin all weird. Not to mention that having your hands wet all the time can lead to dermatitis which is annoying.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2012 16:26
|
|
|
Schofferhofer posted:So who's buying up Ektar and chucling it in the freezer? I've got 15 rolls of ektachrome to work through right now but am thinking a few Kodak pro packs might be a safe bet. I'm not a fan of Ektar but I'm stocking up on Portra. This is in addition to the brick of 400NC-3 I already have in the freezer. All 220.  
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2012 19:16
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:I'm not a fan of Ektar but I'm stocking up on Portra. This is in addition to the brick of 400NC-3 I already have in the freezer. All 220. NICE, it's okay that it's a few weeks late, that's the best Christmas present I could ask for! Thank you so much! I'll PM you my address in case you lost it. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2012 19:23
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:Kodak is like the goofy character that means well but just can't do anything right. Well, nowadays at least. Not historically. Yeah, Kodak historically has been a really evil corporation, actually, no reason to get misty-eyed over anything except product loss.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2012 19:29
|
|
|
FasterThanLight posted:Isn't Fuji pack film still made in 3x4? There are tons of very functional pack film cameras out there, and pretty much any antique store in the universe will have one for $10 or so. I took Polaroid to mean Polaroid™ compatible. Fuji Instax is still available and a lot more affordable than Impossible film (then again so is crack cocaine, especially after you add the hilarious shipping costs) but it is smaller than a standard PX600 image and there is only 1 type of film available. So it doesn't fit the requirements either. edit: With regards to Kodak's inevitable demise: I'll miss HC-110 most. Does anyone know if Ilford Ilfotec HC is any good as a HC-110 clone? I only shoot B&W so i other than expired film i guess i'll switch to ilford. Of the current film manufacturers they are most likely to stick around. NihilismNow fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Jan 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2012 19:33
|
|
|
Well, just ordered most of the stuff I need to develope, can't wait for it to get here now  Haven't developed film since middle school.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2012 21:12
|
|
|
NihilismNow posted:I took Polaroid to mean Polaroid™ compatible. Oh, I wasn't talking about instax, I meant stuff like FP-100C, FP-3000B, etc. that works in most of the old plastic Polaroid folders.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2012 21:23
|
|
|
I will have access to a dark room on campus this semester but it's only set up to handle black and white. I asked about buying the chemicals/tray(s) and bringing them in to do color but I don't know the extent of what's involved and I was told it's not worth it. I'm just looking to develop 120 negatives, not print. Thoughts? I have zero dark room experience.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2012 04:54
|
|
|
Unless there is no place to get it done nearby, and you don't want to pay to send them out, it is absolutely not worth it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2012 05:31
|
|
|
Nondo posted:I will have access to a dark room on campus this semester but it's only set up to handle black and white. I asked about buying the chemicals/tray(s) and bringing them in to do color but I don't know the extent of what's involved and I was told it's not worth it. I'm just looking to develop 120 negatives, not print. Thoughts? I have zero dark room experience. There's the same worth it/not calculus as b+w: your prints will be produced optically, which is much sharper than scanning it. I'd say at least 2x over consumer scanners and potentially 4x over consumer and 2x over a nice 4000dpi Nikon or drum scan. On the other hand, you have to deal with focusing, finding the correct exposure for every image (or buying a color analyzer), and developing/washing the paper. It sounds harder than it is. Focusing is easy, you simply raise/lower the enlarger to change your image size, then focus until it's properly sharp in a grain focuser. You slip a sheet of paper into the easel, and make some test exposures working towards a good print. You take each sheet of paper and run it through chemicals. The chemicals are different for color (and must be used at a warmer temperature within a couple degrees F), you have to manage three colors of light instead of two, and you have to work without a safelight. They make roller drums which keep the chemicals contained and minimize usage. If you want to do it, it's about another $200 more than b+w. You need a chemistry kit, you need paper, you need a dichro head (potentially expensive), you need a hot water bath, you need a roller system, and maybe a color analyzer. I would recommend you practice on b+w for a while and get used to how this works though. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 05:40 on Jan 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2012 05:33
|
|
|
Reich/Paul, thanks for the input. I do have a few local options thankfully, I just wanted to see if it was worth pursuing while I have access to a proper dark room. I will definitely be using it to learn with B&W film.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2012 06:24
|
|
|
How economical is it to send off 4x5 sheet film to get developed/scanned? What do you guys pay? Do any of you guys do this? Hm. I'm considering buying a large format camera, but my scanner can't handle 4x5 (Epson V500), and no local shops will process color 4x5.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2012 14:07
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:How economical is it to send off 4x5 sheet film to get developed/scanned? What do you guys pay? Do any of you guys do this? Hm. I always sent my medium/large format C-41 to Samy's in Santa Barbara. It's been 6+ months since I sent them anything, but at the time it was $1.50/sheet for 4x5, which is really cheap for sheet film. Black and white I always did myself. I've used both a Combi-Plan and Mod Reels in a Paterson tank and like the reels better, but the Combi's not bad. The scanner thing is kind of a bitch. I've got 3 LF cameras and even though I haven't touched them in a while, I still went ahead and dropped $520 on a used V750 Pro instead of picking up another V500 for basically 1/5 of that. I haven't decided if I want to stick with 4x5 yet, but even if I don't I've still got a fair bit of old stuff to catch up on scanning, and scanners tend to hold their value relatively well anyways. Between the more expensive scanner, new developing equipment, film holders, etc LF can kinda nickel and dime you like that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2012 14:19
|
|
Question: I took four rolls with a my Nikon F100 and many of the photos came out with the thin line across the top as seen below. Is that a result of my camera, the film (just Kodak 400 and 800 Gold), the processing, or is it not that easy to pinpoint? I like a lot of the shots I got, but I'm annoyed that the line is there. I had them processed at Costco.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2012 21:36
|
|
|
There is virtually nothing in a film camera that would result in an off-colour line like that. I would put every cent I own on "developing error". Moreover, did you just have Costco give you a CD with JPEGs on it? Check your negatives to see if there is a dicolouration there as well. There is always a chance that it's just a problem with their scanner. Like that little pink line for example, seems way too clean to be a problem with chemicals. e: Every cent I own into developER error in this case, since it might be scanning. Should clarify 
some kinda jackal fucked around with this message at 22:29 on Jan 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2012 21:44
|
|
Martytoof posted:There is virtually nothing in a film camera that would result in an off-colour line like that. I would put every cent I own on "developing error". Thanks. I'll check them out. Any Twin Cities goons have a place they like to develop that won't cost a fortune? I thought about National Camera, but my guess is it's gotta be 12 bucks a roll there if not more. Otherwise, what mail in sites are affordable and do a good job? Assuming this is a developer error, I'm done being cheap and going to Costco.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2012 21:59
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:How economical is it to send off 4x5 sheet film to get developed/scanned? What do you guys pay? Do any of you guys do this? Hm. I scan 4x5 with my v500. I've only just started LF so I didn't want to jump in full on to start with, so I just scan half a sheet at a time and then use photomerge in Photoshop to put them together easily. I'm still not sure about staying with 4x5, to me it seems like a lot more effort for not a lot more gain, I might change my press camera for a monorail and see though. And I develop with the taco method too for the same reason, not wanting to invest in equipment I might not want in the near future.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2012 22:21
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2012 01:08
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:There is virtually nothing in a film camera that would result in an off-colour line like that. I would put every cent I own on "developing error". I'd guess that the strip of negatives got scratched loading it into the scanner (minilabs normally have a Noritsu or whatever that they just feed the uncut roll into, it scans them all automatically and spits them out). I've had similar things happen to my negs at CVS as well, the "techs" throw them around like freight.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2012 03:49
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:I'd guess that the strip of negatives got scratched loading it into the scanner (minilabs normally have a Noritsu or whatever that they just feed the uncut roll into, it scans them all automatically and spits them out). I've had similar things happen to my negs at CVS as well, the "techs" throw them around like freight.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2012 04:29
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:Scratches aren't that uniform. It's a stuck pixel. You can tell by the fact that only one color channel is responding and it's a perfect line. It happens. Just show them the results and ask them to rescan it. So does this mean my negatives should be OK? Because the prints came back with the same line as the scans.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2012 05:51
|
|
|
Geek USSR posted:So does this mean my negatives should be OK? Because the prints came back with the same line as the scans. Well, look at the negatives! A miscoloured line (or scratch) along the entire film should be noticeable. As for your prints, they are probably made digitally from the scans, so any fault in the scans would also show up on the prints.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2012 05:55
|
|
|
Geek USSR posted:So does this mean my negatives should be OK? Because the prints came back with the same line as the scans. The prints could very well have been made from the scans. Check the negatives for scratches, and show it to the lab - at the very least you could get some free film as consolation if it's actually scratches on your negs; otherwise they'll rescan it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2012 05:56
|
|
|
Crossposting from the Nikon thread: Has anyone used a modern battery (well, batteries) in a Nikon F w/ photomic meter? Apparently it used PX675 1.3V mercury batteries, which you can't get anymore. I'm thinking I can just use PX675A 1.5V alkaline batteries and just check the meter against a known good meter and adjust my ASA accordingly. Will this work? I'd like to see if anyone else has fudged around with it before I go buying batteries.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2012 15:38
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:Crossposting from the Nikon thread: You want to get hearing aid pr675 batteries. Alkaline batteries will give wrong readings (too high initially, then too low as the battery discharges, alkaline doesn't keep a steady voltage through it's discharge cycle). Any pharmacy should have a 6 pack of pr675 batteries for a few bucks. They are the same size as PX675 but they use Zinc-Air chemistry, voltage is 1.40 volt instead of 1.35 volt but at least the discharge curve is similar to mercury cells. The 0.05 volt difference shouldn't be noticeable. Another option is a WeinCell which is officially marketed as a PX675 replacement. It is basically a very expensive ($10+) PR675.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2012 18:36
|
|
|
Hrm, got a pack of 675 ZnO hearing aid batteries and they don't make my meter do anything :\ I'll keep playing around with it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2012 19:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 13:58 |
|
|
QPZIL posted:Hrm, got a pack of 675 ZnO hearing aid batteries and they don't make my meter do anything :\ I'll keep playing around with it. Strange, 675 hearing aid batteries should be the exact same size. I know when you use them as a PX625 replacement sometimes it is necessary to add a spacer ring or some tinfoil but px675 --> ZnO675 should be a 1:1 replacement. Are you sure the meter works?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2012 19:29
|
|