|
Almost certainly not. B&W developing isn't automated, C-41 (colour negative) is, and was much more popular for several decades. B&W is usually developed by hand, which means expensive. B&W C-41 is a different story - did you shoot that?
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 03:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 17:21 |
|
|
 I'm trying to avoid street portraits since I am getting bored of them, and bored of the same locations. So here's at least one picture that is different. I have more to come but cannot afford to develop any film at the moment. I have something like 15 or 20 rolls, mostly color, that are sitting in my freezer. I like the lines in this shot, but I blurred the picture because I was slightly leaning over a railing and not being steady enough. Not sure if it's interesting enough.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 03:45
|
|
|
FarmerHank posted:Would a Wallgreens / Walmart develop black and white film? I dont want to bring it and because its black and white have them go all breaking bad and it be 50$ NCPS will do it, and scan it too (if you want).
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 03:48
|
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:I'm all for VueScan. Tried Silverfast but found it to be poo poo. They are very polarizing, people seem to like one and hate the other.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 03:54
|
|
|
I tolerate VueScan while I hated SilverFast. Though it looks like they sort of cleaned Silverfast up last time I installed the demo. Basically it's "pick which program you hate less", when it comes to scanning on a Mac. ... to the point where I think I might try just scanning with Image Capture. If it can give me a TIFF without loving up my levels then I can do the rest myself in Lightroom or PhotoShop.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 04:13
|
|
|
FarmerHank posted:Would a Wallgreens / Walmart develop black and white film? I dont want to bring it and because its black and white have them go all breaking bad and it be 50$ Unless, like other posters already stated you shot C-41 black and white, you are out of luck. C41 B&W film is a specialty film made for developing in color chemicals and should say so on the box. You could either develop yourself (it's not that hard, nor expensive really!) or heed mannequins advise. Out of curiosity - what film did you shoot?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 04:18
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Basically it's "pick which program you hate less", when it comes to scanning As a rule, scanner software for consumer scanners is nightmarish at best, single button at worst. Apparently the Imacon and various drum scanning softwares are quite good, but for the rest of us it's a lesser of very-close-levels-of-evil thing. 365 Nog Hogger fucked around with this message at 04:41 on Aug 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 04:39
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:As a rule, scanner software for consumer scanners is nightmarish at best, single button at worst. Apparently the Imacon and various drum scanning softwares are quite good, but for the rest of us it's a lesser of very-close-levels-of-evil thing. Nope, drum scanning software is a piece of poo poo too. At least it's got the extra power that comes with the drum scanner features (focus, aperture, etc.).
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 04:46
|
|
|
VomitOnLino posted:Unless, like other posters already stated you shot C-41 black and white, you are out of luck. C41 B&W film is a specialty film made for developing in color chemicals and should say so on the box. Just shot simple Tri-x 400, only B&W film found in the stores around the corner, But yeah the question was more about time. I would rather have the developed film in my hands right now then find/wait for all the chemicals to come to my door. But I think I am going to bite the bullet and go for that. I mean why not just jump in head first.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 04:57
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:As a rule, scanner software for consumer scanners is nightmarish at best, single button at worst. Apparently the Imacon and various drum scanning softwares are quite good, but for the rest of us it's a lesser of very-close-levels-of-evil thing. Oh Jesus no. If you think VueScan and SilverFast are bad, FlexColor will drive you mad. And drum scanners... MrBlandAverage beat me to it. Don't forget most of them haven't even been supported since the last millennium. Think about how terrible software was 15 or 20 years ago. Now think about how terrible specialty industrial niche software always is. Now combine them and mix that abortion with SCSI. Operator suicide is surely among the reasons good drum scans are getting harder and harder to find. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 06:59
|
|
|
Flextouch is a genuinely good program
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 07:40
|
|
|
Shot this with my ME Super. Portra 400, tight crop. Really tight crop.  DSC_0679.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr  DSC_0682.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr  DSC_0674.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr I used a microscope
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 23:44
|
|
|
Slide film looks so drat cool when it's developed. Pity about my new Canon having a gammy shutter and only exposing about half the shots properly  Let this be a lesson: Always shoot test rolls with "new" cameras. Can't wait to actually use this in my Pentax and get a full roll out of it 
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2012 00:42
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:Pity about my new Canon having a gammy shutter and only exposing about half the shots properly Yeah slide looks way cool on a light table, especially medium format. I should shoot more of it, I really have no excuse. Also yeah it's really a good idea to first inspect the camera by look, then checking the shutter speeds by ear (you can usually tell if the low speeds are off, or the gears sound grind-y and hesitant instead of a smooth buzz). Then I usually shoot either a roll of B/W or C41. For C41 I'm using Ektar, as I can get it cheap and its low exposure latitude is good for uncovering any glaring problems. Be sure to make notes what your speed/aperture settings are, especially so if you self-develop.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2012 02:26
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:
I really like this, reminds me of cartier-bresson.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2012 04:21
|
|
|
VomitOnLino posted:Yeah slide looks way cool on a light table, especially medium format. I suppose the real reason I don't use it as much is that it's well over twice the price to get developed, my usual lab doesn't do E-6 so I have to bring it to a specialist Fuji retailer, even though it's Kodak. VomitOnLino posted:Also yeah it's really a good idea to first inspect the camera by look, then checking the shutter speeds by ear (you can usually tell if the low speeds are off, or the gears sound grind-y and hesitant instead of a smooth buzz). Yeah the camera seemed fine when I tested it by ear and I even shot 4 or 5 shots to finish the roll off that came out perfectly, I just didn't notice anything weird when I brought it out to shoot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2012 09:31
|
|
|
Shooting film basically invites a ton of dumb DIY stuff, so in the words of Chief Wiggum: You'll wear 'em till you learn, son. (Who the gently caress put the rewind button there anyway. Dumb.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 01:48
|
|
|
Kodak posted:August 23, 2012 http://www.kodak.com/ek/US/en/Kodak_Takes_Next_Steps_toward_Successful_Emergence.htm Hmmmm...
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 02:42
|
|
|
 Is it time to start hoarding film yet
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 02:44
|
|
|
Countdown to the Impossible Project buying the film line (and ruining it).
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 03:12
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Countdown to the Impossible Project buying the film line (and ruining it). Don't say that, let's all just believe really hard that Ilford will buy it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 03:19
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:Sellin our poo poo Whelp... time to hoard cheap developer
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 03:36
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:
Have you ever tried Efke and Fomapan film? Cheap and good!
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 10:47
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:Don't say that, let's all just believe really hard that Ilford will buy it. aliencowboy posted:I'll give you my Portra when you pry it from my cold, dead hands. evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 11:38 on Aug 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 10:55
|
|
|
I'll give you my Portra when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 11:05
|
|
|
My Ektar 
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 11:23
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:Whelp... time to hoard cheap developer You can always make some cheap d-76 and store it dry in jars forever. (http://stores.photoformulary.com/-strse-70/Divided-D-dsh-76/Detail.bok) I'm just hoping the large format colour will be saved, somehow. Spedman fucked around with this message at 12:13 on Aug 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 12:08
|
|
|
Shot a roll of Ultramax with the 10$ Olympus 35RC I picked up last week, mostly happy with it (wih a bit of post).    Sorry for the lovely scans, which leads me to my question (a repeat from the P&S thread. I shot three rolls of Ultramax in three different cameras (that Nikon P&S, an Olympus 35RC and a Canon EOS 620), had them developed at the same place and just scanned everything at 600dpi with a 8800F. Why is it that all the pictures look kind of lovely and all come out with imperfections especially apparent in the shot below? Is it the scanning software (I use the standard Mpex software on OS X)? They rarely turn up if I pay for scans on CD. Or is it an issue with the camera (I should mentioned that it's an issue I almost always have in the majority of self scanned shots regardless of camera), as it's usually less apparent in the 80s Canon SLR used for the shots below:   Even then however:  Ideas?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 14:35
|
|
|
maybe the CD scans you normally get are scanned off the negatives rather than the prints?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 14:47
|
|
|
Anti-Derivative posted:maybe the CD scans you normally get are scanned off the negatives rather than the prints?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 14:50
|
|
|
Anti-Derivative posted:maybe the CD scans you normally get are scanned off the negatives rather than the prints? Generally they are, yeah. And going straight from the minilab developer to the scanner has 10000000% less of a chance for dust to get on the negatives than going from the developer to the cutting board to the negative sleeves to the car to home to the goon's grubby fingers to the scanner, etc...
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 14:55
|
|
|
nemoulette posted:Why is it that all the pictures look kind of lovely and all come out with imperfections especially apparent in the shot below? Is it the scanning software (I use the standard Mpex software on OS X)? They rarely turn up if I pay for scans on CD. That's dust and poo poo on your scanner. The labs will do a dust removal during the scan (using ICE or an IR channel, your scanner may be capable of this).
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 15:29
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:That's dust and poo poo on your scanner. The labs will do a dust removal during the scan (using ICE or an IR channel, your scanner may be capable of this). Oh yeah, good call. Digital ICE is an amazing feature that I just recently started using. I disregarded it for so long because I thought it would degrade the quality of my negatives, but it was just the opposite 
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 15:47
|
|
|
Thanks for the input on the dust issues. Moreover, I decided to return the Zorki 4K due to the lagging shutter issues that I mentioned earlier. A shame, since it did produce some really nice shots, especially with Ilford PAN:  
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 11:46
|
|
|
This owns bones.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 12:43
|
|
|
Saint Fu posted:This owns bones.  My friends gave me a lot of poo poo along the lines of "hey man, if my boat overheated and was kinda of breaking apart, I would be really annoyed if some hipster douche stood by taking pictures".
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 12:51
|
|
|
nemoulette posted:Thanks Get new friends.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 17:34
|
|
|
gently caress Walgreens. They made me buy 4x6 prints, and didn't give me my negatives back so I can't try saving any of my overexposed photographs. Time to find another lovely lab I guess. On a lighter note, the PEN-EES works great. wheres my beer fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Aug 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 21:07
|
|
|
Miso Beno posted:gently caress Walgreens. They made me buy 4x6 prints, and didn't give me my negatives back so I can't try saving any of my overexposed photographs. Time to find another lovely lab I guess. Uh what? Seriously if they didn't give you the negatives back you got hosed. I would insist to speak to a manager. Those are your property they can't just loving keep them or whatever. If they lost or destroyed your negatives you are entitled to at least a roll of film in recompense. 8th-snype fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Aug 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 21:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 17:21 |
|
|
Miso Beno posted:and didn't give me my negatives back
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 21:59
|
|