|
RoryGilmore posted:So, I just started photography and began with a film camera. My first 2-3 rolls went fine and good, but my third roll was a major gently caress up. I released the film and started rewinding, and heard a snap. I took a peek inside in a dark room and the film did indeed break off, but the shutter (I think) was fine. Shutters (and page snypes) do not go quietly into the night. I think I saw this exact same thing when the shutter failed on a DSLR. They pretty much just explode sometimes.
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 20:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 18:21 |
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:That is bizarre as gently caress. What camera was it? A nikon of some sort I'm guessing? Yeah, it's a Nikon FA. I was thinking that maybe the guy at the photo lab broke it when taking the canister out, or maybe the shutter went off while the film was broken inside and caused that to happen, I have no clue. It really sucks though 
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
RoryGilmore posted:Yeah, it's a Nikon FA. I was thinking that maybe the guy at the photo lab broke it when taking the canister out, or maybe the shutter went off while the film was broken inside and caused that to happen, I have no clue. It really sucks though The latter sounds more likely to me, if something got into the shutter plane while it was open it could easily have ate poo poo when it tried to slam shut again. Also, a quick look at ebay shows that it is possible to buy a replacement shutter, but it'd be cheaper to just buy a new FA. rip titanium shutter blades.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 20:54
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:rip titanium shutter blades. Word
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 21:02
|
|
|
Looks almost like an F3 from the viewfinder and knobs, that would be heartbreaking to happen to an F3 edit-- whoops heh heh, didn't see there was another page...
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 22:40
|
|
|
Trying out some Pan F+ Stones by alkanphel, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 23:02
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:The latter sounds more likely to me, if something got into the shutter plane while it was open it could easily have ate poo poo when it tried to slam shut again. Yeah I just got quoted for 100-125$ for the repair, and I think I can just buy a new FA off ebay for the same price (if not cheaper).
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 23:05
|
|
|
RoryGilmore posted:So, I just started photography and began with a film camera. My first 2-3 rolls went fine and good, but my third roll was a major gently caress up. I released the film and started rewinding, and heard a snap. I took a peek inside in a dark room and the film did indeed break off, but the shutter (I think) was fine. Nooo! That's one of the ones with the honeycomb shutter. I wish my FM2 had one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 00:09
|
|
|
Spedman posted:I still hang my colour films, I want to avoid them sticking together and get the curl out of the film. Thanks Spedman, I ended up diluting the stab to 3% and keeping the film immersed but still as opposed to shaking the tank. This latter because I noticed stains formed where there was foam. Tomorrow I'll report my findings.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 00:51
|
|
|
 Sea by atomicthumbs, on Flickr HP5+ at 1600 is still good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 01:12
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:
Nice, I'm a fan of HP5+ at 1600 too. It's what I used for  hp5021.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr I've got a roll of 120 that I shot at 1600 still sitting on my desk waiting to be developed though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 01:21
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:
This owns. What a sense of scale.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 10:18
|
|
|
maxmars posted:Thanks Spedman, I ended up diluting the stab to 3% and keeping the film immersed but still as opposed to shaking the tank. This latter because I noticed stains formed where there was foam. Tomorrow I'll report my findings. Glad I good help, did it all go well?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 21:51
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:
I was out shooting this sunday, around the lake, and saw the same type of person - standing on a board and paddling. Wtf is this type of sport I don;t even know
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 22:01
|
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:I was out shooting this sunday, around the lake, and saw the same type of person - standing on a board and paddling. Wtf is this type of sport I don;t even know http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand_up_paddle_surfing It's actually pretty fun on a lake or calm river.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 22:02
|
|
|
Oh, duh. Paddleboarding. I couldn't for the life of me figure out why jesus was mopping the ocean.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 22:24
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:
I went from that to this:  Someone tell me the cheapest place to send 120 film off to, tia.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 07:01
|
|
|
Where can I send 35 mm to have it cheaply developed and scanned and just get a digital file back?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 07:04
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Where can I send 35 mm to have it cheaply developed and scanned and just get a digital file back? If you don't want your negatives back you are objectively a bad person.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 07:28
|
|
|
Oh I do, I just meant no prints. Sorry.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 07:30
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Oh I do, I just meant no prints. Sorry. Oh well then send them to Citizens Photo in Portland they are cheap and a bunch of west coasters will vouch for their quality. http://www.citizensphoto.com They charge $2.75 a roll to dev and it looks like $5 for small scans and $7.50 for 6mp equivalent. Frankly you should look into buying a scanner unless you are only gonna shoot a few rolls a year or something. EDIT: It was pointed out to me that Citizens website doesn't actually say they do mail in processing. The way it works is you send them a box of film with a note in it for processing instructions and then call them to give them a credit card number to keep on file. They send the film back to you priority mail ($6 I think). They are really good about emailing you back if you have any actual questions for them about the process. 8th-snype fucked around with this message at 09:25 on Jan 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 07:38
|
|
|
 Gentle by atomicthumbs, on Flickr Shot on Ektachrome Elite 100, expired in the 90s. I wish I'd had the foresight to get some Portra 400 in 120 for this sunrise hike.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 09:36
|
|
|
Spedman posted:Glad I good help, did it all go well? Yeah, a concentration of 3% is where it's at. Have a look at this:  Fireworks over the castle di maxmars70, su Flickr Pretty nice colors now aren't they?  Fourth roll with the same 300ml of developer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 11:52
|
|
|
Sweet colours, just keep an eye on your.negs for the next few rolls, make sure they're not getting too thin, also increase the dev time a little as it becomes more exhausted.atomicthumbs posted:
Liking that atmosphere and grain.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 21:34
|
|
|
Just got a newsletter from Ag-Photographic, announcing a new developer. Spursinn HCD They claim it can do insane pushing like Tri-X at 51200, or pull HP5 to 25. Sounds like something to try.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 18:37
|
|
|
nielsm posted:They claim it can do insane pushing like Tri-X at 51200, or pull HP5 to 25.  I'll wait for tests but 
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 18:45
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Just got a newsletter from Ag-Photographic, announcing a new developer. Spursinn HCD Sweet
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 19:30
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Just got a newsletter from Ag-Photographic, announcing a new developer. Spursinn HCD Sounds like they finally found out about Diafine 
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 20:02
|
|
|
They mention Diafine in the email, and then say this will be the next cult developer. Apparently the two part set comes with a booklet for all the developer combinations for nearly every film on the market. I might get some on my chemical order very soon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 23:00
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Just got a newsletter from Ag-Photographic, announcing a new developer. Spursinn HCD HC-110 already does this. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 04:15
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:
I do remember seeing an image floating around on the web where the guy reported using Tri-X and pushing it to (at least) 12800. It had a very long process time - and he said something about agitating the mixture once every 10 minutes or so? I am lamenting the fact that I did not save it at the time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 05:48
|
|
|
Well this is the first thing that comes to mind: http://www.flickr.com/groups/rodinal/discuss/72157608203774894/ A few images down there's a medium format Tri-X shot at EI 25,600.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2013 04:25
|
|
|
Just developed some decade old film kodak 125px  img002 by patnumber8, on Flickr kodak p3200tmz (this is probably the least grainy shot on the whole roll)  img020 by patnumber8, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 02:16
|
|
|
I'm getting ready to develop my own film for the first time ever in the next week or so, but I've got a question. All the times I've seen for my films (Tri-X, Acros, Pan F) and developer (HC-110) in my first cursory research are under five minutes. Can I just halve the concentration from 1:31 to 1:63 and double the time? Do I need to adjust agitation? Any other tips?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 04:30
|
|
|
JSW2 posted:I'm getting ready to develop my own film for the first time ever in the next week or so, but I've got a question. All the times I've seen for my films (Tri-X, Acros, Pan F) and developer (HC-110) are under five minutes. Can I just halve the concentration from 1:31 to 1:63 and double the time? Do I need to adjust agitation? Any other tips? If you halve the concentration and double the time you'll be fine. I normally agitate the same either way (although make sure whatever concentration you use there's at least 6ml of developer in it for each roll, even it means mixing more working solution) http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/ is a pretty good resource when using hc110.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 04:34
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:If you halve the concentration and double the time you'll be fine. I normally agitate the same either way (although make sure whatever concentration you use there's at least 6ml of developer in it for each roll, even it means mixing more working solution) Great, I'll do just that. Thanks for the link too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 04:44
|
|
|
Here's a lomography film that I don't hate: Fuji RMS 100/1000, shot at ISO 100.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 06:56
|
|
|
It looks a little magenta to me, and the blacks don't look black. (Unless thats what you were going for, not that I want to see the histogram or anything).
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 08:33
|
|
|
Developed my first roll of black and white last night and all the images came out very flat and grey. I'm thinking the chemicals might have been too cold, would this cause something like that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 09:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 18:21 |
|
|
Cold chemicals will cause underdevelopment. Have you scanned any of them? Flat negs really aren't the worst thing. You can always bump contrast in post, removing it is a pain.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 09:48
|
|