|
deaders posted:Shoot more, make a lot less excuses? Yeah. This is it. I knew that posting it but needed to vent.
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 07:15 |
|
|
If I have a roll of Superia rated for 400 that I'm shooting at 200. Am I correct in thinking that I don't need to alter the DX code before I send it in because the minilab doesn't care what it's being fed?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
Tony Two Bapes posted:ektar 100 is fun imo but I dunno if it gets much love on these forums It's a nice enough film, it's got great resolution and saturation, it's just super finicky. Think of it like a slide film: you really need to nail it +/- 0.5 stop. The closer the better, don't try to compensate anything at all. The more you're off, the weirder the colors get. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 05:34 on Oct 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
voodoorootbeer posted:If I have a roll of Superia rated for 400 that I'm shooting at 200. Am I correct in thinking that I don't need to alter the DX code before I send it in because the minilab doesn't care what it's being fed? Yes, +1 stop on standard C-41 film is absolutely fine. The negatives will be a bit overexposed but it'll be OK. C-41 is a standard process anyway, it doesn't care what ISO you feed it. You can still do push/pull processing but it's unusual and you'll need to go to a pro lab to do it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
the recycling gods have smiled again. someone got rid of the OM 21mm f/3.5 and 100mm f/2.8 they thought were trash.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 07:30
|
|
|
Mrenda posted:All in all, how the gently caress do you shoot colour? I bought Understanding Exposure, and that showed me how to use my camera (not that I read it the entire way through before giving it to a friend who wouldn't do anything but look at the pictures briefly.) I know how a camera works. I don't know how the gently caress colour works? (Shoot more.) You know how in B&W shape and contrast become compositional elements? Color is like that except you are adding hue and saturation into it. So something that is super boring and all grey on Tri-X could be super interesting on Portra. Think of it like writing poetry in similar but slightly different languages.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 08:47
|
|
|
I dig Ektar too, don't feel shame in using it. I try to only bust it out for the scenes where I feel comfortable nailing exposure though as others have mentioned. With Portra I feel like I don't even have to meter sometimes, poo poo will just work out somehow. On a separate note, has anyone here shot with a Yashica FX-3 or similar? I just picked up a Distagon 28mm for my Fuji X-E1, but I kind of want to shoot film with it and see how that goes. Just a standard old film camera, or are there any interesting perks/downsides?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 12:03
|
|
|
I find that Ektar and Superia lend themselves really well to the sense of immediacy I get from the 35mm format. Portra is a bit more clinical and I think it works great for MF/LF which tend to be shot a bit more contemplatively. That's just my experience anyway.8th-snype posted:You know how in B&W shape and contrast become compositional elements? Color is like that except you are adding hue and saturation into it. So something that is super boring and all grey on Tri-X could be super interesting on Portra. Think of it like writing poetry in similar but slightly different languages. Yup. I shoot Tri-X 35mm 90% of the time for a project I'm working on, but some days my brain just needs to do colour, so I save those times for medium format and head out of the city. Separating the two has made my approach to shooting much easier. burzum karaoke fucked around with this message at 14:25 on Oct 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 14:16
|
|
|
try it with a lime posted:I find that Ektar and Superia lend themselves really well to the sense of immediacy I get from the 35mm format. Portra is a bit more clinical and I think it works great for MF/LF which tend to be shot a bit more contemplatively. That's just my experience anyway. Pretty much my feelings on this. 35mm: Tri-X, Superia Anything Else: Portra 400
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
 imposing by PC-P, on Flickr bar by PC-P, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
So I shot a roll of tri-x 400 and portra 400 (because it's a requirement here). I'm now ready to do some development. I've been spending far too long online trying to make sense of what chemicals I need for both bw and color. As far as the actually PROCESS, it seems ridiculously simple and stupid proof. That means I can do it. It seems like the C-41 process uses quite a few chemicals? The BW seems to be straight forward. My main confusion is with the developer. All the videos I watch, people are using liquid developers. Are they buying them pre-mixed or are they mixing it themselves? A packet makes like 5 liters, and I don't really need that much at once. So basically, what chemicals are you guys using these days?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
PushingKingston posted:Pretty much my feelings on this. If you haven't shot Acros in 120, or seen a 6x7/6x9 slide you've taken, you're missing out. I agree that Tri-X or HP5 in 35mm is the obvious choice for a fast film though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
Color film is best left to a lab unless you really have no other choice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:So I shot a roll of tri-x 400 and portra 400 (because it's a requirement here). I'm now ready to do some development. I've been spending far too long online trying to make sense of what chemicals I need for both bw and color. As far as the actually PROCESS, it seems ridiculously simple and stupid proof. That means I can do it. Easiest option: a one-shot developer. You start with a bottle of concentrate, you mix up "working solution" when you need it, then you pour it down the drain afterwords. The classic choices here are HC-110B and Rodinal, both of which work really well at high dilutions. I'm a huge fan of Rodinal personally: there's recipes available for any film, it works great on anything, and if you use a 1:100 dilution then every film develops to normal contrast with a 1 hour stand development. Otherwise you're right, you do need to mix up a couple liters at once and then store them. You can put it in bottles with no headroom for air, which will let it keep for a while. But once you start using it and exposing it to air it does eventually goes bad, and to maintain consistent development you need to "replenish" the developer every 10-20 rolls by adding in a little concentrate. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Oct 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Easiest option: a one-shot developer. You start with a bottle of "concentrate", you mix up "working solution" when you need it, then you pour it down the drain afterwords. Awesome, that's what was confusing me. The one-shot stuff. Sounds like the way to go, at least to start. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:Color film is best left to a lab unless you really have no other choice. Or until you get into large format. I don't even know a store near me that does 4x5 anymore, and back when they did it used to be $2.50 per sheet for C-41 process. If you go on vacation and come back with a box full of C-41 4x5, I think it'd make sense to buy one of those Tetanal kits. Speaking of which, didn't someone do a guide on their ghetto chemical heating bath system a while back? I should build one of those sometime, I have a roller development system and some RA-4 paper drums that would do 4x5... I also think I remember reading that you can freeze the chemicals for color development just fine. So if you don't want to use all of it in one go, stick it in the freezer and they'll keep longer. The at-home E-6 kits are a little trickier if I remember, and the quality and long-term stability is a little questionable since they use an abbreviated version that omits some of the steps of the full E-6 process. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 19:36 on Oct 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Or until you get into large format. I don't even know a local place that does 4x5 anymore, and back when they did it used to be $2.50 per sheet for C-41 process. If you go on vacation and come back with a box full of C-41 4x5, I think it'd make sense to buy one of those Tetanal kits. I actually do have a local lab that does medium format but they seem quite expensive. http://techlabphoto.com/ EDIT: nevermind, I think their price list is just confusing...I think develop only is much cheaper. I'm going to go check them out today. vxsarin fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Oct 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Or until you get into large format. I don't even know a store near me that does 4x5 anymore, and back when they did it used to be $2.50 per sheet for C-41 process. If you go on vacation and come back with a box full of C-41 4x5, I think it'd make sense to buy one of those Tetanal kits. I luckily have a local lab that still does 24 hour turnaround on everything up to 8x10 E-6.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:I actually do have a local lab that does medium format but they seem quite expensive. http://techlabphoto.com/ Yeah, getting stuff scanned is usually pretty expensive if you want someone with experience to be doing it. If you go to Walmart or something and get minilab dev+scans the scans will still cost just as much as the development, and also the quality will be atrocious. By the way, don't even bother looking at getting labs to develop your B+W film. My local lab charges $15 per roll, so you've covered the cost of a full batch of chemicals in like 2 rolls of film.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Yeah, getting stuff scanned is usually pretty expensive if you want someone with experience to be doing it. If you go to Walmart or something and get minilab dev+scans the scans will still cost just as much as the development, and also the quality will be atrocious. I've got a scanner, so I'd just need processing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:I luckily have a local lab that still does 24 hour turnaround on everything up to 8x10 E-6. Citizen's does mail processing, everyone in the dorkroom should use them so that we have a better chance at keeping a place that does reasonable C-41 processing open.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:Citizen's does mail processing, everyone in the dorkroom should use them so that we have a better chance at keeping a place that does reasonable C-41 processing open. Are they any cheaper or better than north coast? North coast is localish to me but feels expensive (though they seem to do a better job than most of the cheaper mailins).
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
nm posted:Are they any cheaper or better than north coast? North coast is localish to me but feels expensive (though they seem to do a better job than most of the cheaper mailins). Citizens' film developing prices are, or at least were, 30-50% of NCPS' prices. We'll see if they use their move to justify price increases (I hope not).
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:If you haven't shot Acros in 120, or seen a 6x7/6x9 slide you've taken, you're missing out. I forgot about Acros. Yeah, that's a good medium format B&W but I rarely shoot B&W so I've got a box half used still just hanging in the freezer. ansel autisms posted:I luckily have a local lab that still does 24 hour turnaround on everything up to 8x10 E-6. This is just a painful reminder that Toronto Image Works stopped doing E6 a few months ago and now I have to send it to Montreal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
Just stopped by that local lab and the prices are ~$7.50 for color and $9 for black and white. It was about a 50 cent increase on both for 120. Doesn't seem terrible. The also can turn them around same day if you get them in early.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
PushingKingston posted:I forgot about Acros. Yeah, that's a good medium format B&W but I rarely shoot B&W so I've got a box half used still just hanging in the freezer. Did they stop doing E6 in any format or just large? I have a couple of undeveloped MF e6 in the fridge somewhere 
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:Did they stop doing E6 in any format or just large? Yep, all E6. And the guy in High Park who was doing it in his apartment for $20 for 4 rolls just stopped recently too. Time to move to Quebec.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:I also think I remember reading that you can freeze the chemicals for color development just fine. So if you don't want to use all of it in one go, stick it in the freezer and they'll keep longer. The Digibase kits last for up to a year in concentrate form, and when mixed I've had them last for around 2-3 months when the Dev and Blix are stored in the fridge in concertina bottles.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
PushingKingston posted:Yep, all E6. And the guy in High Park who was doing it in his apartment for $20 for 4 rolls just stopped recently too. Time to move to Quebec. GPC Labworks in Ottawa will do it. The catch is Ottawa sucks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
PushingKingston posted:Yep, all E6. And the guy in High Park who was doing it in his apartment for $20 for 4 rolls just stopped recently too. Time to move to Quebec. Welp. I'll just ship it to aliencowboy, don't wanna get shot. It's safer here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
Do these printers look decent? (Links on the right for their prices, papers and process.) http://rightbrain.ie/fineartprint/fineartprint_overview.html I'd be printing from home scanned (Epson V500) 35mm Tri-X.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
 Untitled by Stabby McKnife, on Flickr Finally scanning some of the film I've been blowing through for class.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
The Toronto photo fair happened today, so I got some [expired] film and a light meter (after breaking my old one ) The place was packed, it was at a smaller location. Tons of LF stuff, I don't remember seeing that much before. bobmarleysghost fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Oct 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
Speaking of Ektar, here's a scan I made of some Ektar and it suffers from the same problem most of my scans suffer from. They're very dull and washed out. Everyone says how vibrant Ektar is but I'm not seeing it. I'm wondering what else I should be doing when processing my scans.  I processed this using the same Photoshop technique in ~the scan processing video~ everyone always asks for by adjusting the clipping points on each RBG channel individually, then fixing the color cast using curves. It looks overexposed, but all of my film scans come out this way before I play with vibrance/saturation in Lightroom. Should I be adding a brightness/contrast adjustment layer in Photoshop first? I am just not sure how to go about getting the most realistic final image. If anyone wants to play around, here's the original scan: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/55540/img618.tif
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
Ok, so I gave it a go and it looks more vibrant. I just used 8th-snype's awesome tutorial on the first page for the first time. Just levels and setting the grey point. Seems to have come out a bit more vibrant, but it's still overexposed. I used the imperfection on the pumpkin for the grey point. I'm not sure it's dead on, but it looks decent. I touched absolutely nothing but the levels and grey point. I think it looks like an improvement. 
vxsarin fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Oct 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:I processed this using the same Photoshop technique in ~the scan processing video~ everyone always asks for by adjusting the clipping points on each RBG channel individually, then fixing the color cast using curves. It looks overexposed, but all of my film scans come out this way before I play with vibrance/saturation in Lightroom. Should I be adding a brightness/contrast adjustment layer in Photoshop first? I am just not sure how to go about getting the most realistic final image. It looks overexposed because your negative is overexposed. Try exposing 1/2-2/3 stop under what you do now and see how your negatives look.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:It looks overexposed because your negative is overexposed. Try exposing 1/2-2/3 stop under what you do now and see how your negatives look. All my of scans come out looking like this, no matter what camera or film I use. Should I adjust my scanner maybe?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:All my of scans come out looking like this, no matter what camera or film I use. Should I adjust my scanner maybe? It's not the film, camera or scanner. It's overexposed coming out of the camera.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
It's certainly possible to get somewhat more lively colors with additional curves adjustment, but yeah. Overexposed from the camera.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 07:15 |
|
|
This is what I got myself after some more adjustments of my own. All I did extra in Photoshop was set the brightness to -60 and then the contrast to +60.  Then in Lightroom I did all kinds of adjustments to the highlights/shadows/vibrance/saturation. I would just love it if I could get closer to this in Photoshop first.  Do you guys really think it's mostly an exposure issue? I seem to have this problem with many of my cameras  This was shot on an F100 in matrix metering mode, so I'm surprised the exposure was so off. BANME.sh fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Oct 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 21:07
|
|