|
evil_bunnY posted:why would you ever check film? art
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 13:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 18:21 |
|
|
rohan posted:I know the topic of airports and film has been done to death here and elsewhere, but does expired film change anything? Specifically, I have a short interstate trip coming up and I'd like to use some of the 10+ year expired film I bought from MrBlandAverage, but I'm concerned even two more rounds of carry-on x-rays will be too much. I forgot a bunch of film in my checked luggage (Portra 400, some Fuji color negative 1600, etc.) and they turned out fine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 14:50
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:why would you ever check film? Spent half an hour packaging the camera up to fly, realized all the exposed film was still in the holders in the case, said "gently caress it the pictures probably sucked anyway" and went to the airport. Luckily I was right.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:why would you ever check film? There was a time before lockerbie that check luggage got no xray and xrays for hand luggage were much worse. So you checked your film. Some peopke believe that stuff that was true 30 years ago still is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
I wonder if anyone here has tried this before? http://shop.new55.net/collections/frontpage/products/r3-monobath-developer
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
I was looking at a monobath to do X-ray film developing, trying to avoid scratching and could do the process in a lunch box, but the results were crap with the lovely recipe I had. You could make a crazy 8x10 afghan style box camera that makes fully developed negs right out of camera using a monobath for processing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 06:12
|
|
|
Olympus XA goons: any dramas using LR44 batteries instead of SR44? I'm travelling and stupidly forgot to buy batteries before I left, and all I can find here are LR44s.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 07:41
|
|
|
When they're fresh it's fine, but the LRs have less consistent voltage over their discharge profile, so your meter may be off once the batteries are 1/3 or 1/2 used.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 10:30
|
|
|
UK goons, are your airports cool with hand-checking film? E: Seems so. Awesome. DJExile fucked around with this message at 12:47 on Apr 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 12:45
|
|
|
Figured I'd ask here, does anyone know a good spot to get Super 8 film developed/scanned? I haven't searched yet, figured I'd trust some goons first. We've been thinking about doing the whole develop, project and film on DSLR thing ourselves, has anyone else tried this with good results?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 13:56
|
|
|
 scotty posted:Figured I'd ask here, does anyone know a good spot to get Super 8 film developed/scanned? I haven't searched yet, figured I'd trust some goons first. I'm interested as well, I've found some unused 8mm film and I'd like to use it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
I live in Ireland and the closest place to do super 8 anymore is in Sweden  Technicolor in London used to do it but they're gone. It'll cost you a loving fortune with transport, dev, transfer and return.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:I live in Ireland and the closest place to do super 8 anymore is in Sweden ? It seems you also have some sort of diy option in Leeds I got those links from this list (in french but you can choose your country in the left menu and gauge your options) unpacked robinhood fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Apr 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
Just took delivery of a bunch of Arista.edu 200 in 35mm and 4x5. I'm seeing online that it's better exposed at 100-160. Should be fun, and a great way to shoot 4x5 indiscriminately without feeling like I've set a pile of money on fire!
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
scotty posted:Figured I'd ask here, does anyone know a good spot to get Super 8 film developed/scanned? I haven't searched yet, figured I'd trust some goons first. I had some rolls done though Dwaynes and they were okay. It's $12 for process, $10 for transfer, and $4.50 for shipping, with slight discounts on additional rolls. When you factor in the cost of the roll itself it comes out to around $50 for 3 minutes of low quality soundless video. It's definitely fun, but I probably won't be shooting it again for a while.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:$50 for 3 minutes of low quality soundless video. Please don't post about my sextape
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:Please don't post about my sextape Belongs in buy/sell/trade.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
Sweeeeet. Last time I checked, most people I knew were sending it to Sweden so I'll have a look at this, thanks. Still costs a bunch 
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 01:44
|
|
|
Anyone have any opinions on the XA2 vs the Rollei 35 LED? The shutter on my XA2 has gotten finicky, and I have a Rollei 35 LED I've never used. Not sure whether it's worth digging up a battery for.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:Anyone have any opinions on the XA2 vs the Rollei 35 LED? The shutter on my XA2 has gotten finicky, and I have a Rollei 35 LED I've never used. Not sure whether it's worth digging up a battery for. The only bad thing I can say about my 35 (non-LED version) is that my brain occasionally forgets that the focus is in no way indicated in the viewfinder. Everything else about the camera is great but that's an extra step that I don't always think about when I'm shooting 35mm.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
Got my Nimslo film back and scanned it.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
voodoorootbeer posted:The only bad thing I can say about my 35 (non-LED version) is that my brain occasionally forgets that the focus is in no way indicated in the viewfinder. Everything else about the camera is great but that's an extra step that I don't always think about when I'm shooting 35mm. So how do you focus? Estimate distance?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:So how do you focus? Estimate distance? Yep.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
voodoorootbeer posted:The only bad thing I can say about my 35 (non-LED version) is that my brain occasionally forgets that the focus is in no way indicated in the viewfinder. Everything else about the camera is great but that's an extra step that I don't always think about when I'm shooting 35mm. I do this on my original XA. In my defense the range finder patch can be real hard to see at times.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 14:53
|
|
|
Todays project, try not to gently caress up color dev!
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
It's not much harder than BW if at all. The blix in that kit produces gas so you can't use the inversion agitation method without leaks, so you need to use the stirring rod instead. Assuming you are using the Paterson tank. Also I used distilled water for every step and still had spots on my film at the end. I found it was the crystals in the stabilizer leaving residue after drying. Googling this shows lots of people with the same problem using this kit. Adding photoflo to the stab did not help. I found that you can fix this by wiping the negatives down with a stabilizer soaked microfiber cloth or a sponge when still wet and hanging, risking embedding dust in the emulsion. Or skip the stab step entirely and just do a rinse if you don't care about keeping your film in archival condition. Rumor has it that modern c41 film doesn't even need stabilizer but who knows. Respooling the film and giving it a final rinse cycle after it dries also works but I have no idea if it affects the stabilizer, plus it's a pain in the rear end. BANME.sh fucked around with this message at 18:29 on May 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:It's not much harder than BW if at all. The blix in that kit produces gas so you can't use the inversion agitation method without leaks, so you need to use the stirring rod instead. Assuming you are using the Paterson tank. Just finished, with the instructions it feels easier than BW, If I end up with spots I'll try a wash with DI tomorrow. I know that the storage life isn't great so how long will this stuff last? also how about disposal? I encountered the out-gassing while on the blix step, if i use the agitation rod how log should i mix for it to count as an inversion? To anyone who is hesitant about doing color, if you can do BW you can do color just need some extra goodies.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
I'm sitting on 7 rolls of c-41 right now, and I'm hemming and hawing if I want to pick up another c41 kit or just drop it off for development. Getting the chems up to temp was no fun for me.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
I used tub of 5 gallons of water to maintain the temp, it was in range for more than 10 minutes which was more than enough time for development.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
Ezekiel_980 posted:Just finished, with the instructions it feels easier than BW, If I end up with spots I'll try a wash with DI tomorrow. I know that the storage life isn't great so how long will this stuff last? also how about disposal? I encountered the out-gassing while on the blix step, if i use the agitation rod how log should i mix for it to count as an inversion? I used a batch of chemicals given to me that were over a year old as an experiment and I thought the film came out fine. Apparently it had only been used to develop one roll prior. I think the amount it gets used in the storage method makes the biggest difference. These were stored in opaque airtight bottles. When I mixed a fresh kit, I ended up getting about 20 rolls out of it before I started to notice nasty grain in the shadows. People say that you can rinse between developer and blix steps to increase longevity. There are people on Flickr that get well over 40 rolls, but ymmv. I did all my development over only a couple days, doing three rolls at a time in a 1 L Paterson tank I forget how long I agitated for, I will have to check my notes. I think it was only 10 seconds though. I haven't disposed of at them yet, they're still in the same bottles. And yeah, bring your chemicals up to temperature in a large pot full of hot water. Put a thermometer in your developer and when it reaches temperature take it out. Works great BANME.sh fucked around with this message at 19:16 on May 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
Went to get a bit to test scan and just noticed a ton of water spots, a squeegee might be a good idea now.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
I highly recommend a sponge soaked in stabilizer, I've scratched too many negatives with a squeegee.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:I highly recommend a sponge soaked in stabilizer, I've scratched too many negatives with a squeegee. I'm trying a DI wash on a test roll, hopefully that will help. I want to try cross processing some slide film, that wont poison the chemistry right? Also going to try a bleach bypass today as well, i'm curious to what the results are.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 12:57
|
|
|
I love HP5. Should I even bother trying Tri-X? Untitled by Paul Frederiksen, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
I might be late to the party, but have any of you played with this monobath development? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxfTknfQuv8
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
Ezekiel_980 posted:also how about disposal? This is FAR FROM SETTLED, but so far I haven't found an ingredient in any photo development solution - C41, E-6, B&W - that cannot go down the drain and into a municipal water-treatment facility. This SEEMS to be a case that's actually "the solution to pollution is dilution", but I am still very uncertain. Blix contains bleach, which can be poured down the drain for sure, with plenty of water to dillute it out and bring the pH back down from 10 or whatever to something closer to 7. Developer, including colour developer, is largely organics, stuff like acetate and citrate, that the bacteria in the bioreactor (and lining your pipes) will have no trouble digesting. Fixative contains mostly sulfur-organics that, again, any self-respecting facultative anaerobic bacteria can digest easily; the breakdown product in the presence of colloidal or ionic silver is (eventually) Ag2S, which is one of the least soluble-in-water compounds known; it will precipitate out as a fine black film that sticks to solid surfaces, and will remain non-bioavailable (i.e. utterly harmless) until the end of time. I am not an environmental chemist or toxicologist, but I hang out with people who are and I can make my way through their publications. Film development solutions are not on anybody's radar for environmental pollutants. But, your circumstances may vary and I'm very willing to admit there may be conditions under which dev or fix is a big deal - there are many possible combinations of climate, soil, and water-treatment methods and I've only looked at the circumstances that apply to me.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:I love HP5. Should I even bother trying Tri-X? There's no reason not to try it. It's the classic black and white film for a reason and I think it is usually about the same price or cheaper than HP5.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
 Untitled by Dev Luns, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
rohan posted:
(from low-effort) This looks like Portra that's been inverted but hasn't fully had the orange mask corrected for. Did you do this by hand or let scanning software guess for you? Either way it's making your whites look really blue.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 18:21 |
|
|
ansel autisms posted:(from low-effort) I think that's a good thing here.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 18:53
|
|
