|
HPL posted:Get the Arista Premium 400 from Freestyle Photo. It's repackaged Tri-X and it's cheaper. Ilford HP5+ is the poo poo too. I'd say it's better than Tri-X. I shoot both Arista Premium 400 and HP5+ extensively and they're both good, versatile films that are easy to develop. Yeah I was thinking about HP5+ too.
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2009 22:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 17:48 |
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:How about one of those Nokton 50mm f/1.1 lenses on an Epson R-D1? If you are doing the developing yourself stay away from the T-max film unless you are using T-max developer as it tends to get muddy in other soups. Tri-x is your best bet. Lots of latitude and very versatile push/pull wise.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2009 22:09
|
|
Oops, wrong thread.
|
Plus if you're using Tri-X and everyone else in the class is using Tmax, you're guaranteed to stand out from the rest of them in at least one way (and then you can brag about your grain).
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2009 22:10
|
|
|
What's the short of HP5+ vs Tri-X? I realize I may be stepping into a Canon vs Nikon debate here, but they seem pretty close. I've read that HP5+ is closer to the "old" Tri-X, which was supposedly reformulated a couple years ago and is thinner for easier scanning and a little closer to Tmax, but it could just be some idiot on the internet. There's no real difference pricewise or anything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2009 22:20
|
|
|
Beyond HP5+ I recomend Fuji Neopan, all flavors
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2009 22:32
|
|
|
I have always found HP5+ to have less contrast than Tri-X. Tri-X seems to hold up better with crazy pushes as well(like EI 25600).
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2009 22:32
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:What's the short of HP5+ vs Tri-X? I realize I may be stepping into a Canon vs Nikon debate here, but they seem pretty close. I've read that HP5+ is closer to the "old" Tri-X, which was supposedly reformulated a couple years ago and is thinner for easier scanning and a little closer to Tmax, but it could just be some idiot on the internet. I've only used "old" Tri-X, since TXP 320 is what's still available for large format use. I find it has more detail in the mid-tones and better contrast in the mid-tones than HP5+, but HP5+ performs better in the shadows. HP5+ also pushes surprisingly well. Here it is at 3200 (35mm): 
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2009 22:37
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:What's the short of HP5+ vs Tri-X? I realize I may be stepping into a Canon vs Nikon debate here, but they seem pretty close. I've read that HP5+ is closer to the "old" Tri-X, which was supposedly reformulated a couple years ago and is thinner for easier scanning and a little closer to Tmax, but it could just be some idiot on the internet. HP5 can be stretched further exposure-wise. I often shoot HP5 at 3200. It's grainy, but quite acceptable and many people that I've shown my work to love it. Tri-X is chancey at 3200 but quite comfortable at 1600. If you're shooting at 400, both look fine. If you're shooting in medium format, the grain issue matters even less because you're not enlarging the grain as much or even shrinking it down. HP5 at 3200 in medium format looks similar to HP5 at 400 in 35mm if you produce prints/scans of the same size. Personally, I'd get HP5 if all else were the same. Pound for pound, it does produce somewhat nicer grain in general, but we're bordering on hair splitting territory. As long as you're not doing any crazy push processing or anything, you'll be happy with either. I really would suggest you check out Freestyle Photo ( http://www.freestylephoto.biz ). Their Arista Premium 400 will definitely give you the best bang for the buck ($2.19 for a roll of 36 exposures). Buy lots of film. Shoot lots. Enjoy yourself. Also, scour the Internet for student discount deals on equipment and supplies. They have some pretty nifty discounts on things like light meters and software and what not. HPL fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Jul 21, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2009 22:39
|
|
|
HPL posted:
Depends on how you develop it. Diluted HC-110 and semi stand development is the way to go. Although I used see a guy at Photosig that pushed his Tri-X in rodinal and drat was it beautiful at 3200 and 6400. This is a medium rez lab scan of Tri-X at 3200. Edit: drat it I didn't think it was that wide. That's what I get for not bothering to open it in photoshop before I post it. 8th-snype fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Jul 21, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2009 22:51
|
|
|
I just got an Olympus OM-2S that I bought on eBay. Man, this thing is awesome. It's loaded to the gills with features. About the only things it doesn't have are a 1/2000 shutter and mirror lock-up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2009 00:50
|
|
|
Fuji Neopan 1600 is my favorite "high speed" film. It has a constrasty "film noir" sort of look. It's great stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2009 03:08
|
|
|
HPL posted:Tri-X is chancey at 3200 I kindly disagree. Both HP5 and Tri-x can perform wonderfully at 3200. It really all boils down to your exposure and what developer you use. Paul MaudDib, I say it really doesn't matter. Either film will work great. My advice is to choose one and stick with it for the course. After that, try all the films you want, but I think it's good to learn on one film, to remove one variable if you end up having trouble developing correctly. I've based all my film choices off of what I see other people doing. Flickriver is an awesome site to check out what a film looks like (as is Flickr, I just like the layout and constant loading flickriver has). Here: HP5 Trix In other news, I shot another roll of Porta 160 NC. I don't think I'll be trying any other color film, this stuff is amazing. Except maybe 160 VC. Kaerf fucked around with this message at 04:56 on Jul 22, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2009 04:53
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:Holy poo poo I am IN LOVE with 160 UC. Look at these fuckin' colors: (this is a discussion of the film/its rendering, not your shot) The girl's blue tank top looks like it's under a darklight or something, it looks like it's glowing. The orange and pinks are kind of fluorescent, yet not. I don't know, maybe I just don't 'get' ultracolor films. I see some people who manage to pull it off without the hypersaturation and that can be pretty cool, almost slide-like. It can be cool when only a single color is hypersaturated - I've seen some cool fire-engine-reds and the rest of the print looks normal. The neon colors bug me, though. It just looks like someone went through and turned pink, orange (slightly), and blue into fluorescent and left the rest alone, like a bad photoshop or something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2009 05:42
|
|
|
Kaerf posted:I kindly disagree. Both HP5 and Tri-x can perform wonderfully at 3200. It really all boils down to your exposure and what developer you use. I haven't seen flickriver before, that's useful (I am so new at this). I think I like the high contrast of Tri-X a little more. I think Hp5 looks slightly more "normal", but the difference is really small and seems to vary between shots. Is there some way to increase/decrease contrast and dynamic range? I think I'll get some of that relabeled Tri-X from Freestyle and call it a day. I wish I knew how much to get for this course. The syllabus says 10 rolls to start, but there's no place I will get it at any sort of decent price locally, and I need at least 12 rolls to order. 20 rolls? Refridgerate the extras? It'll get shot someday, I suppose. v  v
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2009 05:50
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:I haven't seen flickriver before, that's useful (I am so new at this). I think I like the high contrast of Tri-X a little more. I think Hp5 looks slightly more "normal", but the difference is really small and seems to vary between shots. Is there some way to increase/decrease contrast and dynamic range? Regardless, the latitude of Trix is huge, so even if you are off on your exposure you can still make a decent looking print from it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2009 06:57
|
|
|
A few pages ago, I was freaking out about how I was in an exhibition and so on. I've now got the photos, I've just got two weeks to print and frame one of them. I'm not super sure which one. I'm leaning towards this one, though, taken on Reala 100, Hasselblad 500cm, 40mm lens, three minutes and forty second exposure: And the rest are:  Last one is a single photo, it's my back-up photo if I decide I hate both the panoramas. 
Helmacron fucked around with this message at 11:29 on Jul 22, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2009 09:52
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:Def this one, it should look fantastic once it's been spotted and the exposure has been fixed. Currently it's quite distracting, though, especially with the disparity between the stitched images. This is just a rough copy though, I take it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2009 11:26
|
|
|
Uh. Not so much. I thought I'd leave in the dirt to emphasise the fact that this photo was once a pile of negatives. Plus, it took me a week to find the scanner I found, and it didn't scan very well, so that exposure is that exposure. I'm sort of running on empty here in the luck department.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2009 11:42
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:A few pages ago, I was freaking out about how I was in an exhibition and so on. I've now got the photos, I've just got two weeks to print and frame one of them. I'm not super sure which one. I'm leaning towards this one, though, taken on Reala 100, Hasselblad 500cm, 40mm lens, three minutes and forty second exposure: I prefer #1, it had me squinting to figure out what it was. I think it's a high-tension tower shooting up from the legs? #3 isn't as interesting, but not bad. Can you clean it a bit in photoshop? I know it's not "real" then, but it's a spliced picture anyway and if you can't rescan it, you've got what you've got. Again, I don't know anything about printing, I presume there's something better than the photo printer at Walmart to use for actual art prints. Try to keep your negatives clean, hair/dust doesn't emphasize that it's a pile of negatives. I think that's more grain's department, and you shot medium format. You might see if you can clean the actual negatives and try a photo store with a nice scanner? It might cost you a bit, and you'd have to resplice in photoshop or whatever, but it's probably the most "pure" option. (My first thought was a hosed-up Ringworld and all the dust was stars) #2 doesn't have anything specific to hold the eye, and the distortion doesn't really seem to serve any purpose. e: dust is on all of them pretty bad. don't give your negatives to your dog for safe keeping dude  e2: what the gently caress is up with climbing high-tension towers, is this OK in australia? 
Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 13:42 on Jul 22, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2009 13:38
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:I thought I'd leave in the dirt to emphasise the fact that this photo was once a pile of negatives. What a horrible idea. Clean that poo poo up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2009 14:25
|
|
|
Oh god, go get yourself an Epson V500 and scan those negatives with Digital ICE on. It looks like you did a regular scan instead of a transparency scan.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2009 15:01
|
|
|
also why are you using scans of negatives to make stitched wide angled panoramas when digital would be far easier for that kind of thing idgi if this is a film thing don't they at least expect you to be able to make an analog print?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2009 15:07
|
|
|
I want to get an EOS 3 sometime in the near future (hopefully as soon as I find a new job  ), but I'd like to not deal with those odd expensive batteries it uses. I see there is a battery grip for it that uses AAs, but it seems somewhat rare and expensive. There are also a couple power winder grips available that use AAs. Does the battery in these grips only power the grip, or do they also power the camera?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2009 19:42
|
|
|
Stregone posted:I want to get an EOS 3 sometime in the near future (hopefully as soon as I find a new job I'm assuming you're talking about 2CR5 batteries? Yeah, they are stupidly expensive though oddly the cheapest place I've found name-brand ones is at the local grocery store. I'm very tempted by the cheapo ones I see on eBay, but I don't know how the quality might be and the shipping charges to Canada are usually kind of crazy. The batteries in the grip should power the camera as the power drive is built into the camera body on the film EOS bodies. The only things on the grip are buttons and wheels which require no power. The grip for the EOS 5/A2E doesn't even take batteries. It's just for grip and control.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2009 19:52
|
|
|
HPL posted:I'm assuming you're talking about 2CR5 batteries? Yeah, they are stupidly expensive though oddly the cheapest place I've found name-brand ones is at the local grocery store. I'm very tempted by the cheapo ones I see on eBay, but I don't know how the quality might be and the shipping charges to Canada are usually kind of crazy. Ahh, that makes sense. For some reason I thought there was a more powerful motor in the grip, but its just a more powerful battery. Gotcha.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2009 20:12
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:(this is a discussion of the film/its rendering, not your shot) I think it worked well for the event/what I was going for. Then again, I really really like crazy colors, so I freely admit bias.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2009 20:23
|
|
|
Stregone posted:Ahh, that makes sense. For some reason I thought there was a more powerful motor in the grip, but its just a more powerful battery. Gotcha. Well I mean I could be wrong and there could be some sort of booster in there, but I thought the motor in the EOS 3 was already pretty cracking.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2009 21:13
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:I prefer #1, it had me squinting to figure out what it was. I think it's a high-tension tower shooting up from the legs? #3 isn't as interesting, but not bad. I've no time to scan them again, and seriously, re-splinching everything together would take me another day or two. This one took a ridiculous amount of time in itself. This is it. All I can do is clean it up. Also, #2 is a single photo, with probably some distortion towards the edges, but that's it really. And yes, climbing electrical towers is illegal, and I think you'll find I did it all in Photoshop and from angles and with lenses that mean I don't have to actually climb the tower in question. HPL posted:Oh god, go get yourself an Epson V500 and scan those negatives with Digital ICE on. It looks like you did a regular scan instead of a transparency scan. I used an Epson V500 and this is what they turned out like. I really don't like that scanner. It's drat near impossible to place a curved negative into the 120 holder, so you have to clip in the end and pull it though, which scratches the gently caress out of the negatives. The scans it takes are blurry and poo poo. The scans I got from the place that developed them (and also, like, did a lovely job of it, not only are there bits of my film that seem to already have the information scratched off of it, they rolled the film up so goddamn tight that when I took off the rubberband, it uncoiled like a spring) had more information in them, at 1200x1200px than the Epson V500 did when I scanned at 3200dpi. Also, it says it's scanning at 24bit, but where's all my extra information? Why is the final tif 8bit? It's a loving negative, not a slide, it should have a tonne of information. Mello Clello posted:also why are you using scans of negatives to make stitched wide angled panoramas when digital would be far easier for that kind of thing idgi This is a film thing, but it's going to be a pretty small exhibition if they limit us to analog prints, plus, digital is my forte. Which is why I thought "well gently caress, I can do this well on digital, how much harder will it be on film?" Anyway, I can't scan them again, so I'll just attempt to clean them up a little and that's it. Hopefully the content of the image will shine through.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2009 23:52
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:I've no time to scan them again, and seriously, re-splinching everything together would take me another day or two. This one took a ridiculous amount of time in itself. This is it. All I can do is clean it up. Also, #2 is a single photo, with probably some distortion towards the edges, but that's it really. And yes, climbing electrical towers is illegal, and I think you'll find I did it all in Photoshop and from angles and with lenses that mean I don't have to actually climb the tower in question. Why is there weird blue/yellow splotches in the shadow areas?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2009 00:06
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:I used an Epson V500 and this is what they turned out like. I really don't like that scanner. It's drat near impossible to place a curved negative into the 120 holder, so you have to clip in the end and pull it though, which scratches the gently caress out of the negatives. The scans it takes are blurry and poo poo. The scans I got from the place that developed them (and also, like, did a lovely job of it, not only are there bits of my film that seem to already have the information scratched off of it, they rolled the film up so goddamn tight that when I took off the rubberband, it uncoiled like a spring) had more information in them, at 1200x1200px than the Epson V500 did when I scanned at 3200dpi. Also, it says it's scanning at 24bit, but where's all my extra information? Why is the final tif 8bit? It's a loving negative, not a slide, it should have a tonne of information. Did you make sure to remove the light cover from the lid before scanning the negatives? I took this photo on a Rolleiflex with Reala 100 and scanned it on a V500. 2400 dpi, 48-bit colour (though I'm sure 24-bit would have done the same job) and Digital ICE on:  Also, if the place that is doing the developing for you is giving you really curved negatives, they're probably not that great a place.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2009 00:10
|
|
|
Been a while since I stopped in here, just added a new family member:
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2009 23:34
|
|
|
She's a beaut, is that one of the Canadian made Leicas or was that the M4-P? e: Mix some up and test it. 365 Nog Hogger fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Jul 23, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2009 23:37
|
|
|
I have a bag of Kodak fixer powder bought in 1988. Should I bother with it? I can't find any info on whether it's still good in powder form.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2009 23:38
|
|
|
Brackbox posted:I have a bag of Kodak fixer powder bought in 1988. Should I bother with it? I can't find any info on whether it's still good in powder form. Second on Reichstag's suggestion. Take a little bit, mix it and drop a piece of film in there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2009 23:43
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:She's a beaut, is that one of the Canadian made Leicas or was that the M4-P? The M4-2 plays an interesting part in Leica history actually. In the 70s, after the failure of the M5 run (it wasn't quite accepted and sales were not as expected; too unconventional I suppose) Leica decided it was time to stop making rangefinders and focus on the R (SLR) system which they expected to be a great success (hah!). Also, the M cameras were expensive to manufacture as they required a lot of fiddling/adjusting to get "right". Parts were hand picked / hand matched and adjusted as needed. The manager of Leica's manufacturing facility in Canada, Walter something, proposed to Leica headquarters building a M rangefinder that did not require the same attention during manufacturing; this was to be accomplished by having more carefully machined components to begin with, so they could simply be put together with no fussing. Leica said that if he could get 5,000 orders for this camera, they would greenlight the project. He got 9,000 and the M4-2 was a go. Initially, the M4-2 run was mostly a failure. The parts and the assembly technique were not up to snuff, and the first few hundred or so suffered a lot of problems. But soon, they got the kinks ironed out and the remaining M4-2 run (two years I believe) went smoothly, producing cameras with the build quality and reliability that was to be expected from a Leica M. However, the initial run of troubled cameras lead to a somewhat tarnished reputation for the M4-2. When the Internet and camera lists/forums arrived, this only got worse and when reading one would get the impression that all M4-2s were unreliable junk. In reality, any M4-2 after the initial batch is just as good a camera as any other M body. The upside for us buyers is that the M4-2 still sells at a discount used compared to other bodies. Figure on 20-30% less than an M3/M4 in similar condition. Back to the story: the R system was not the great success that people expected, but the M4-2 and Leica Canada saved the entire M system, which would later move on to give birth to the M6, M6 TTL, MP, M7, M8 and other variations. In other words, the M4-2 saved the Leica rangefinder camera and likely the entire Leica camera line. So there's a bit of Leica history for you... This particular one was a very lucky score -- an ebay seller had gone way overboard describing all the "flaws" (i.e. paint wear and scratches on the bottom plate) and the auction ended at 8am PST on a Monday. I snagged it at the last second for $400.01... it arrived today and I find that not only is it a very very clean and nice looking example, but that the shutter curtains look new, the viewfinder is crystal clear, the rangefinder patch sharp and contrasty, and the shutter itself, winder etc as smooth as if they were brand new. I'll still send it out to Youxin Ye for a CLA ($80) after I get back from overseas. Thinking that on my next trip, the digitals get left behind, and this will be the only thing I'll bring. Yup, I'm in love. Clayton Bigsby fucked around with this message at 00:51 on Jul 24, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2009 00:42
|
|
|
At that price that's a pretty amazing score. Thanks for the history lesson 
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2009 00:51
|
|
|
That's quite a good deal for any M. What lens(es) are you mounting on it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2009 00:57
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:At that price that's a pretty amazing score. Thanks for the history lesson My pleasure. Leica having been around for so long has quite an amount of history surrounding them. There's a great story about how they (Leitz, Leica = LEItz CAmera) reassigned Jewish "employees" to overseas positions during the 1930s as Hitler rose to power, saving hundreds of jews from the horrors that would have awaited them had they stayed in Germany. This didn't even become known until many many years later, as the Leitz family did not want to toot their own horn over their heroism...Reichstag posted:That's quite a good deal for any M. What lens(es) are you mounting on it? I should get an LTM -> M adapter tomorrow, and will be using my 1936 vintage uncoated Summar on it. Eventually I'd like to get a more modern, contrasty lens, but I think the Summar will be right at home even though the camera is a good 43 years younger...
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2009 00:58
|
|
|
I find it's not the price of the bodies that keeps me from trying Leicas, it's the price of the lenses. Ouch.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2009 01:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 17:48 |
|
|
There's plenty of reasonably priced voigtlander glass out there in M mount.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2009 01:05
|
|