|
Remember folks, flash sync speed isn't a suggestion: Thought there was something wrong with the OM-1's shutter. Upon further inspection is was set to 1/250th.
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 01:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 17:27 |
|
|
Does anyone have recommendations for film photography specific books or guides? I'm buying a gift for someone who is interested in making the switch over.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 01:27
|
|
|
PERPETUAL IDIOT posted:Does anyone have recommendations for film photography specific books or guides? I'm buying a gift for someone who is interested in making the switch over. Ansel Adam's trilogy of The Camera, The Negative, The Print are quite film specific but I suspect that is not what your friend would want to read. I think really, just using Google is enough for anyone wanting to try out film.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 02:54
|
|
|
I really have been enjoying The Art of Photography: A Personal Approach, which was recommended by another goon in some thread or another. It's not exclusively film-centric, but there is a big focus on it. The first third is roughly centered around composition and artistic expression, then the second third is heavily focused on the actual refinement of exposures, first film and then digital. The film section is quite extensive, covering stuff like reciprocity failure compensation, the zone system and how to manipulate it during development, suggestions for developers and film stock combinations, mixing different developer dilutions over the course of a single development, using an enlarging machine, making burn and dodging tools and how to use them, etc. I'm currently reading the section on film printing and haven't yet reached the digital section, so I can't comment on that. However so far it's been fantastic, and very in-depth without being too technical or heavy (at least imo, I could see it being overwhelming in places for people still shooting auto).
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 03:21
|
|
|
I was also thinking of that book but it is seriously hardcore, even for me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 03:29
|
|
|
polyester concept posted:You'd need two unfortunately. So, really weird thing with this adapter. I bought one for my SR-T 102 and it finally arrived (after I dumbly bought two, when the camera only needs one battery  ), and when I put it in my camera I get a perfect meter reading. However, I'm running into a weird problem - when I put it in my camera, the shutter locks. I can't wind the film advance lever without partially depressing the shutter button, and then fully depressing the shutter button just makes the camera click without taking a picture. Anyone have any clue what is up with that? The shutter is fully mechanical, I have no loving clue how a battery adapter is interfering with it. Especially so since other batteries (the Wein Cells you can buy online) work fine in the camera. If i put the battery+adapter in incorrectly, then the shutter works (but then the meter doesn't, of course). Anyone know what the hell's going on?I know at this point I should probably just use the Wein Cells, but it'd be nice to use the adapter so I don't need to special order batteries when I need new ones.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 01:26
|
|
|
That's weird, because as you say it's a fully mechanical camera. What's especially weird is the wein cells which are giving you good meter movement don't cause any issues. I guess there must be a linkage between the shutter and aperture dials and the meter, and the meter needle is controlled by tension on a silk string. I guess maybe there could be some kind of mechanical interference happening at the meter/dial linkage, but that the wein cells don't cause it is hard to explain.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 21:14
|
|
|
Posting here because the scanning thread is archived. I currently have an Epson V550, and while it scans MF scans well, the curly 35mm negatives my lab is sending me are all kinds of hosed for sharpness with the stock holders. Instead of buying the betterscanning holders, can I just use a piece of anti reflective glass? I haven’t tried this yet, but I would be placing the negative on top of the plane, and the glass on top of that, correct? Or do you want the 1-2mm of separation from the glass to the plane?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2018 16:20
|
|
|
I've placed 35mm film strips under pieces of betterscanning anr glass directly onto the glass of my 550 for no difference in sharpness or detail versus under the same in the holders. Probably doesn't matter because of the scanner's low resolving power and tendancy to oversharpen. I think I still got Newton rings doing it that way, though, since the film is touching shiny glass.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2018 18:33
|
|
|
In the future, everyone will be retarded for 25 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2018 01:35
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:I've placed 35mm film strips under pieces of betterscanning anr glass directly onto the glass of my 550 for no difference in sharpness or detail versus under the same in the holders. Probably doesn't matter because of the scanner's low resolving power and tendancy to oversharpen. I think I still got Newton rings doing it that way, though, since the film is touching shiny glass. If you put the shiny side of the ANR glass touching the film you did it wrong and no wonder you got Newton rings. It's supposed to be the other way around - see http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/usinginsert35.html .
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2018 02:11
|
|
|
Also the focus point of the scanner isn't necessarily there. If you have a holder then you've still got a lot of work tweaking and tuning the exact height before it is spot on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2018 04:04
|
|
|
Has anyone ever tried to convert a baby brownie to use 35mm? I got one from my grandpa and the shutter still activates. I need to seal some old cracks in the bakelite but beyond that it could be functional.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 00:10
|
|
|
Dudeabides posted:Has anyone ever tried to convert a baby brownie to use 35mm? I got one from my grandpa and the shutter still activates. I need to seal some old cracks in the bakelite but beyond that it could be functional. Might be fun as a one time thing, but fun 35mm and 120 cameras are a dime a dozen and take way less work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 01:59
|
|
|
Looking at it further, you'd be right. My local camera shop has one roll of 127 in their film rack that they're not sure who brought it in (priced at only $12 though!). I'm looking on eBay and seeing I can buy a Soviet era TLR for under $50 so I think I'll just embrace medium format.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 16:48
|
|
|
About two weeks ago I kind of had an M4 fall into my lap (and found a really good deal on a Zeiss Planar 50mm) for about two-thirds the market value. I saw a chance, doubted myself, but impulse won over since it was too tempting to pass on. Popped in a roll of Tri-X and walked about the port Sunday morning, and I have to get used to metering properly. I normally go by Sunny 16 and it's always served me well but I need to start paying more attention to what I'll lose to shadows. Leica or not, I don't really care, but as a very myopic wearer of glasses I can finally quickly and easily frame a full-frame 50mm the way I want. 
WorldWarWonderful fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Jul 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 21:56
|
|
|
A few hours before and after mid day is hell for eyeballing exposure in Old Montreal but the lighting is amazing. The black glass monolight building on the south west side of Place D'Armes and all the white/beige stone buildings reflect the sun everywhere. You can get light coming from three different directions in some areas. The Molson Bank is a gigantic warm softbox in the late afternoon. If I see a nerd with an M4 wandering around I'll be sure to yell things that sound horrible out of context at him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 22:20
|
|
|
I never been really happy with the camera scans I was getting on a tripod and light box. They were never sharp and the grain frequently seemed to be blurred. That's because my apartment never stops moving. Between all the tenants in the building and their various appliances and such there is always a low level rumble going through the building that was shaking my setup. With shutter speeds up to three seconds for dense negatives on a light box, that was bad. I bought a Nikon ES-2 "Film Digitizing Adapter". I don't actually own a Nikon DSLR; my only digital camera is a Sony a6000 but I do own a Nikkor 60mm f2.8 AF-D for my modern film SLRs. Adapting that to the a6000 is trivial. No extension tubes are needed in this case since the "B-Adapter" that comes with the ES-2 provides enough standoff for the film to compensate for an APS-C sensor with that lens. It does crop in ever so slightly; just enough to avoid capturing the film holder. The ES-2 is pretty solid. Its plastic but that same tough fiber reinforced stuff they use to make camera bodies. The film holder is pretty good. Has cross bars to hold each frame by all four sides keeping it flat and it closes securely. Slots into the ES-2 and has detents that engage with springs to make lining up each frame simple. It is a bit of a hassle with negatives from my Spotmatic which has uneven frame spacing. Presumably you can focus once and never have to touch it again but that didn't really pan out. Something always shifts and your DOF is fractions of millimeters. Focus peaking makes focusing quick anyhow. I used a flash as the light source. Radio remote triggered it with the flash sitting a half meter or so away pointed right at the camera. Eliminated all problems with movement. Gave a perfectly sharp shot every time. Also means I can shoot instantly instead of waiting for the ten second self timer and a few more seconds for the exposure. Scanning a strip of negatives takes only a few seconds. Gelled the flash with a Cyan something or other gel (I think Cyan 30) when "scanning" color negative to make the channels line up better and avoid clipping. Pretty happy with it so far.    That flower was shot on Ferrania P30. Fairly certain by now that it is not an 80 ISO film. Maybe half that at best. I've shot four rolls of it and all of them have had unbelievable contrast. I'm betting they're calling it 80 ISO and their published development instructions are push processes to make up for the under exposure and they went waaaaaaaay to far on the development times. The roll I shot at box speed and developed per their data sheet in Rodinal 1:100 for an hour with a single inversion every 15 minutes practically looked like Lith film. The above was shot at 64 ISO and developed in XTOL 1:1 for 11 minutes, which is a minute shorter than they recommend. Still too much contrast. I don't think I would actually be able to print it effectively; photoshopery was required to get it looking like it is there. If I get my hands on more I'll try 50 ISO and develop for nine minutes in XTOL. Edit: It is a cine film that's meant to be developed in D-96. It may actually be an 80 ISO film in that developer and their times for it are probably accurate. I imagine their D-76 times are probably good as well. Sauer fucked around with this message at 02:23 on Jul 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 02:05
|
|
|
Just get a scanner dude
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 17:08
|
|
|
I have a flat bed I use for 120 film. 35mm looks like smudged crap on it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 17:40
|
|
|
Let Me Tell You About My New Scanner
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 02:01
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:Let Please. Do. Also: Anyone ever dabble with Lubitels or other cheap soviet medium format cameras? Pros? Cons?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 03:43
|
|
|
I messed around with a Lubitel for a bit. Small and light. Surprisingly good lens when stopped down. Gets all swirly and weird wide open. No real resistance to flares and reflections so pointing it at light sources will give you surprises. The view finder is small and cramped and heavily distorted. You have to look straight down into it or you'll be looking at the sides of the viewing lens barrel. Its a "bright finder" type which really does work as advertised; it is very bright but the only focusing aid is a small roughened spot in the middle of the viewfinder. Its about a centimeter in diameter. Its not a microprism, its just a rough spot pressed into the viewfinder screen. Its very dark and hell to focus with. There's a small magnifying lens built into the hood to help. Shutter tops out at 1/250th so better with slower films. No meter of course. Both on a Lubitel left stopped down to f/8, right wide open:  
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 05:48
|
|
|
I have a bunch of Soviet MF gear. I don't currently own a Lubitel, but I've played with plenty of them. In general, most of the pros and cons will break down like this: Pros. Cheap as poo poo Looks rad Can double as a melee weapon in a pinch No electronics to go bad, purely mechanical action Cons. Probably came pre-broken from the factory Might randomly stop working for no reason I hope you like manual everything You have quite a bit of choice with FSU medium format gear. It's not just all about the Lubitel. By factory: LOMO (previously GOMZ, previously VOOMP) Made the Lubitel TLR along with a whole bunch of lovely toy cameras like the LC-A, Smena and so forth. The Lubitel 166U which is the most common version has selectable (via a mask) frame sizes - 6x6 or 6x4.5. The Bakelite body is prone to cracking in extreme temperatures and gets more and more brittle with age. The metal parts are not well protected against corrosion and it's quite rare to find one still in good condition these days. If you want something even goofier than a Soviet TLR, look into the Sputnik which was basically two Lubitels jammed together to create a medium format stereo camera. KMZ, better known for the Zenit range of SLRs and the Zorki rangefinders also made MF gear during the 1950s. The Moskva was a copy of the Zeiss Super Ikonta but it improved on the design in subsequent iterations. The Moskva 5 is probably the best one. It's a 6x9 folding rangefinder that fits in a jacket pocket when closed up. Selectable 6x6 or 6x9 frame sizes and a fixed 105mm f/3.5 lens based on the Zeiss Tessar formula. Surprisingly good optically if you can find one in good condition. I love mine to bits. Kiev are the big boys of Soviet MF gear. There are two main offerings, both of which are 6x6 format cameras. The Kiev 60 (which is sometimes modified to a 645 frame size) is based on, but is not a copy of, the Pentacon 6 SLR from the DDR. Hilariously big and heavy, has interchangeable prism or waist level finders and the P6 lens mount will happily accept a whole range of really great glass from Japan, Germany and the USSR. The other is the 88, which was also sold as the Salyut or the 80 at various stages of its life. It's a copy of the original Hasselblad 1000F so it is a modular system with interchangeable film magazines, finders and lenses. The original lens mount is a proprietary bayonet and there are plenty of lenses to fit that, but it's a simple matter to convert it to P6 mount too. I have both a 60 and an 88 and they are wonderful cameras. My 88 came from Arax as a new camera, the 60 was bought from a flea market in perfect new-in-box condition (even the original batteries were in their blister packs) but it didn't work and I paid Arax to do a CLA on it. Since then it's been faultless.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 10:43
|
|
|
Dudeabides posted:Please. Do. i bought a bomb rear end nikon coolscan 8000. the scan quality is unbelievable. the dynamic range and sharpness is next level.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 14:11
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:If you put the shiny side of the ANR glass touching the film you did it wrong and no wonder you got Newton rings. It's supposed to be the other way around - see http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/usinginsert35.html . Yeah, I thought the guy was asking about putting the negs directly onto the scanner bed underneath a piece of ANR glass. I think that will still produce Newton rings, even if you're correctly applying ANR glass on top, because the scanner bed glass is shiny. Wild EEPROM posted:Also the focus point of the scanner isn't necessarily there. If you have a holder then you've still got a lot of work tweaking and tuning the exact height before it is spot on. Maybe my scanner's focus point is in between the height of the holders and the surface of the bed, because I get the same results either way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 01:12
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Yeah, I thought the guy was asking about putting the negs directly onto the scanner bed underneath a piece of ANR glass. I think that will still produce Newton rings, even if you're correctly applying ANR glass on top, because the scanner bed glass is shiny. Putting the film emulsion-side down is pretty effective here, as it should have just enough texture to minimize (if not eliminate) the Newton rings. You do have to flip the image afterwards, but this is a small price to pay.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 01:56
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:i bought a bomb rear end nikon coolscan 8000. the scan quality is unbelievable. the dynamic range and sharpness is next level. What did you pay for it? They go for $1500+ here. Which is quite a lot for a 15 year old piece of technology that might break any day. I've never managed to get quality i was happy with from 135 film and a reasonably priced scanner. I've used Epson flatbeds with a better scanner ANR glass holder and that Primefilm/Pacific image 7200/3600 dpi dedicated scanner both with vuescan and native software but it was all meh at best. Coolscan is probably the way to go but a shame they are not exactly cheap or plentiful.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2018 16:49
|
|
|
Man, I read Ken Rockwell's review of the Leica M3 and now I'm dying for one. Is it truly as much of a masterpiece as he claims?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2018 17:21
|
|
|
Ken claims every piece of gear he's ever touched is the best. Especially the stuff he gets for free or paid to review.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2018 18:03
|
|
|
He even loves his kids and if you take a look at them (they're all over his site) you can clearly see how far off his quality barometer is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2018 18:04
|
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted:Man, I read Ken Rockwell's review of the Leica M3 and now I'm dying for one. Is it truly as much of a masterpiece as he claims? To be honest I'd probably be just as happy with a Voigtlander R2M or Zeiss Ikon (or M2). If I didn't wear glasses an R3M would probably work as well. I just lucked into a cheap M4 that had some leatherette missing and a really bad engraving job, and all it took was having a little patience to wait for a deal and money in my savings to pay in cash the same night it was posted. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2018 20:13
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:He even loves his kids and if you take a look at them (they're all over his site) you can clearly see how far off his quality barometer is. drat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 00:09
|
|
|
NihilismNow posted:What did you pay for it? They go for $1500+ here. Which is quite a lot for a 15 year old piece of technology that might break any day. i did not pay anywhere near $1500 but that's a lot more luck. It's exceptionally complicated and difficult. It only takes firewire, and official support is only up to osx 10.1. the alternatives to nikonscan are vuescan (painful interface), and silverfast (499€) the film holders are just as expensive. the scans take a looong time as well. The quality is also insane. absolutely smokes the epson that I had before.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 02:30
|
|
|
Dudeabides posted:Please. Do. I had a Kiev 60, had frame spacing issues, but the lenses were  bang for buck compared to other MF systems, especially dat fisheye. I have a 500C/M kit now, but I'd by lying if I said I wouldn't be tempted to trade it for an Arax (or other known good body) and a bunch of glass.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 12:39
|
|
|
The Kiev 6x6s are so hit or miss. I've never had a body that was capable of real display-quality exposures at 1/1000 (shutter bounce) or 1/500 (uneven exposure across the frame), although there are decent copies out there. If I was going back to Eastern Block medium format cameras, I'd probably spring for a restored Pentacon Six instead. They don't have MLU, but I'd be willing to bet that a very solid and heavy-enough tripod could tame the vibration for long exposures. It would be tempting. The 'giant 35mm SLR' is my favorite MF camera variety. But I traded in my GS-1 for a Pentax 6x7 (with MLU) recently, so I think I've got exactly what I need. It just sucks that the meter-lens aperture linkage chain broke when I put the metered prism on (even though I was following the instructions and put the lens on *after* seating the prism) so it's off to the shop. Fortunately I've got a local repair guy who has some P67 parts and can take care of it relatively easily, I think. Going to get them to put in new light seals and replace any degraded lubricants while it's in the shop, and I think it will be good to use through the winter and hopefully for many years to come.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2018 00:11
|
|
|
Arax rebuilt Kiev 60s have an MLU system installed. He put one in my OG Kiev 60 when he CLAd it for me a few years ago, but new ones come with it as standard.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2018 04:40
|
|
|
I just inherited a Pentax K1000 and ME Super (along with a collection of lenses and lighting options) from my dad, and I would like to learn how to use them at a higher level then “I push this button, and I take a picture.” I have no idea what most of the things are (beyond the incredibly basic level of “this is a lens”) in the literal chest of photography equipment he gave me, but I would like to. Would anyone have any reading recommendations for an absolute SLR novice?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2018 23:36
|
|
|
Niemat posted:I just inherited a Pentax K1000 and ME Super (along with a collection of lenses and lighting options) from my dad, and I would like to learn how to use them at a higher level then “I push this button, and I take a picture.” I have no idea what most of the things are (beyond the incredibly basic level of “this is a lens”) in the literal chest of photography equipment he gave me, but I would like to. Would anyone have any reading recommendations for an absolute SLR novice? Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson is the first place to start if you're really quite new to photography in general and not just film stuff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2018 23:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 17:27 |
|
|
VelociBacon posted:Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson is the first place to start if you're really quite new to photography in general and not just film stuff. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2018 18:47
|
|
