|
Im going to be trying to Tri-X tonight pushed to 1600 asa in HC110. Ive only ever shot HP5+ at 400 using hc110. I did the HP5+ in dilution B with in a half degree of 20C for the recommended time. With those times and HC110 dilution B the negatives came out very grainy. I seem to remember reading that if I use dilution H (1/2 B) that it will produce a less contrasty negative. Will it also result in less grain? Also I cant find I time for tri-x in H at 1600 but I can for B. I read some where that if I use H over B I just multiply the time for B by sqrt(2), is this true?
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2009 15:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 04:11 |
|
|
Oh my god, Kodachrome. I just got my slides back from Dwayne's, my first ever roll of Kodachrome. I didn't order scans, I am going to have them professionally scanned by my local lab sometime this week. But just looking at the transparencies through sunlight... beautiful. So damned beautiful. I was really bracing for the worst, since this roll had been sitting in a fridge for years, I was fully prepared for colour shifts. There may well be small shifts, but to the naked eye they're just awesome. I can't wait to get them scanned. Dwayne's was awesome, the form I had saved off their site back in July was evidently outdated, so they made a note that the prices have increased and included a sheaf of current forms and some printed address labels. They also mounted the damned things upside-down and backwards, but v  v. I had been considering not ordering any more Kodachrome; but now, I'm definitely gonna get a few more rolls for this summer and next. I'll post up some when they're scanned.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2009 16:26
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:An RB67 is pretty much the worst medium format camera possible for outdoors/urbex for those reasons. You should definitely handle it before you commit, it's about the size of a human head and made out of metal. My landscape medium format setup is an RZ67. I'm pretty happy with it, though I also go hiking with a Sinar F2. You are looking at 4kg for body + 2 or 3 lenses + film and film backs. Apart from that, the RZ67 is a great camera. If you reckon you can do hikes for the distances you want (about 12-15 mile days for me normally) with a decent pack weight (15kg or more) then go for it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2009 19:06
|
|
|
TokenBrit posted:My landscape medium format setup is an RZ67. I'm pretty happy with it, though I also go hiking with a Sinar F2. You are looking at 4kg for body + 2 or 3 lenses + film and film backs. I'm pretty used to big cameras, what with my Canon 40D+battery grip and zoom lens and my Mamiya 645 Pro and Rolleiflex, but when I saw how big the RB67 and accompanying lenses are, I was like: "Whoa". 6x4.5 is a good compromise between 35mm and 6x6.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2009 19:09
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:I don't see many recommendations for them in this thread but you might want to look in to a folding camera. They're even more portable than a TLR, have comparable lenses, and the exact same shutter in most cases. I just picked up a Ventura 69 (6x9 folder made by Agfa) for parts and the camera is actually pretty cool; I think I might make my next MF camera a folder. It's even got this crazy little WLF prism on the front. I was just thinking how much I wanted a folder yesterday! I actually have one, but it uses an odd film format that hasn't been around for ages. I'd love to get myself a Bessa III, but I don't exactly have that kind of cash. Instead I think I'll prowl ebay for an old one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2009 19:47
|
|
|
I haven't seen much discussion about developing colour C-41 negs at home, is it similar to developing B&W film, but with stricter temperatures? Or is it much much harder?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2009 00:00
|
|
|
trueblue posted:I haven't seen much discussion about developing colour C-41 negs at home, is it similar to developing B&W film, but with stricter temperatures? Pretty much. Everything is stricter, times, temperatures, and dilutions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2009 00:14
|
|
|
trueblue posted:I haven't seen much discussion about developing colour C-41 negs at home, is it similar to developing B&W film, but with stricter temperatures? Or is it much much harder? It's not that hard, but timing and temperature are vastly more critical. You need to hold a very close 100º temp for 3.5 minutes for the developer stage, the bleach and fix or blix if your kit has that is less critical. I used to do my own E-6 but had access to a wet sink and tempered water, this made the process fairly easy. Some people make tempering baths using modified fish tank heaters. The cost of chemicals is a stumbling block, the chemistry, once mixed has a fairly short life. I have been looking into it, yes. I have heard that walmart may be discontinuing in store C41 processing and if that goes away, it's pretty much all send out for me. That could be the final push for me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2009 00:17
|
|
|
pwn posted:Oh my god, Kodachrome. Argh. Now I'm gonna have to get that one roll I have sitting in my film drawer developed by them finally...
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2009 00:26
|
|
|
Flea markets are awesome for getting stuff. I managed to buy an excellent condition Minolta Hi-Matic 7s (w/ working meter) and approximately 20 rolls of various color films (most expired, but who cares) for $20. The cost was so low I may use them as test rolls or to try out Redscaling. I also just scored a 150ft roll of Kodak Tech Pan film off of eBay today for about $75. Supposedly it has been frozen so it should be OK, but it's ISO 25 anyways so I am not that worried about it. The stuff is supposed to be legendary.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2009 01:19
|
|
|
Shot and processed a roll of Shanghai today. It's decent. Nothing special. Fine for everyday shooting. Not spectacular in any category but not terrible in any either. I found that the curl issue is not an issue at all. Sure it curls but not in any horrible apocalyptical manner as some have described. I had more curl on a roll of Portra 160 than this. The emulsion must be fairly thin or something because the fixer fixed it faster than any other film I use. The packaging is so cheap that the paper backing tears easily and there's no adhesive strip to seal the roll when you're done so you'd better have some sort of fastening method handy when you're unloading it. Anyways, this film is all about the price. Buy lots, shoot lots, have fun.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2009 03:03
|
|
|
Question about archiving negatives: over the years I've had labs cut my 35mm in rows of 4, 5, and sometimes 6. I bought some archival sheets not realizing this was a problem that have 7 rows for 5-frame strips, so the result is I'd have a lot of pages with just the last row of a roll. Can anyone recommend a brand where maybe there's a space above each row to specify, or that are extra large (six frames wide, maybe 8 rows)?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2009 16:18
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Question about archiving negatives: over the years I've had labs cut my 35mm in rows of 4, 5, and sometimes 6. I bought some archival sheets not realizing this was a problem that have 7 rows for 5-frame strips, so the result is I'd have a lot of pages with just the last row of a roll. Can anyone recommend a brand where maybe there's a space above each row to specify, or that are extra large (six frames wide, maybe 8 rows)? Print File has seven rows of six, but that seems to be the biggest they have.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2009 16:29
|
|
|
CanuckBassist posted:Print File has seven rows of six, but that seems to be the biggest they have. Yeah, it seems like I'm going to have to give up my dream of uniform pages. Looking at their other stock, their 4 frame x 7 row will work for those, as will the 6 frame x 6 row sheets. The problem is the 5-frame, 8 row ones where there's the one extra frame screwing it up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2009 17:39
|
|
|
pwn posted:Oh my god, Kodachrome. Hey cool, good to hear. I have a few rolls of Kodachrome sitting around that I'm saving for special occasions, and trying to improve as a photographer so I can do them justice. It just kinda sucks to think that once I'm done with those they're basically gone forever...
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2009 19:38
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Question about archiving negatives: over the years I've had labs cut my 35mm in rows of 4, 5, and sometimes 6. I bought some archival sheets not realizing this was a problem that have 7 rows for 5-frame strips, so the result is I'd have a lot of pages with just the last row of a roll. Can anyone recommend a brand where maybe there's a space above each row to specify, or that are extra large (six frames wide, maybe 8 rows)? Maybe cut a strip of paper the size of film and sacrifice one row (or part of a row) to write on and delineate a new roll?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2009 19:54
|
|
|
I just posted a couple AE1's in the centralised photo gear thread if anyone's interested.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2009 20:34
|
|
|
Gnomad posted:I have been looking into it, yes. I have heard that walmart may be discontinuing in store C41 processing and if that goes away, it's pretty much all send out for me. That could be the final push for me. Thanks for the info. I've been into it for similar reasons: Kmart here have had a partnership with Kodak for 30 years or so, and I recently discovered they develop negs for only $2. Now the partnership is ending, they moving to HP digital labs or something and are getting rid of film development completely. It sucks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2009 23:45
|
|
|
Hey guys, just got my feet wet with a Pentax ME and a roll of Tri-X 400. I'm sending this roll off to be developed so I can make sure everything is OK with the camera but I'm interested in getting into home developing as well. I read back a couple pages and the first few pages but I didn't see any major discussion on this so I'll ask: I'm trying to decide between an AP and Paterson tank. I can pick up an AP two reel tank (reels included) from Henry's for $29, and the Paterson equivalent seems to be $39. I can't find a writeup comparing these two tanks anywhere. I've had several recommendations to go with the Paterson tank but if I can spend that extra ten bucks on chemicals I think I'd rather do that. Any personal experience with both? I'm not exactly sure what I can expect for $29 from AP. If it's some kind of cheap tank or reel that will fall apart after a year I'd rather know now than a year from now. Shooting film felt completely different from shooting digital for some reason. I can't say I enjoyed it MORE than shooting with my K10d (well, I can this once since it was "new toy" time) but it was definitely just as much fun in absolutely different ways. some kinda jackal fucked around with this message at 03:15 on Aug 10, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 03:13
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:
I'm finding myself in the same situation regarding shooting film. I was recently gifted two old 35mm rangefinders, both of which are in great condition. One of the reasons I was given them was "They should be used instead of stored away". So I'm trying to get used to the idea of shooting film with cameras that are older than me, have no metering, and won't hold my hand through the process of using them. Thinking of going with Tri-X too. Either that or HP5. Anyway, I'm really looking forward to it. Sorry I can't help with info about the tanks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 04:48
|
|
|
I have a strong suspicion this topic has already been covered somewhere in this thread but I couldn't find it (sorry), is the EOS-1n a pretty safe bet for a fancy yet affordable Canon AF body? It was their top of the line model for the second half of the 90s, and keh.com's got one for $140, though I assume if a pro camera has been worn to BGN condition, its shutter has seen some serious actuations. Is some other Canon a better choice?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 05:16
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Any personal experience with both? I'm not exactly sure what I can expect for $29 from AP. If it's some kind of cheap tank or reel that will fall apart after a year I'd rather know now than a year from now. Definitely go AP. The reels are far better designed. The downsides of AP versus Paterson are that the AP tanks take a bit more developer per roll and the reels seem to pick up some residue after a while whereas the Paterson tanks don't to the same degree. You can use AP reels in Paterson tanks if you decide later that you prefer Paterson tanks but AP reels. Hot Dog Day #20 posted:I have a strong suspicion this topic has already been covered somewhere in this thread but I couldn't find it (sorry), is the EOS-1n a pretty safe bet for a fancy yet affordable Canon AF body? It was their top of the line model for the second half of the 90s, and keh.com's got one for $140, though I assume if a pro camera has been worn to BGN condition, its shutter has seen some serious actuations. Is some other Canon a better choice? It should be fine. Remember that you go through a lot less frames per time period (months, years, whatever) than you do with digital simply because it's harder to when you've only got 36 shots per roll so unless the camera was owned by some crazy psycho sports photographer, you should be fine. For instance, I may shoot five rolls of film at a show which is a fair bit for film, but that's only 180 shots at the most, whereas with digital, I'd shoot 180 shots for the first half of the first band. You may also want to look at the EOS 5/A2E. I use mine for concert photography and it's fine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 05:58
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:I'm sending this roll off to be developed so I can make sure everything is OK with the camera but I'm interested in getting into home developing as well. While we're still talking about B&W dev, I was debating whether to buy some DD-X to use for my experimenting with Arista Premium 400 and LegacyPro 400 (Tri-X and Neopan, respectively) instead of using my usual WD2D+. I couldn't find any useful examples of 35mm rolls developed in WD2D+ on flickr, but I just decided to go with the WD2D+ and it came out quite nicely. Seems that I'm one of the few, if not the only one, on flickr who has 35mm Tri-X in WD2D+ and 120 HP5+ in WD2D+ (which stains quite nicely in this developer. It's my choice B&W film for medium format and the developer).  Random macro shot of a watch. Normally, I don't clean up the dust in my neg scans, but I decided to put the extra effort into this one (and I must say, it looks very smooth and sharp after cleaning it up). Tip: Using a tablet helps a LOT; I borrowed my brother's... This was quite a learning experience for me because I had previously developed a friend's roll of Tri-X and two of my rolls of HP5+ (all 35mm) but they all came out crap, practically clear. This was odd and bothersome to me because I was able to get my 120 developed fine but not the 35mm... I thought it was because I was overdeveloping, but it turns out that I was actually underdeveloping. What I learned: -Developer turns exposed silver grains into opaque metallic silver (the dark stuff that you see on the final negative) -Fixer removes any undeveloped silver (which is why people say not to dump fixer in the sink because it contains silver) So my early negs came out practically clear because of it wasn't developing long enough to change the silver, and fixing it would cause it to be clear. I felt pretty stupid when I learned this because in high school I had no problems with developing, but I was never taught the actual process that occurs during development... It helps to know this for troubleshooting. If only I had known earlier...  On a separate note, I still have yet to get my three rolls of Portra developed... I swear I'm gonna get it developed tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 10:32
|
|
|
krnhotwings posted:I don't know if it's just me, but I have a hell of a hard time squeezing in a 36-frame roll into my plastic reels
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 15:06
|
|
|
My AP reels absolutely swallow up 36-frame rolls of film. What's the problem? Is the film really hard to advance after a while? Does it get caught up?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 16:04
|
|
|
So it sounds like I might opt for the $29 AP tank and reel kit. Thanks for the advice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 16:06
|
|
|
Kaerf posted:Not sure if this is a metal vs. plastic thing, but I use Hewes steel reels and a 36 frame roll fits almost perfectly on it. If it doesn't, I know I've done something wrong. I use hewes steel reels as well and wouldn't have it any other way. They are easier to load than plastic. After using them I don't understand why people would continue to goof around with plastic reels.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 16:11
|
|
|
krnhotwings posted:... Arista EDU Ultra 400 (Fomapan), ... Arista Premium 400/Tri-X 400, ... Arista Premium 400 and LegacyPro 400 (Tri-X and Neopan, respectively) Is there some kind of grand unified list of private label film and what product they actually are out there somewhere?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 17:00
|
|
|
killabyte posted:I use hewes steel reels as well  Seems like such a waste when you realize you'll have to use more chemicals and loading steel reels (especially Hewes, with the notches in the center) isn't exactly hard. Since I don't have a scanner I took pictures of the three fiber prints I made. There's some glare and other problems, but here they are:   
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 20:51
|
|
|
Plastic reels are so easy to load, and they're adjustable!
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 21:00
|
|
|
CanuckBassist posted:Plastic reels are so easy to load, and they're adjustable! And they're easier to pour my chemicals into! The 'using more chemistry' part doesn't really matter when you're using Diafine, either.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 21:05
|
|
|
And just to add flash powder to the fire- I've used different tanks/reels. I started off with a Yankee tank, on the premise that it was easier to load than steel. I found that it wasn't really true, but since I didn't have a 120 spool at the time I used the Yankee for 120. Fast forward to my rekindled interest in film, found some steel spools and tanks and got another set off Craigslist. 24 exposures worked fine but 36 was a huge PITA, I simply could not get the full 36 on the roll-so I'd end up cutting the roll and putting it on 2 spools, using double the chemistry. At a recent yard sale, I found another single roll tank complete with the spool, and tried that tank. Wow, I must be brilliant-all 36 exposures rolled on with no drama! Now, having read about the Hewes spool, I decided to take a closer look at my new spool. It's a Hewes.  Long story short, the Hewes is worth it, even if you are already good with the metal spools. I recently acquired a Paterson tank and ran a roll of 120 through it. Some of the negatives show uneven agitation. I was not pleased. I doubt I will be usimng the Paterson again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 22:46
|
|
|
HPL posted:My AP reels absolutely swallow up 36-frame rolls of film. What's the problem? Is the film really hard to advance after a while? Does it get caught up? Yeah... dunno what's up with the loading. Maybe I should try loading it from the spool-end rather than the leader-end for 36-frame rolls. e: Gevalt posted:Is there some kind of grand unified list of private label film and what product they actually are out there somewhere? Arista EDU Ultra = Foma Fomapan Legacy Pro 100 = Fujifilm Neopan Acros 100 Legacy Pro 400 = Fujifilm Neopan 400 Arista Premium 100 = Kodak Plus-X Arista Premium 400 = Kodak Tri-X e2: Finally dropped off 3 rolls of Portra NC. My bet is that they'll come out mediocre because of my dodgy metering using my 35mm SLR's meter... krnhotwings fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Aug 10, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 22:52
|
|
|
krnhotwings posted:Actually, yeah. After about a good 2/3 of the roll, it gets caught and I have to gently wiggle it and force it in there. I had no problems w/ the 24-frame Arista Premium. I was considering either getting a new plastic reel that will fit my tank or find a stainless steel tank+reel specifically for 35mm because my plastic ones work fine with 120. Two things you can try: First, try trimming the leading corners of the film so that it won't dig into the plastic and jam. Second, try giving the front end of the film a little bit of curl with your fingers before feeding it into the reel so it'll follow the curve of the film track. Remember that the spiral gets tighter and tighter the further the film goes into the reel, so giving it a wee bit more curve can make things easier if that's the issue. Also make sure your reels are absolutely dry. A little water can make the film stick to the plastic. krnhotwings posted:e2: Finally dropped off 3 rolls of Portra NC. My bet is that they'll come out mediocre because of my dodgy metering using my 35mm SLR's meter... It should be fine. Negative print film is robust that way. Remember that back in the day, light metering consisted of a table of scenarios with shutter speeds and apertures on a little card on the back of the camera.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2009 23:38
|
|
|
krnhotwings posted:e2: Finally dropped off 3 rolls of Portra NC. My bet is that they'll come out mediocre because of my dodgy metering using my 35mm SLR's meter... Yeah, that will be fine. Print film isn't picky and I've even shot slides with my TLR using the DSLR-meter method. Gnomad posted:I recently acquired a Paterson tank and ran a roll of 120 through it. Some of the negatives show uneven agitation. I was not pleased. I doubt I will be usimng the Paterson again. That sounds like a personal problem  (Kidding! I picked up a Patterson tank for $12 on eBay and no complaints)
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2009 00:17
|
|
|
HPL posted:Second, try giving the front end of the film a little bit of curl with your fingers before feeding it into the reel so it'll follow the curve of the film track. As for the color film, I'm gonna have to get into C-41 home development (maybe even E-6 if I'm feeling bold). $15.64 for 3 rolls of 120 is gonna add up soon. Though I'm not sure which kit to get from Freestyle Photo. And I figure it'd also be good to grab another tank specifically for C-41, or will it be okay if I just rinse out my current plastic tank?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2009 02:06
|
|
|
krnhotwings posted:Hmmm, haven't thought of that one. I figured it was jamming because it was curling too much into the spool rather than outward. Guess I'll give that a shot next time. From what I've heard, using the same tank is perfectly fine as long as you wash it thoroughly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2009 02:10
|
|
|
What I get to play with for the next little while: A Mamiya 645 1000s- the owner of the local pro-lab is lending it to me. It's a bit rusty in spots, the meter is dead, the focussing action is a bit stiff on the lenses, and the film crank has a tendency to fall off, but I'm excited to finally use a system camera, even if it isn't 6x6.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2009 06:34
|
|
|
 this loving lens. the 55m 3.5 it's eluded me for so long. it was the first lens i got with my pentax 6x7 and then some MOTHERFUCKER stole it on the subway. it was the nicest lens i ever had too. and today, i was holding it in my hands, a good quality 3.5 for like 300 bucks. and my loving card got declined. nooooooo. I NEED THIS LENS BACK SO BADLY. it's the moby dick of lenses, for me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2009 07:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 04:11 |
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:my pentax 6x7
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2009 07:45
|
|