|
beautiful pup though 
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2019 20:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 04:54 |
|
|
Yeah Fuji stuff has quite a cold color palette, it is probably nice for landscapes with it's nice greens and blues. Ultimately more than the color I dislike the prominence of the grain in Fuji's Pro 400H. A "pro" film, especially in medium format - shouldn't look that grainy. I like their 35mm stuff okay though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2019 02:03
|
|
|
What's the best rangefinder I can get for <£150? It'd mainly be used as a walkaround camera and maaaaaybe the occasional candid portrait. Aperture priority would be great, but not absolutely necessary. Right now I'm looking at the Yashica Electro 35 GSN (which is cheap, but heavy) or the CC-- but are there any others I should be looking at in that price range?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 12:34
|
|
|
AfricanBootyShine posted:What's the best rangefinder I can get for <£150? It'd mainly be used as a walkaround camera and maaaaaybe the occasional candid portrait. Aperture priority would be great, but not absolutely necessary. Right now I'm looking at the Yashica Electro 35 GSN (which is cheap, but heavy) or the CC-- but are there any others I should be looking at in that price range? you're on the right track. those are nice, tho I think they're too big. Also worth checking out is the Canon Canonet Q17 and the Olympus XA or DC or really any of the OIympus rangefinders from that era. I have a slight preference towards the Olympus rangefinders because of their size and design.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2019 16:50
|
|
|
I had an electro 35 for a while. It was okay to use, but the little diamond-shaped focusing mark in the viewfinder was really dim. Not sure if that’s a common problem though. Solid camera for the most part.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2019 16:55
|
|
|
AfricanBootyShine posted:What's the best rangefinder I can get for <£150? It'd mainly be used as a walkaround camera and maaaaaybe the occasional candid portrait. Aperture priority would be great, but not absolutely necessary. Right now I'm looking at the Yashica Electro 35 GSN (which is cheap, but heavy) or the CC-- but are there any others I should be looking at in that price range? Look into the mid tier point and shoots, they may be what you're looking for.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2019 17:06
|
|
|
bobmarleysghost posted:Look into the mid tier point and shoots, they may be what you're looking for. any specific models?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2019 23:41
|
|
|
Nikon 35 ti Olympus stylus Contax tvs
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2020 00:08
|
|
|
Yea those are good. I've used the stylus (and the epic) as well as the nikon. Contax is good but it's pricey in my area.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2020 01:03
|
|
|
Stylus Epic is great although it only has one program, it'll shoot wide open until it hits the max shutter speed, then tighten down. Hope you like shooting wide open - but it is a very nice lens. A few times I've needed to use the flash and the exposures have always been competent. Maybe it's using the rangefinder distance to set the flash power? It's seemingly more competent than using auto-flash on my DSLR. XA is real good too, having a fully controllable aperture-priority rangefinder in a pack of cards is amazing and is the killer feature compared to a lot of other "micro" cameras (eg Rollei 35S is scale focus, or Stylus Epic is a program camera with a dumb program). If you want a tiny camera with full creative control I'd say it's one of the best contenders. The rangefinder is not good at long ranges, but it is helpful up close where focus matters more. You will undoubtedly bump the focus tab and take a series of out of focus shots, and take some pictures of your thumb. Your local shadetree camera mechanic can supposedly take it apart and spin the perforated paper disc over the photocell (change all ISOs up one stop) and change the maximum ISO to 1600. A wider lens can be handheld slower, with ISO 1600 you can handhold at 1/30 pretty easily, so it is actually a pretty solid low-light camera. Either mine has had this done to it, or the meter cell has lost a stop somehow...Lynx 14E is another fun one for low-light photography. Lens is very flare-prone and not that amazing outside the center when it's f/1.4, but it's a fun cheap ghetto noctilux and I love mine. Your standard superfast planar, with a nice gentle shutter (leaf shutter means no shutter shake) you can shoot at 1/30 pretty reliably. Electro 35 GSN is probably the best all-around cheapie RF but they usually need some repair. Dunno what prices have done lately though, they're popular now. There are an endless sea of other fixed-lens RFs, like the canon canonet QL17 and yashica ministers and lynxes and so on. A lot of them are cheap, most of them are just another planar 50mm clone. Some of the older/cheaper ones may be tessars though. Make sure the meter has a CDS cell/uses a battery, and not a selenium cell (no battery needed) or one that uses a mercury battery (can technically be replaced with a weincell / hearing aid battery but they die quickly) Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 03:01 on Jan 1, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2020 02:30
|
|
|
So I'm looking for a compact camera that can take 1600 ISO film. It doesn't have to be anything special, I just want something to take to concerts so I can get shots from inside the mosh pit with 1600 ISO black and white film. I think it would be a fun experiment, and could capture the memories my friends and I share. I'd bring my K1000 into the crowd, but it would be really awkward to carry around, plus security might confiscate it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2020 07:02
|
|
|
Thoughts on this? I like the contrast, but on the other hand I wonder that it’s too much. Feedback in general is welcome. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 20:22
|
|
|
How are you all feeling about the price increase of Kodak films? Most of our stock went up by at least two or three dollars per roll. It's hard seeing tri-x go up in price, but I do kinda hope they will be able to keep Color Plus and Portra from being on back-order constantly now. I'd love it if they would bring back some C-41 Black and White, but that's probably a pipe dream.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2020 07:38
|
|
|
I feel happy to have purchased a bunch of Kodak stuff before the price increases. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2020 13:31
|
|
|
I love the hands-on aspect of shooting and developing and printing film, but as prices keep going up I'm just finding myself shooting digital more and really just leaving the film for special occasions or photowalks where I'm all "hey I haven't shot film in a while". Which means I'm just getting rustier and rustier at developing and printing which means I get worse results and it makes me want to shoot film less. All just excuses, though. If I really wanted to I could buy the cheapest film I can get and go out every week so my determination to only shoot HP5+ because that's what I love is holding me back more than anything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2020 15:34
|
|
|
I'll still buy that garbage. I don't know how to use anything else.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2020 17:24
|
|
|
You should just buy butt loads of Kentmere stuff. Pretty sure we sell 36exp rolls of Pan 400 for a about five dollars and 24exp rolls of 100 for 4 dollars, so I imagine it's even cheaper on the internet somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2020 18:10
|
|
|
Way back when I took photography classes, we loaded our own 35mm and it cost next to nothing...isn't that still an option?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2020 18:46
|
|
|
ImplicitAssembler posted:Way back when I took photography classes, we loaded our own 35mm and it cost next to nothing...isn't that still an option? Yes, you can easily get bulk 35mm from stores like Film Photography Project or most likely your local camera store, if you're lucky enough to still have one of those near you. I pay cost for my film so I haven't done any bulk loading yet but I plan on getting the stuff for it and maybe stocking up on a few bulk rolls just in case.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2020 18:52
|
|
|
Until Kentmere makes 4x5 Portra sheets I'm good sticking with Kodak even as their prices go up
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2020 18:57
|
|
|
I'm still chewing through a 100' roll of Ultrafine Extreme 400, and I'll probably buy one again once this one's done.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2020 19:37
|
|
|
Well, I'm back from a month in Japan and I shot like 15 rolls of film. It's going to be mega expensive to have it all developed and it's all B&W so I was considering just using the money to buy my own equipment and do it myself, but I feel a bit queasy about developing as a complete beginner with relatively important photos that I can't go recreate again. I also shot about half of it with Fuji's new Acros film that I've never shot with before. Decisions! I also accidentally shot one of the Acros rolls as ISO 400 rather than ISO 100, so I get to see how that performs at 2 stops outside of what it is supposed to be... 
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 02:30
|
|
|
I think developing is fun (scanning sucks balls though) but I understand why you don’t want to practice on stuff from your trip. Maybe casually shoot a few rolls and develop them first? You might be surprised at how easy home developing is. I’m by no means some kind of master, but I’ve never trashed a roll either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 02:36
|
|
|
I developed my first B&W roll not too long ago and I wasn't really pleased with how it turned out but I also have no idea if it was me or the film. It just came out a little too grainy, I don't remember the film but I'm pretty sure it wasn't supposed to be as grainy as it came out. So I guess it's a wash, the images did come out and were visible but I wouldn't have second guessed it if I had sent it to the lab. If they're real important I would just take the hit and send them off to the lab and try out home development with a less important roll. edit: I started with C-41 and that's super easy so I recommend doing that anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 02:38
|
|
|
B&W is easy to do on your own. You need some sort of tank, change bag, a couple of bottles to store stuff, thermometer (kitchen one will do as long as it goes low enough) and ideally 2 mixing jugs. Call it $100 to buy the gear, another $30 for chemicals Go out and shoot a couple of rolls of cheap film, practice on those and you're good to go. ImplicitAssembler fucked around with this message at 02:42 on Jan 9, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 02:39
|
|
|
GreaseGunner posted:I developed my first B&W roll not too long ago and I wasn't really pleased with how it turned out but I also have no idea if it was me or the film. It just came out a little too grainy, I don't remember the film but I'm pretty sure it wasn't supposed to be as grainy as it came out. So I guess it's a wash, the images did come out and were visible but I wouldn't have second guessed it if I had sent it to the lab. If they're real important I would just take the hit and send them off to the lab and try out home development with a less important roll. I’ve had issues with that too, but I think I’ve seen improvement since I started being more gentle with my agitations.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 02:40
|
|
|
President Beep posted:I’ve had issues with that too, but I think I’ve seen improvement since I started being more gentle with my agitations. I thought maybe I had the temps wrong or even the wrong amount of chemicals, I don't have a proper way to measure my B&W chemicals so I sorta winged it. All my bottles are full of my C-41 chemicals and I just find them a lot easier to use but I'll get the stuff together to do B&W again. I just use a Paterson tank so I flip it with lid on just like with C-41, maybe next time i'll try using the little agitator thing and spin the film.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 02:49
|
|
|
GreaseGunner posted:I thought maybe I had the temps wrong or even the wrong amount of chemicals, I don't have a proper way to measure my B&W chemicals so I sorta winged it. All my bottles are full of my C-41 chemicals and I just find them a lot easier to use but I'll get the stuff together to do B&W again. I just use a Paterson tank so I flip it with lid on just like with C-41, maybe next time i'll try using the little agitator thing and spin the film. sounds like a mis-measurement or a bad film/developer combination, yeah. I probably wouldn't point the finger at agitation for film grain
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 03:20
|
|
|
Keret posted:Well, I'm back from a month in Japan and I shot like 15 rolls of film. It's going to be mega expensive to have it all developed and it's all B&W so I was considering just using the money to buy my own equipment and do it myself, but I feel a bit queasy about developing as a complete beginner with relatively important photos that I can't go recreate again. I also shot about half of it with Fuji's new Acros film that I've never shot with before. Decisions! I was in basically your exact same situation, and bought a test roll of both B&W and color and just developed those as a test. It's honestly not as hard as it sounds, but messing up badly CAN result in ruined photos. Often small mess ups will result in less than ideal photos, but usually not anything ruined. I also feel like I'm the opposite of everyone in that I enjoy scanning more than developing. I can do it more easily while watching Netflix or something, and it's super satisfying to see the final result of my photos and tweak them to be perfect.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 06:28
|
|
|
It's pretty hard to gently caress up B&W dev unless you overagitate, forget that the stuff is in the tank, or manage to mangle it when you load it onto the reel. Don't reuse your developer, test the leaders to get the right timing for the fixer, keep everything at room temperature, and double check your chemistry/film stock combo on the Massive Dev Chart. Once you have the basic equipment it's going to cost you less than a dollar a roll to run your dev.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 07:02
|
|
|
Yeah dev at home is easy as, I do B&W, C-41 and E-6 because I shoot sheet film and processing costs for that in New Zealand are crazy. C-41 and E-6 are a bit more of a pain but if as Helen says you use a one-shot B&W developer (I use Ilford LC29 in a 1:29 dilution) and you do as you're told it's hard to go wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 08:15
|
|
|
I find C-41 to be much easier. No special dev times for different chemicals, film type or ISO. Just gotta keep the chemicals warm, I keep them in brown apothecary bottles and let them sit in hot water for awhile until they get warm enough. E-6 sounds stressful for the same reasons I find C-41 easy but just because it's more chemicals and it's less forgiving.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 08:46
|
|
|
GreaseGunner posted:I find C-41 to be much easier. No special dev times for different chemicals, film type or ISO. Just gotta keep the chemicals warm, I keep them in brown apothecary bottles and let them sit in hot water for awhile until they get warm enough. Honestly I do the same thing, just chuck them into a water bath with sous vide machine to keep everything at the right temp. I'm using a 3-bath E-6 (dev 1, dev 2 and blix) so it's really only one more step than most home C-41 kits. Haven't noticed any issues with developing so far.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 09:01
|
|
|
Blackhawk posted:Honestly I do the same thing, just chuck them into a water bath with sous vide machine to keep everything at the right temp. I'm using a 3-bath E-6 (dev 1, dev 2 and blix) so it's really only one more step than most home C-41 kits. Haven't noticed any issues with developing so far. Ah, I usually see the E-6 kits with 5 or 6 different chemicals so that's interesting. My C-41 Kit is Developer, Blix and Stabilizer so i'm used to the three chemicals. Plus I use distilled water with some photo-flo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 09:16
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2020 20:03
|
|
|
I knew that Fomatone (a warmtone fiber paper) responded well to toners but I wasn't expecting an explosion. In about ten seconds it went from a light cream colour to this. Selenium toner 1:10 dilution. Don't hate it, but its a bit strongly coloured.  By comparison this is Ilford Multigrade IV RC paper after about two minutes. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 02:46
|
|
|
It’s been a while, but I think fiber papers in general respond more to toners than RC papers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 06:51
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:It’s been a while, but I think fiber papers in general respond more to toners than RC papers. Absolutely, also, don’t use RC paper
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 18:39
|
|
|
About the only way I can tell the difference between glossy fiber and RC Pearl is feeling the paper; they look nearly identical even unframed. Under glass no one could say which is which. Some gallery curator might turn their nose up at RC paper but they're not beating down my door to have a Sauer on their wall. I fully expect my next of kin to toss all my prints in the recycling bin after I carc it. Edit: I would like to see an environmental comparison of the two materials. The supercoat and emulsions are functionally identical but RC paper is laminated in plastic while fiber isn't. Fiber consumes a ton of water, while RC doesn't. Sauer fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Jan 20, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 18:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 04:54 |
|
|
is there a mirror of the film processing video that's in the OP? watched it years ago and wanted to go back to it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 23:20
|
|
