|
HPL posted:You might want to try Ilford Delta 400 too. I've shot that at 1600 and it seems to have finer grain and smoother contrast than Tri-X or HP5 at the same speed. XTOL works well for push developing, but if you're new to film, I'd recommend HC-110. HC-110 will give you slightly rougher grain, but it's easier to use since it's already liquid. T-Max definitely wasn't my first choice, but for "I need it today" it was my only one. I'll keep the Ilford stuff in mind, although for this application I kinda like the grainy/grungy look I've been getting pushing Tri-X in D-76. I've been shooting the home games with my R3a and Ideally I'd run some test rolls through the camera (which is also new to me, although I've tested all the functions without film so the only gotcha I can think of is film advance or a hidden light leak) to get more comfortable, but I just got it this week, and realized that the roll of Ilford HP1 I had laying around is in fact a C-41 film  So I'm testing a new camera, new film, and new developer all at the same time with this... hardly ideal, but I'm just doing it for fun so I'm okay with rolling with any punches. Luckily I've got the R3a and plenty of 35mm film I'm comfortable with, so worst case scenario I'll still get something useable. If you guys have nothing better to do tonight, turn on ESPN to the USF-Cincinnati game and see if you can spot the guy with the Bessa and Super Ikonta folder on the sidelines 
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2009 20:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 23:01 |
|
|
If you have to scan a lot of film quickly, scan at 1200dpi. That'll give you okay resolution to work with. Not great, but good enough for web once you downsize it a bit. The lower the scanning dpi, the faster the scan. If you're using an Epson scanner, turn off thumbnail mode to scan the whole strip at once. Select both strips and then click on "reset" to get rid of any automatic post-processing by the scanning program otherwise the scanning program will sort of average things out across all 6 photos instead of optimizing for each one. If you scan this way, the scanner will be able to scan photos as fast as you can post-process them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2009 21:33
|
|
|
Speaking of scanners anyone have any recommendations for a dedicated 35mm scanner for about $400? EDIT: Actually the only dedicated 35mm i can find within budget is the plustek opticfilm range, and i have heard mixed reviews, but the thing that stops me from buying something like a canoscan or epson 4490 is all the advice ive read says a dedicated sanner is the way to go. fronkpies fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Oct 15, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2009 22:28
|
|
|
I just bought the cheapest plustek film scanner and basically its great value for the money, dont expect drum scans but yeah its fast and awesome. Back to scanning those 45 rolls from the last 2 months.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2009 02:51
|
|
|
Seems like all the good ones I've come across recently are older SCSI scanners. Which is fine if your OS hasn't completely up and pretended that SCSI does not exist, has never existed, and nobody would ever need a SCSI peripheral again 
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2009 06:16
|
|
|
I finally developed a roll of my film. Results are interesting, I guess I can't complain, at least it worked. Although it looks like there is a light leak in my camera, do you think that's what it is? I don't understand why some came out okay.    this one is most affected, but its not just on the left hand side  
Ghost Mutt fucked around with this message at 13:01 on Oct 16, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2009 12:57
|
|
|
beastathon posted:I finally developed a roll of my film. Results are interesting, I guess I can't complain, at least it worked. To test for a leak you can black electrical tape the body tight and shoot another roll through it to see if the same results appear. It could very well have happened when you were loading the film on the tank.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2009 15:01
|
|
|
Pushing some 400 Tri-x to 1600 tonight in HC 110 for 16 minutes, what sort of agitation should i be doing? I would have thought the usual 5 seconds every 30 is to much?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2009 17:56
|
|
|
fronkpies posted:Pushing some 400 Tri-x to 1600 tonight in HC 110 for 16 minutes, what sort of agitation should i be doing? I would have thought the usual 5 seconds every 30 is to much? Probably. You'll most likely get blown-out highlights if you do that. One or two inversions every minute should do it. Gentle agitation brings out the shadow detail.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2009 18:35
|
|
|
HPL posted:Probably. You'll most likely get blown-out highlights if you do that. One or two inversions every minute should do it. Gentle agitation brings out the shadow detail. Thanks. I dont have much hope for the roll anyway, but worth a try.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2009 19:32
|
|
|
Hey, so I was wondering what you guys experience with lens fungus was. From what I understand there is no real heightened risk from having old infected lenses around clean ones because it's more to do with actual lens care rather than the fungus spreading from other infected pieces of equipment. But... I hear some places wont take infected lenses for cleaning but is this more paranioa than anything else? The reason I asked because I picked up an ok 35mm camera with lens and filters but the lens is pretty heavily touched by fungus on all elements. Dumping the lens isn't really a big deal at all but should I worry about the camera/filters itself? I don't want to me all OMG SPORES until I get an answer I can trust.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2009 22:46
|
|
|
Tigertron posted:The first images are usually better protected from the light leaks because they have the added layers of film wrapped around. That first image which is fine is the second last shot and the worst is one of the first shots. The loading the film in to the tank definitely sounds like a good explanation, the cardboard I wedged in to my window started to slip a little bit and tiny bit of light was coming through. Would it have anything to do with the developing itself? I've got another roll to scan which I did last night, I'll see how they turn out. e: Well it seems like it's pretty consistent throughout the film, nearly every shot has some light on the left hand side. Actual photo taking, I got a few a kind of pleased with. Critiques would be very appreciated, thanks.   
Ghost Mutt fucked around with this message at 02:23 on Oct 17, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2009 01:31
|
|
|
SquallStrife posted:Yep, T's are a bit ugly. I'll have to double-check, but I'm almost 100% sure this is the camera I shot with in high school as well. I'll find out this weekend. My brother is bringing it over so I can take it with me on my trip to Nepal/Tibet next week. Now I just gotta go shopping for film. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2009 03:37
|
|
|
Just shot my first roll of Legacy Pro 100 (Freestyle's rebranded Neopan 100 SS), developed in HC-110 Dil. H, looks pretty good to me, despite my middle of the road scanner and sloppy developing. (scan + dust/scratch removal + resize) As much as I like diafine, it's kind of refreshing to see a full range of tones again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2009 04:14
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Just shot my first roll of Legacy Pro 100 (Freestyle's rebranded Neopan 100 SS), developed in HC-110 Dil. H, looks pretty good to me, despite my middle of the road scanner and sloppy developing. Are you sure it's 100 SS? Most people think it's Acros
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2009 04:15
|
|
|
You are correct sir, my mistake. http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80192
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2009 04:20
|
|
|
Hey, speaking of Freestyle, does anyone know of a good place in Canada that offers similar prices (after conversion, of course)? I kind of want to play around with some Portra 400NC and the prices on a five-pack seem much better than what I would pay at my local Henry's. If there's nothing, I suppose I can go cross-border and just buy form Freestyle.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2009 04:27
|
|
|
The best place I can find is https://www.photo-co.com . They have good shipping rates too. I've ordered from them a ton of times. Don't order from Freestyle unless you're ordering either a shitload of stuff or stuff you can't find elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2009 05:06
|
|
|
Wow, that is nice. I can get a five pack of Portra 400 for the same price as I would have paid for two (plus change) rolls at Henry's. Thanks, bookmarked!
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2009 05:12
|
|
|
I am having a problem with very high contrast prints and I need to narrow down the variables. For example: It is as muddy as it looks but when I use a higher contrast filter I lose all my detail in the horse.  It was shot on Efke KB400 and printed on Arista EDU with a 1/2 fliter. I meter all my images with a spot meter and have a firm grasp of the zone system. Nearly all my images from this roll needed to be printed with a #1>1/2 filter. My printing technique is to make a test strip for the highlights and then switch out filters to control the shadows. What area of the process is causing me to come up with such a dense print? I want to assume I am overdeveloping my roll since I have only been able to haphazardly guess at the times. Could it possibly be the cheap arista paper? Should I just let the highlights wash away and just print for the shadows? Do I actually have a good print given the lighting? I use Ansel Adams The Print as a darkroom bible so you can reference material from there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2009 18:33
|
|
|
beastathon posted:e: Well it seems like it's pretty consistent throughout the film, nearly every shot has some light on the left hand side. Actual photo taking, I got a few a kind of pleased with. Critiques would be very appreciated, thanks. Last night I was playing with my Zenit SLR and I noticed on some shutter modes the shutter wasn't properly firing. The shutter door would fire and when reseting it would slowly glide into place which would leave the left side more exposed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2009 18:55
|
|
|
I went out for a ride, shot up a roll of that Polachrome I picked up, and the camera I used, bless its little black heart, wound the leader all the way inside the cassette. How do I get the leader back out? edit:went to the photo counter at WalMart and they did the deed for me. Gnomad fucked around with this message at 03:54 on Oct 18, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2009 02:42
|
|
|
Gnomad posted:I went out for a ride, shot up a roll of that Polachrome I picked up, and the camera I used, bless its little black heart, wound the leader all the way inside the cassette.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2009 03:02
|
|
|
Alrighty then, I finally decided to throw caution to the wind and try some of that Polachrome I picked up, not expecting too much of course-the film is a couple decades past the expiration date. First item-the processor comes with a film extractor, so my worries were unfounded. The film comes with a chemical developing pack  goes in the processor like so, the film goes in the spool holder above the developer pack.  The film and developer pack-which contains a strip of some voodoo stuff that is supposed to develop the image, then strip the backing off and wind itself back into the pack, wind together, you wait 60 seconds, then wind it again and get-  black film. Actually, I can see images on the film, but the backing is totally opaque. I'm guessing the chemicals are just too old to work. The development looks OK ish but the stuff failed to strip off, I did find that a person can run the film through fix and then squeegee the backing off. Well, for the price of a cup of gas station coffee, it was worth trying. I'll try the fix trick and report back.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2009 07:01
|
|
|
Polaroid made a 35mm film? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2009 07:10
|
|
|
pwn posted:Polaroid made a 35mm film? I found a bunch of 12-exposure rolls of the Polaroid "High Definition" C41 film recently in a box that someone was throwing away... guessing that it's probably crap, since it was in rolling around with a bunch of Kodak Gold and the C41 rolls all had "Bring Back to Walmart for Development" labels on them. The one roll of Agfa Vista was pretty disappointing too. There were a few nice surprises in that box, though- a couple rolls of Ektachrome 100 Saturated/Warm and some Provia. I feel like I kinda wasted the first roll of the Ektachrome by shooting it on a foggy, drab morning, but man were the results gorgeous. Judging by the other rolls in there, it's all at least a few years past expiration and probably not stored well, but I didn't see any color shifting. Considering the price of developing that stuff around here, I'm saving the other slide rolls until I can think of a project that will put them to proper use. Dr. Cogwerks fucked around with this message at 09:00 on Oct 19, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2009 07:43
|
|
is go
|
I feel like I've asked this before, so apologies if I'm repeating myself: I need Polaroid film for a Polaroid 600. I've looked on Ebay and Amazon, and it seems like I can expect to pay around $25-35 per pack (10 shots). Can I hope to find it cheaper anywhere else? Also, how old I can go when buying polaroid film? How far can I go back before it's just not going to work anymore?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2009 15:26
|
|
|
jackpot posted:I feel like I've asked this before, so apologies if I'm repeating myself: I need Polaroid film for a Polaroid 600. I've looked on Ebay and Amazon, and it seems like I can expect to pay around $25-35 per pack (10 shots). Can I hope to find it cheaper anywhere else? There are still some packs kicking around Wal-Mart and drugstores and the like for $15-$20, though some are definitely expired.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2009 15:29
|
|
|
theflyingexecutive posted:There are still some packs kicking around Wal-Mart and drugstores and the like for $15-$20, though some are definitely expired.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2009 16:19
|
|
|
jackpot posted:Ballpark estimate, how far past expiration date can I go? Hey dude it really depends on how fast the film is, if it's 3000 forget about it, if it's 300, probably a few years, if it's 100, a long time. If it's super important to get great shots, there is always buying fresh film!
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2009 16:34
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Hey dude it really depends on how fast the film is, if it's 3000 forget about it, if it's 300, probably a few years, if it's 100, a long time. If it's super important to get great shots, there is always buying fresh film! Well it's 600, and the last polaroid film to be made until next year. It shouldn't be expired by too long, as manufacturing has only stopped in the last couple months, iirc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2009 16:45
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:If it's super important to get great shots, there is always buying fresh film! We want  What I didn't realize before I started is how loving expensive polaroid film has gotten since they stopped making it. There are a million auctions on ebay, expiring everywhere from 9/2009 to, no poo poo, 1998. I didn't realize it until now, but it looks like fujifilm makes an instant camera and the film isn't retarded expensive; I might be able to get a better deal just buying a new camera and using its film. Off to do some research... jackpot fucked around with this message at 17:02 on Oct 19, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2009 16:53
|
|
|
jackpot posted:Not for Polaroids, there isn't. I've got some obsolete Tri-X pack film that expired in 1977 :-\
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2009 17:04
|
|
|
jackpot posted:Not for Polaroids, there isn't. I still get really confused by the different kinds of film. There's something for land cameras that you pull apart, and then there's instant film, and I just can't keep track of what's around anymore and what got discontinued.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2009 17:28
|
|
|
Ended up ordering a Fujifilm Instax 200 and four 10-packs of film for $90. I feel a lot better ordering brand-new stuff when I know the sellers are Amazon and Adorama, as opposed to some guy selling expired Polaroid film that's probably been in the trunk of his car for the past three years. Plus I'm really diggin' the wide format: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2009 18:14
|
|
|
Lookie what I found!  
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2009 04:06
|
|
|
man thats gross posted:Lookie what I found! That looks to be in great condition. Mine is nothing more than a Frankenstein. Only reason I can still use it after the advance lever fell off was because I bought an auto winder for it. Edit: Just to add the auto winder gives great shape and weight to the camera. Not sure if it's available with a vertical trigger. Tigertron fucked around with this message at 04:52 on Oct 20, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2009 04:48
|
|
|
man thats gross posted:Lookie what I found! Nice. Was that thing repainted or something, it looks brand new! Mine is in really good condition, but there is still a bit of brassing around the strap rings and on the corners.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2009 05:23
|
|
|
Not to downplay the film nature of this thread, but if Canon or Nikon came out with a digital body with the aesthetics of a 70s/80s camera, I would be all over that in a heartbeat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2009 05:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 23:01 |
|
|
Martytoof posted:Not to downplay the film nature of this thread, but if Canon or Nikon came out with a digital body with the aesthetics of a 70s/80s camera, I would be all over that in a heartbeat. I know. You figure someone could come out with a pretty compact digital back for my F3. Just stick a little monochrome LCD on it so I can change some basic settings and it would fine. I wish Cosina or something would come out with this. I would pay $500 easy for it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2009 06:21
|
|