|
So, I'm very interested in learning about film. I'm poor these days and instead of sitting around starving for new fun things to do while I can't afford new digital upgrades I'd very much like to explore film & developing. This thread seems like a great places to get some basic info. 8th-samurai, very informative posts so far. I have a few questions that I'm very curious about regarding a bunch of different stuff: I'm really interested in finding out more about medium format, I know nothing about it really, but I've seen some of the shots from that format and really like a lot about it. What is the cheapest setup that one could get which is capable of producing semi-clean photos? Having said that, is it a terribly idiotic idea to dive into medium format without having worked with 35mm before? I know that somewhere at home I've got an old Canon Rebel film body lying around that I could experiment with developing with, if I slap my 50 prime on there. Once you get your film developed, what's the next step to get larger prints made? I know there are big expensive negative scanners and stuff. Without owning that and a photo printer is it pointless to develop your own stuff, or do you just bring the developed film to someone to print? How much does a largish (20") print run? Thanks in advance for any advice and knowledge.
|
# ? Jun 2, 2008 16:08 |
|
|
# ? Mar 28, 2024 10:57 |
|
You can get into medium format with a holga and a changing bag for really, really cheap. I would strongly recommend a TLR though. You'll get far better photos with even the crappiest seagull.
|
# ? Jun 2, 2008 16:13 |
|
friendship waffle posted:You can get into medium format with a holga and a changing bag for really, really cheap. Yeah I'm not a huge fan of the Holga look at this point. TLR is what I meant by Medium format, I'm gonna read up on Wikipedia on that but is there anything good worth knowing as a consumer? Maybe a link to some into to TLR cameras & getting film processed and developed?
|
# ? Jun 2, 2008 16:30 |
|
Krispy Kareem posted:I'm trying to compile all the necessary pieces and parts to develop my own 120 negatives and haven't seen this answered anywhere - can I use ANY kind of light while loading my film rolls onto their spools? Like a red light? Pitch black only. Modern films are panchromatic, i.e., sensitive to all wavelengths of light. It's actually much easier to load film onto developing reels than you'd think, though. Especially if you're using a Paterson system, where it loads itself once you get an inch or two on, barring you really loving things up down the line. Get yourself a sacrificial roll and practice, practice, practice. Do it in the light with your eyes open, do it with your eyes closed, do it in the dark... A little practice goes a long way. Learn to see with your fingers, grasshoppa. And if you get in the dark and can't get the film loaded, just stuff the drat film in the empty tank and come back to it later to try again. It's when people have a failure or two they tend to psych themselves out and not be able to load it.
|
# ? Jun 2, 2008 16:39 |
|
Krispy Kareem posted:I'm trying to compile all the necessary pieces and parts to develop my own 120 negatives and haven't seen this answered anywhere - can I use ANY kind of light while loading my film rolls onto their spools? Like a red light? I don't have an answer to your question, but I may have some equipment you could use. I'll have to look for it, but I'm pretty sure I have a stainless steel developing tank and reel for 120 film. Today only deal! Free, plus s/h! (s/h = $99.95) I'm kidding of course. I would really be happy to send it to you free of charge, but I'd hope for a small paypal to cover the shipping. Anyway, if you already have tanks, no big deal. Unless they're plastic, in which case I strongly suggest you try stainless steel. As for advantages, they're a little more durable (but if you're careful with your equipment that doesn't really matter) and they use a couple ounces less of the processing liquid - at least that's been my experience. And they just feel more traditional. Anyway, let me know.
|
# ? Jun 2, 2008 17:03 |
|
twovansnotone posted:I don't have an answer to your question, but I may have some equipment you could use. I'll have to look for it, but I'm pretty sure I have a stainless steel developing tank and reel for 120 film. Today only deal! Free, plus s/h! (s/h = $99.95) I was set to pay $21.95 for a plastic developing tank. Is this a daylight tank with a 120 reels? If so I'd be more than willing to buy used. Cannister posted:Yeah I'm not a huge fan of the Holga look at this point. TLR is what I meant by Medium format, I'm gonna read up on Wikipedia on that but is there anything good worth knowing as a consumer? Maybe a link to some into to TLR cameras & getting film processed and developed? Yashica TLR's seem to be decent values on eBay. You can usually get a Yashica A for around $50 or a fancier model for $100 or more. I'm biased because that's the first model I used, but they're built like tanks and stupid easy to use. If you're going to try filter adapters or even a lens hood (kind of necessary with TLR setups) then you need a Yashica C or better I believe. They use the same lens threads as Rollei's.
|
# ? Jun 2, 2008 17:28 |
|
Luxmore posted:Everybody go buy some Kodachrome. johnasavoia posted:Quick question about diafine, I've been reading up on it, and is it really the miracle developer that it seems to be? It almost sounds too good to be true.
|
# ? Jun 2, 2008 18:02 |
|
Krispy Kareem posted:Yashica TLR's seem to be decent values on eBay. You can usually get a Yashica A for around $50 or a fancier model for $100 or more. I'm biased because that's the first model I used, but they're built like tanks and stupid easy to use. So then what's the group consensus on one aforementioned Yashica C for 86 bucks off ebay in repordedly perfect operating condition? If I'm just getting the film developed by a printer would I need anything else other than film?
|
# ? Jun 2, 2008 18:04 |
|
As it's 100% manual you'll need a light meter. I have a Sekonic 308B which has worked great in the studio (syncs to flash) as well as outdoors.
blambert fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Jun 2, 2008 |
# ? Jun 2, 2008 18:08 |
|
Cannister posted:So then what's the group consensus on one aforementioned Yashica C for 86 bucks off ebay in repordedly perfect operating condition? Cannister posted:If I'm just getting the film developed by a printer would I need anything else other than film?
|
# ? Jun 2, 2008 18:19 |
|
Luxmore posted:Looks good to me, Now you just have to hope that "the camera's owner" was right about the working condition I've misplaced my old battery powered light meter and picked up a 40 year old Sekonic for $10 off eBay. Haven't had a chance to test her out yet, but the selenium cell is at least responding to light so I'm hoping. Otherwise it'll be sunny-16 for me. Fortunately I don't use my Yashica for anything but outdoor photography.
|
# ? Jun 2, 2008 19:14 |
|
Luxmore posted:Not really, no. A light meter might come in handy, like Blambert says, but you can usually get by on educated guesses or by using another camera as a meter. as much as I like to pimp proper light meters, you can definitely use a different camera if you're happy with the results from the internal meter, especially with black and white. If the other camera is a digital SLR, even better - you can see how the photo is going to look!
|
# ? Jun 2, 2008 19:55 |
|
Krispy Kareem posted:I was set to pay $21.95 for a plastic developing tank. Is this a daylight tank with a 120 reels? If so I'd be more than willing to buy used. Krispy, Here's what I have: (all stainless steel) a) tank for two 35mm reels or one 120 reel (no cover) b) tank for four 35mm reels or two 35mm and one 120, or two 120s (with cover and daylight safe cap) c) four 35mm reels d) one 120 reel I think you'd probably want (a) and (d) if you're just doing 120, but you'd have to find a cover. That's probably better anyway, because the rubber covers they make now are much easier to get on and off than the steel one I have for the huge tank. Also, I'd kind of like to keep the huge tank... But I'm not actually using it right now, and probably won't for while, and I have a couple other tanks anyway. I'll try to get some pictures tonight or tomorrow. The inside of the smaller tank is a little grungy, but should wash up very easily with steel wool or something (it is STAINLESS steel after all!) And it would probably just be like $5 for shipping and packaging, I really can't imagine it would be more than that. It's not like it needs insurance or some really careful packing. Also, I'm really jealous that you're going to be doing 120 film (I may have already said that.)
|
# ? Jun 2, 2008 21:42 |
|
Getting in on the first floor of a great thread. I've still to actually develop any of the film I'm shooting, but I adore both my cameras for being amazing mechanical artifacts (neither of these are my pictures): The big one, when I know I'm going to a photogenic place: My father's old Nikon F2 Photomic (info on what is probably the best site for info on old Nikons ever) with the Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 or a weird Tokina 70-200 zoom. Picture has a different lens. The tiny one, which I aim to always keep on my person: The diminutive Minox B. It is about 1.5 x 1 x 4 inches, includes light meter and the design dates from the 30's. It is awesome. The film it uses, however, is rather queer (8x11 mm in proprietary canisters). It is still being produced, but in lesser and lesser quantities, and it commands a pretty awful premium. I'll answer anything I can, and I am right now trying to import Diafine into Sweden thanks to this thread. One can try.
|
# ? Jun 2, 2008 21:50 |
|
UserNotFound posted:Has anyone here ever use Diafine w/ Tri-X 400? Why do I see conflicting reports about whether or not it will expose the TX400 to EI1600 with the "standard" proccess? I understand some people choose to set their camera to 1100 or something they feel gets the exposure they're looking for, but others seem to insist that they shoot at 400 and the Diafine doesn't overexpose it... I shoot it at 400 and it does well for me. (That's with a good, accurate meter too; the one in my GA645.) However, I get decent negs from just guesstimating exposure on my meter-less cameras as well; I certainly don't expect (or get) zone system like results but it's hard to get a BAD neg too... What I would recommend, and it won't cost you more than a roll of film. Go find a low contrast, a medium contrast, and a high contrast scene. Shoot each one at EI 400, 800, 1600. Go pick some other scenes that you will commonly shoot (portraits, landscape, still life, yada). Shoot each at 400, 800, 1600. You can get fancier and use 400, 500, 640, 800, 1000, 1250, 1600 if you want to spend more film but I really don't think it's necessary for most... Develop in Diafine and pick out the best looking results for each type of scene. You might find that a certain scene does best at 800 while another looks nicer at 400. It'll only cost you a roll of film and teach you everything you'll need to know about Diafine and that film. Don't be afraid to overexpose either if you want to explore a bit, who knows, you might find that something like EI 200 and flat lighting works magic for you! The same concept applies to 'roughing out' other films/developers, though when you're using more traditional developers I'd recommend shooting a few rolls the same way and then dev each at different times or temps to see how the entire picture looks. With Diafine being a 'develop to completion' solution time and temp are (more or less) irrelevant as long as there's sufficient of them to complete the development process. PS: I f-in HATE plastic reels for 120, but they work great for 35mm. Freestyle has pretty cheap metal tank/reel setups.
|
# ? Jun 2, 2008 22:40 |
|
Snaily posted:The tiny one, which I aim to always keep on my person: The diminutive Minox B. It is about 1.5 x 1 x 4 inches, includes light meter and the design dates from the 30's. It is awesome. The film it uses, however, is rather queer (8x11 mm in proprietary canisters). It is still being produced, but in lesser and lesser quantities, and it commands a pretty awful premium. They're wicked cool when they're working right, though.
|
# ? Jun 2, 2008 23:02 |
|
twovansnotone posted:Krispy, Here's what I have: Looking at my shopping list, I think I'm just going to get the new container. In my youth I'd be all over spare parts, but I'm not sure what kind of luck I'm going to have finding a cover and if it's online there will be shipping charges at least equal to the item cost. Plus I need $50 in stuff for Adorama to ship free and I'm only at $44 even with the developing tank. Thanks for the offer though. I am curious though, am I going to have to fill up the tanks or does it take less liquid to develop? I'm looking at these bottle sizes (500ml and smaller) and it looks like I'll blow through this in couple of rolls. Snaily posted:The tiny one, which I aim to always keep on my person: The diminutive Minox B. It is about 1.5 x 1 x 4 inches, includes light meter and the design dates from the 30's. It is awesome. The film it uses, however, is rather queer (8x11 mm in proprietary canisters). It is still being produced, but in lesser and lesser quantities, and it commands a pretty awful premium. I had a Minolta knock off of the Minox that I lost (drat thing was too small). It was never very practical, but I loved the push pull film advance. I think it took 16mm film. Strangely enough the best discrete camera I've ever used was the TLR. It looks so odd that people don't seem to recognize it for a camera. Plus the top down viewfinder makes it easy to compose a picture on the sly.
|
# ? Jun 3, 2008 01:30 |
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:What I would recommend, and it won't cost you more than a roll of film. Great idea, I pretty much figured this is what I'd end up doing. I think I can autobracket +1 and -1 from 800 and have it all figure out in an afternoon. As far as training my eye...well that's why I'm getting into film, no shoot, review the lcd, adjust, and take the right exposure Now, for getting my hands on the developing tools. Expect me back in about 2 weeks asking about making prints
|
# ? Jun 3, 2008 01:35 |
|
Krispy Kareem posted:
yeah, I've found this to be the case as well. You can just sit in a corner and do street photography and since your head is not only looking down, but tracking people's movements in the wrong direction, most people don't ever think you're taking photos. The shutter is also pretty quiet.
|
# ? Jun 3, 2008 01:36 |
|
Krispy Kareem posted:I am curious though, am I going to have to fill up the tanks or does it take less liquid to develop? I'm looking at these bottle sizes (500ml and smaller) and it looks like I'll blow through this in couple of rolls.
|
# ? Jun 3, 2008 01:52 |
|
Krispy Kareem posted:Looking at my shopping list, I think I'm just going to get the new container. In my youth I'd be all over spare parts, but I'm not sure what kind of luck I'm going to have finding a cover and if it's online there will be shipping charges at least equal to the item cost. Plus I need $50 in stuff for Adorama to ship free and I'm only at $44 even with the developing tank. Thanks for the offer though. What developers are you looking at? Most stuff comes in a concentrate form.
|
# ? Jun 3, 2008 02:13 |
|
8th-samurai posted:What developers are you looking at? Most stuff comes in a concentrate form. I was looking at this, plus fixers and wetting agents: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00009R6AO/ref=ord_cart_shr%5Fencoding=UTF8&m=A17MC6HOH9AVE6&v=glance I guess it does say concentrate on the bottle. I've heard it's about a buck a roll in processing fluids, so that'd make sense if I bought $15 in fluids I'd squeeze a little over a dozen rolls out of it. friendship waffle posted:yeah, I've found this to be the case as well. You can just sit in a corner and do street photography and since your head is not only looking down, but tracking people's movements in the wrong direction, most people don't ever think you're taking photos. The shutter is also pretty quiet. Yeah, the shutter's whisper quiet. I had always heard rangefinders were great for that as well. And the Minolta A rangefinder I picked up does have a very quiet shutter. Unfortunately the film advance sounds like I'm racking a shell into a shotgun. So much for discrete. Krispy Wafer fucked around with this message at 03:00 on Jun 3, 2008 |
# ? Jun 3, 2008 02:57 |
|
What's a good rangefinder between the FED's and the Leicas? Although the Leicas are beautiful, optic-clockwork-jewelry beauties, I'd like something cheaper if I can get it without sacrificing too much in quality.
|
# ? Jun 3, 2008 04:03 |
|
hybr1d posted:What's a good rangefinder between the FED's and the Leicas? Although the Leicas are beautiful, optic-clockwork-jewelry beauties, I'd like something cheaper if I can get it without sacrificing too much in quality.
|
# ? Jun 3, 2008 04:27 |
|
hybr1d posted:What's a good rangefinder between the FED's and the Leicas? Although the Leicas are beautiful, optic-clockwork-jewelry beauties, I'd like something cheaper if I can get it without sacrificing too much in quality. Kievs--assuming you get a good one, and this goes for all the Soviet gear--are really nice. They're Contax knock-offs, and when you get a good one they are GOOD. I have a 4m from 1984 that is bulletproof and kicks out excellent results. The wide base rangefinder is nice to have too! I would give Yuri at Fedka a call/email, he will sell you nice quality USSR gear and is happy to take anything back without arguing if you're not pleased with it. Or you can buy my Leica III if you want old school. (Selling either that one or a IIf, still debating which...)
|
# ? Jun 3, 2008 12:18 |
|
Do you still photography guys actually under- and over-develop your film? AFAIK, in cinematography this is rarely done, usually only when the DP is going after a specific look. Often times the DP will intentionally overexpose a little and then develop normally, so that when they go to print (or do digital color grading) they have a nice, dense negative with lots of information on it to work with.OP posted:We do this for many reasons, say you only have ISO 800 film and it's getting dark, underexpose the film by one stop nad have the lab develop the film for longer and you have just pushed to EI 1600. To clarify, if your scene is too dark for the film you've got, pretend it's the next step up in ISO numbers (so if the film is rated as 800, pretend it's 1600), expose for the pretend ISO rating, then tell your lab you want the film pushed one stop. Pushing the film one stop adds the equivalent of one stop exposure, with the cost being increased grain and contrast. For instance, if the best exposure for your scene at ISO 800 would be f/2.4, but your lens only goes to f/4, just go ahead and shoot at f/4, then push development by one stop (or whatever the difference between your optimal aperture and your actual aperture is), effectively giving you ISO 1600 film. Better yet, instead just increase exposure time if you can. Then you don't have to deal with the increased grain and over-contrastiness of pushed film. quote:Conversely if you are trying to capture a scene with a very high dynamic range, you can underexpose and reduce the development for increased shadow detail. Remember this phrase: Expose for the shadows and print for the highlights. With negative film the longer you expose the film the more detail you have in your shadows. Thus by pulling the film you have given more exposure to your shadows and by cutting development (the standard is 20% of your time per stop pulled) you have reduced the highlights. Do you mean overexpose and then pull development? Of course, again, do still photographers actually pull their film on purpose? I can understand pulling it if you waaaay overexposed, or are shooting positive film, but can't see why you'd bother overexposing negatives a half stop or stop to fill in the shadows only to undo that by pulling the development. Printing for the highlights means just that: printing for the highlights. In other words, overexpose negative film a little, develop normally, and then when it comes time to make prints go for the highlights. Or am I just a stupid amateur cinematographer?
|
# ? Jun 3, 2008 13:44 |
|
Krispy Kareem posted:Yeah, the shutter's whisper quiet. I had always heard rangefinders were great for that as well. It's because there's no mirror to move out of the way like on an SLR.
|
# ? Jun 3, 2008 16:34 |
|
kewlpc posted:Do you still photography guys actually under- and over-develop your film? Hell yes we do, particularly in black-and-white, where it gives you total control over the placement of tones and the tonal curve. You know that crazy dead guy with the beard, Ansel Adams? He helped develop a whole brain-melting obsessive system of under- and over-exposure and push and pull that some people live by. Color negative's a slightly different matter, as neither C-41 as a process nor the films are designed for push/pull, and most manufacturers and labs warn you off it. (The labs here actually make you sign a waiver.) C-41 films also usually have a huge window of acceptable exposure, making pushing and pulling generally unnecessary unless you're doing something absolutely insane. Most transparency films push well at least one stop, though, so it's not too uncommon there to fudge it if you're running low on light and can't stand a longer exposure. quote:Of course, again, do still photographers actually pull their film on purpose? I give you the axiom of black and white negative shooting: Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights. Develop too much and kiss your highlights goodbye as they will have blocked up into a mess of inky black (and thus empty white when printed). Pull it, even a little, in development as necessary and you keep all your detail. Molten Llama fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Jun 3, 2008 |
# ? Jun 3, 2008 18:22 |
|
Ahh, I see. Most of my photography knowledge is cinematography rather than still photography. Even when doing still photos, though, I tend towards overexposing a half stop and then just developing normal. That way the shadows get filled in, but the highlights don't blow out either. I usually shoot T-Max 100, which in my experience handles this pretty well. And yes, of course I know who Ansel Adams was, and am aware of his zone system, though I thought it was mostly about making sure his lab assistants could do additional prints of his photos accurately. Doc Block fucked around with this message at 22:06 on Jun 3, 2008 |
# ? Jun 3, 2008 22:03 |
|
brad industry posted:It's because there's no mirror to move out of the way like on an SLR. And in the case of TLRs and some rangefinders, because of the leaf shutter. The quietest camera I have is a Minolta Hi-Matic with a leaf shutter lens.
|
# ? Jun 3, 2008 22:31 |
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:And in the case of TLRs and some rangefinders, because of the leaf shutter. The quietest camera I have is a Minolta Hi-Matic with a leaf shutter lens. Right, leaf shutters are in the lens instead of on the film plane. Most medium format cameras have leaf shutters (Mamiya, Hasselblad, etc.). The other advantage of leaf shutters is that they sync at any speed.
|
# ? Jun 3, 2008 23:21 |
|
brad industry posted:Right, leaf shutters are in the lens instead of on the film plane. Most medium format cameras have leaf shutters (Mamiya, Hasselblad, etc.). The other advantage of leaf shutters is that they sync at any speed. The disadvantage would be that they usually have a rather low top shutter speed. There are plenty of focal plane shutter medium format cameras though, just wanted to clarify that so nobody gets the impression that medium format = leaf shutter. Some of the Hassys have it, the Mamiya 645 series (of which there are a crapton), Pentax 645, Contax 645 etc, Pentax 67 etc... Also, while the leaf shutter itself is quiet there's still the racket from the mirror to deal with on the SLRs. Bottom line, if you want quiet and vibration free shutter in MF, go TLR or rangefinder or use mirror lockup on an SLR with leaf shutter. Clayton Bigsby fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Jun 3, 2008 |
# ? Jun 3, 2008 23:32 |
|
Luxmore posted:Commercial B&W film processing is awful and expensive so you may as well put that out of your mind right now. When I got color prints a while ago I asked for no color correction, so I could see how my shots were actually turning out... is there a B&W white equivalent to color correction, or is what you see what you see what you get? I was wondering, how do you guys organize your negatives and prints? I just have a couple of envelopes sitting in my closet right now, but there surely has to be a better way to arrange 'em.
|
# ? Jun 4, 2008 03:28 |
|
MrMeowMeow posted:Aw man, really? I was hoping to get this roll of tmax developed at like London Drugs or something, 'cause I haven't ponied up the money to develop my stuff at home yet. Those plastic negative holders in a shoe box under my bed, well not so much a shoebox, but these cheap 'archival boxes' I picked up at a yardsale.
|
# ? Jun 4, 2008 03:53 |
|
MrMeowMeow posted:Aw man, really? I was hoping to get this roll of tmax developed at like London Drugs or something, 'cause I haven't ponied up the money to develop my stuff at home yet. Meanwhile, negatives sleeves and a binder are the simplest way to keep everything in order.
|
# ? Jun 4, 2008 04:27 |
|
Seconded (or whatever number this is). I am admittedly a fool, and pay $10 for each roll of film for negatives and contact sheets. Then again, I shoot maybe 8 rolls a year, have no safe place for the chemicals and suck balls at loading 120. If you have a place to keep the chemicals, have some basic dexterity and patience and do any kind of volume on film, buy the stuff. Edit: This page needs more pictures! hybr1d fucked around with this message at 05:06 on Jun 4, 2008 |
# ? Jun 4, 2008 04:52 |
|
OK. lovely scan from a print done on a lovely flatbed; the actual print has a lot more shadow detail.
|
# ? Jun 4, 2008 08:17 |
|
Luxmore posted:Dude it will cost you more to get two rolls of B&W commercially developed & printed than it will to buy the stuff you need to process film yourself. I asked this before without an answer, you save a bunch of money & have more control of results with developing negatives yourself, but once you do that what are your options to get those negatives printed?
|
# ? Jun 4, 2008 10:03 |
|
Cannister posted:I asked this before without an answer, you save a bunch of money & have more control of results with developing negatives yourself, but once you do that what are your options to get those negatives printed? I'd really like to find someone local that prints optically; the usual response is scan and digital print, I think.
|
# ? Jun 4, 2008 11:50 |
|
|
# ? Mar 28, 2024 10:57 |
|
Snaily posted:I'd really like to find someone local that prints optically; the usual response is scan and digital print, I think. I've found it's very expensive, but use it for important stuff. I'm lucky to have this place 5 minutes away for all the stuff I need to get properly printed, it's known as the best in the UK, all of the London unis and the Royal College send their stuff here. Prices reflect it, but they don't mess around. For digital printing, the local student place I use to get C41 developed charges £5 for dev and contact, then about £1.20 per print... so it's not toooo bad. I imagine the prices aren't drastically different in the US? blambert fucked around with this message at 12:19 on Jun 4, 2008 |
# ? Jun 4, 2008 12:10 |