|
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'm planning on just buying a new scanner with a film insert. Sucks, since I already have 3 scanners as it is, but none can do film. Still, for the upfront cost of $200 I'll have a new scanner and all the equipment necessary to develop negatives. And my wife's very happy I won't be turning our bedroom closet into a darkroom.
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2008 14:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 17:08 |
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:I'm planning on just buying a new scanner with a film insert. Sucks, since I already have 3 scanners as it is, but none can do film. Still, for the upfront cost of $200 I'll have a new scanner and all the equipment necessary to develop negatives. And my wife's very happy I won't be turning our bedroom closet into a darkroom. Which model is it that's $200? My friend mentioned looking for one but said they were prohibitively expensive so he would be interested.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2008 14:12
|
|
|
Caddrel posted:Which model is it that's $200? My friend mentioned looking for one but said they were prohibitively expensive so he would be interested. They can be horribly expensive and someone in this thread may come out and say my cost cutting ideas are going to end in tears, but this is the scanner I'm looking at: http://tinyurl.com/478kn6 The max resolution is better than my current 5 year old scanner which I've been using to scan old prints. I'm hoping this will scan my negatives without too much degradation of quality. Obviously it can't beat a drum scanner, but I don't know if I even need that kind of quality. Especially if I'm going to be shooting mostly black and white. EDIT: fixed URL VVVV - I'd love a dedicated film scanner and found a $200 35mm one, but I can't afford the prices they're asking for 120 negatives. If there's a shot I really want a high quality print of I'll have that professionally processed. Krispy Wafer fucked around with this message at 14:31 on Jun 4, 2008 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2008 14:21
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:I'm planning on just buying a new scanner with a film insert. Sucks, since I already have 3 scanners as it is, but none can do film. Still, for the upfront cost of $200 I'll have a new scanner and all the equipment necessary to develop negatives. And my wife's very happy I won't be turning our bedroom closet into a darkroom. scanners with film inserts basically never work as well as proper film scanners. I believe a large part of this has to do with the focal plane of the scanner. edit: nobody can follow that link, use [url] tags, also just buy a film scanner if you plan to use it only for film. edit2: quote:What about using a flatbed scanner for 35mm slides or negatives? If you need to scan slides for using on the web, then you can use a flatbed, but most flatbed scanners do not have a user-controlled focusing system. The scanner most see through the glass (there is no glass in front of your slide on a dedicated 35mm slide scanner). The actual slide is a few mm higher than the glass plate due to the cardboard or plastic mount. So your slide may not be as crisply in focus as a slide in a slide scanner (where you can focus). what is this fucked around with this message at 14:25 on Jun 4, 2008 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2008 14:22
|
|
|
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? If you want a few professional prints, any good pro lab will have the means to do it, but I'd strongly recommend just struggling in the darkroom for a while. It's a lot more fun than you'd think.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2008 16:30
|
|
|
friendship waffle posted:What about using a flatbed scanner for 35mm slides or negatives? If you need to scan slides for using on the web, then you can use a flatbed, but most flatbed scanners do not have a user-controlled focusing system. The scanner most see through the glass (there is no glass in front of your slide on a dedicated 35mm slide scanner). The actual slide is a few mm higher than the glass plate due to the cardboard or plastic mount. So your slide may not be as crisply in focus as a slide in a slide scanner (where you can focus). Is there a reason why you can't put the negative directly on the glass? That would resolve the millimeter difference in focal points. Of course it probably does something else horribly wrong otherwise that'd be the defacto way to scan negatives.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2008 16:30
|
|
|
friendship waffle posted:scanners with film inserts basically never work as well as proper film scanners. I believe a large part of this has to do with the focal plane of the scanner. I have the Better Scanning film holder that's adjustable. It makes a big difference. I don't really shoot much film anymore anyways but it's good enough for making decent sized prints, if I need anything super high quality I just have it drum scanned. I have an Epson 4990 and it works pretty well, although scanning 35mm with it is kind of a waste of time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2008 18:07
|
|
|
brad industry posted:I have the Better Scanning film holder that's adjustable. It makes a big difference. I don't really shoot much film anymore anyways but it's good enough for making decent sized prints, if I need anything super high quality I just have it drum scanned. What are the issues with 35mm scanning? Is the film just too small for good detail? Does it do 120 okay? And how much of a difference do the Better Scanning inserts make? That's a pretty high premium to pay for a negative holder (60 bucks!!!).
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2008 18:51
|
|
|
MrMeowMeow posted: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. I use a binder with plastic negative-holder sheets. Be sure to get sheets that hold 7 strips of 6 frames each if you're dealing with 35mm. The first set I got only holds 7x5 and every 36 exposure roll (I usually get 38 out of them) was more than 1 page. I label the sheets with a number. Then I make an entry in a simple spreadsheet with fields like Roll Number Camera Film ISO Developing notes Approx date taken Description of what is on the roll etc. It makes it easier to find things down the road.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2008 19:11
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:What are the issues with 35mm scanning? Is the film just too small for good detail? Does it do 120 okay? It just doesn't do a good job, you don't get much detail out of them. I always got way better results doing it on a dedicated scanner (ie. Nikon Coolscan 5000). When I shoot film I shoot 120 or 4x5 which it does a pretty good job of. The Better Scanning thing makes a difference if your scans are already soft, all the scanners are slightly different so if you get one it may not be as bad as mine was. It made a pretty significant difference I thought, once you get it adjusted right. I pretty much scan on my flatbed only if I'm going to be making a print on my 13" wide Epson printer because it does more than a good enough job for that size. If I need larger prints I send it out to be drum scanned and then have someone else print it. Basically if you are scanning for the web or to make normal sized prints a decent flatbed is more than fine. If you want to print huge get a dedicated one or send it out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2008 19:26
|
|
|
brad industry posted:It just doesn't do a good job, you don't get much detail out of them. I always got way better results doing it on a dedicated scanner (ie. Nikon Coolscan 5000). When I shoot film I shoot 120 or 4x5 which it does a pretty good job of. The Better Scanning thing makes a difference if your scans are already soft, all the scanners are slightly different so if you get one it may not be as bad as mine was. It made a pretty significant difference I thought, once you get it adjusted right. Thanks for the info. It sounds like the scanner might work out for me afterall. I found a pretty comprehensive review on it and the scanned negatives looked pretty good out of the box. If they don't pass muster I'll spring for the Better Scanning holders.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2008 20:03
|
|
|
More example photos: Tri-X pulled to EI 200.  Tri-X shot at 400 (I should have pulled at least one stop but I was stupid)  Tri-X at EI 3200  And I know how much we all hate pet photos but these are the only examples of I have of a lower ISO. These were both shot with T-Max 100 I think I pulled it to EI 80.  
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2008 21:04
|
|
|
I just bought $100 worth of supplies: Minox Minopan film (100 x 2, 400 x 3), Diafine developer and a changing bag. I better start developing soon. This thread  Diafine doesn't really oxidize, does it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2008 07:57
|
|
|
Diafine lasts an extremely long time after it's been mixed. You should probably used deionized or distilled water just in case.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2008 19:02
|
|
|
You can probably keep and use Diafine for years. After a long-ish time it can get sludgy but you can filter the liquid to clean it up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2008 00:52
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:You can probably keep and use Diafine for years. After a long-ish time it can get sludgy but you can filter the liquid to clean it up. Great. I'll mix that up when it gets here instead of the bag of D76 I had as a first choice, then. What happened to that analog newbie camera guide you were going to put together? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2008 05:44
|
|
|
Snaily posted:Great. I'll mix that up when it gets here instead of the bag of D76 I had as a first choice, then. This thread. A few of us were tossing ideas around for an analog camera gear thread, but I don't see why that stuff can't just be in here... Luxmore had a pretty nice overview of different types of cameras, and I can certainly put together some recommendations at various price points if that's the sort of stuff you're looking for.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2008 13:07
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:This thread. It might bring in more clueless newbies I'd like to think of myself as set for the time being (although a wide angle lens for the Nikon would be nice...), but I'd certainly enjoy a list of things on which to look out for great deals.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2008 14:27
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:This thread. I would definitely be interested in that, especially for medium format. I know advice is sprinkled through the camera gear thread, but without search it's tough to collect all that information.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2008 14:33
|
|
|
Someone in the camera equipment megathread suggested I ask my question in here. Didn't see this thread the other day or I would've! I'm looking for a manual film SLR to learn the basic fundamentals on. I was searching for a Pentax K1000 on a suggestion, also looked for an Olympus OM1. Having some trouble finding these on ebay, there are K1000s but not so many OM-1s. So I guess my question is are there any other cameras I could add into my search? I don't want to spend a whole lot but I don't want a piece of junk either. There's also not a single camera store in my town anymore, so unless I get lucky at a yard sale my options are pretty much online shopping.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2008 16:31
|
|
|
dahkren posted:Someone in the camera equipment megathread suggested I ask my question in here. Didn't see this thread the other day or I would've! I'm not a big Canon/Nikon guy but I am sure some people can recommend specific models. I'd still campaign for spending the time finding an OM-1; they really are lovely to work with and will last a long, long time if they are in decent shape. One thing to keep in mind is that they were made for mercury batteries so will require either an adapter or those Wein zinc-air batteries. I'll toss another suggestion in though: Minolta SRT-101. They are all manual, match-needle metering, and well built. Minolta glass is cheap and plentiful. I scored one with a 50mm lens from a guy on photo.net for something like $30. (Same deal with batteries there, unfortunately.) Or just get a K1000 -- they aren't bad at all, though I personally don't like the feel of them. You might. 
Clayton Bigsby fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Jun 7, 2008 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2008 17:12
|
|
|
OK, here's the Cliff's notes version of my VERY subjective and VERY opinionated selection of medium format cameras. So don't bother telling me I picked the 'wrong' ones or that X is 'better'; post up your own choices and share the knowledge instead. Where can I get the film developed? Here lies a potential problem for many budding medium format guys. The film comes in 120 and 220 format (giving you anywhere from a few frames on panoramics with 120 to 30+ on 6x4.5 cameras with 220). However, with so many pros going digital a lot of labs have shut down (three around me went tits up in one year) or stopped processing medium format. If you want to shoot slides/chromes/E6, developing at home can be a royal pain in the rear end, a little costly, and not something most people will want to do (it CAN be done but isn't generally worth it). These I would recommend either dropping off at a local lab or sending off to a place like Dwayne's in Kansas which will develop (and optionally scan at a decent res) anything you want (incidentally, it's also the last lab to process Kodachrome). For C41/color negatives it's the same deal. Don't want to mess with it at home, just send it out or find a local lab that does good work if you're fortunate enough to have one! For traditional black and white, it's a different game. Here I would argue that unless you absolutely CANNOT do it yourself for some reason (deathly allergic to the chemicals, wife would pitch a fit if the kitchen smelled like fixer, etc), you are much better off DIYing this. The chemicals are inexpensive, the little gear you need won't set you back by much, and then you can develop the rolls yourself for dirt cheap. Also, it allows you to experiment with various developers and techniques while most labs will just process it one way in one developer. If you really cannot do it at home, consider the C41 black and white films which are processed like color negs. I'd prefer those if I'm going to send it out, honestly -- they allow for a little more slop and generally labs have their C41 process nailed and the volume is likely to be higher than traditional B&W. OK, I'm fine with that. What's the cheapest camera I can get that's worth a poo poo? First off, please re-read the disclaimer about this being entirely subjective. I am not a professional camera dealer or expert, just somebody who enjoys it greatly as a hobby. Now, that said, if you are looking for decent image quality, usability and a good price, most of the time you'll find yourself best served by a TLR (twin lens reflex) camera. Generally you can find something decent for under $100 and with some research and careful shopping maybe half that. I like the Yashicas a lot; for a list of the models and features please check out this guy's FAQ: http://www.williamsphotographic.com/yashica.html I would personally look for a 124/124G if you're willing to spend a little extra, or for a D with the Yashinon lens. The Yashikor once aren't bad at all, but IMO the Yashinon is worth the extra effort. If you get a model without a light meter make sure to budget for one; or do what I do when I go all-manual and just estimate exposure. I would push for going with a light meter though so that you have one less variable to deal with if things don't turn out right. What are the different major types of medium format cameras? The big three are twin lens reflex (TLR), rangefinder, (RF) and single lens reflex (SLR). TLRs are generally light and inexpensive (several exceptions exist!), and most models do not have interchangeable lenses. Most shoot square (6x6cm) format negatives, which can take some getting used to although some people end up loving it. They are not really good for action work, and due to parallax issues (the lens you're looking through is a couple of inches above the lens taking the picture) closeup work can be a pain unless you get some special gear like the Mamiya Paramender. Most of them have a fixed waist level viewfinder (again, there are exceptions) you look down into to compose the image. The image will be reversed left-right which can be a little confusing at first but something you will get used to pretty quickly. Most have a popup magnifier you can use to fine-tune focusing. Rangefinders are typically relatively light and compact. They are available in a whole pile of formats (6x4.5 and upwards). Focusing is done by means of a rangefinder mechanism that gives you a (usually yellow) square patch with a 'double image' in the middle of the viewfinder; you pick what you want to be in focus and turn the focusing mechanism until this double image lines up with the other one. They can be a little tricky when you are dealing with low contrast scenes and/or ones with no well defined edges. They also suffer to a certain extent from parallax issues as the viewfinder is a few inches away from the lens. Many have parallax correction in the viewfinder however which takes care of the problem as long as you don't get right up on your subject. Most have fixed lenses but some have interchangeable ones. SLRs are the most versatile of the bunch. Many models allow you to change not just the lens, but the viewfinder and even the back. Why change the back, you ask? You could for instance keep one back with high speed film and one with low speed; or one with color and one with black and white. That way you don't need to lug two bodies or finish up a roll if you want to shoot something different. Viewfinders, you'll often find waist level finders and prism finders both with and without metering capabilities. Some SLRs will have fixed viewfinders and backs, usually these are the more compact and suitable for handholding ones. So recommend me a good TLR, RF and SLR then. TLR: look above, don't need to look further than the Yashicas. If you for some reason want a TLR with interchangeable lenses, the Mamiya C-series qualifies, though to be honest they are big and heavy and if I am going to put up with big and heavy I will carry a drat RB67 and get more versatility. RF: My favorite is the Fuji GA645/GA645i. It is an autofocus camera (still classified as a rangefinder) with a very good built in meter. You can treat it like a giant point and shoot (it even has a Program mode) and get lovely 6x4.5 negs out of it. The 60mm f/4 lens is insanely sharp. The downside: it's not cheap. Figure on $400 or so for a good example, but worth every drat penny. If you're looking for something even nicer take a look at the Mamiya 6 and 7 cameras. They are expensive but lovely. I don't like cheap rangefinders; perhaps somebody can post a few of those that they dig in case you do want a RF for cheap. SLR: Mamiya all the way if you want good bang for the buck. If you are willing to drag around something big and heavy the RB67 is an unbelievable bargain these days; $200-250 if you shop around for a full setup in decent shape. They are BIG but you get a selection of great lenses, a rotating back (thus the 'RB') and huge 6x7 negatives. It also uses bellows for focusing which allows you to get up close and personal with standard lenses. Everything about this camera is pro and solid, and even my original RB67 from the early 70s is still going strong with heaven knows how many exposures. The lenses have leaf shutters in them so if you pre-fire the mirror you have virtually no vibration at all. That said, Mamiya did come up with a nifty mirror braking mechanism which significantly reduces that in the first place. There's a couple of metering viewfinders available but most RB67s come with a plain waste level one; budget for a meter. Want something lighter and smaller? Mamiya 645E. It has a fixed metering prism and a fixed back, but with the optional-but-necessary rapid winder grip it's a superbly handling and easy to use 6x4.5 camera. Figure on $300 or so for a good one. It handles like an oversized 35mm with the grip, and the optics on the stock 80/2.8 lens are superb. If you want something to carry with you a lot, get this or a rangefinder. What about Holgas? Holgas are nifty, but it'd be stupid to get one for your first medium format rig. They are extremely limited in functionality and the image quality is poor. There's nothing at all wrong with using one to go 'artsy' (hell, I do sometimes), but I think it is important to learn how use a camera properly (exposure, focus etc) first. Let's worry about the blurry underexposed art shots later. How about all those folding cameras I see for $10 at yard sales? Generally, there's nothing at all wrong with using one, especially the nicer models that have a wide range of shutter speeds and apertures. However, they often have scale focusing (meaning you estimate the distance to subject) and usually need a little love to work smoothly. Nothing is more frustrating than having to fight your gear when you're first starting out. They have their place and time but for a budding medium format photographer they are not the best choice. ...ok, I have to take a break here. I hope some of this info was useful, and I'll see about fleshing it out a bit more later -- if anybody has a specific topic they wonder about please let me know!
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2008 18:33
|
|
|
Some of the higher-quality German folders from the 30s-50s can be a great option for medium format. Many of them have rangefinders, most have pretty nice lenses, and they all fold down to a nice compact size. 6x6 Zeiss Ikontas won't cost a fortune, not will older pre-war Voigtlander Bessa RFs. This guy has a nice site with information and pictures, plus he sells reconditioned ones on eBay.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2008 18:45
|
|
|
dahkren posted:Someone in the camera equipment megathread suggested I ask my question in here. Didn't see this thread the other day or I would've! If you have money, a Nikon FM2 is great. It has everything you need (B-4000 shutter, massive range of F mount lenses, silicon meter using modern batteries, LED meter readout, really not much more), a couple perks (1/250 flash sync speed), and is only a missing mirror lockup away from being the perfect manual SLR. Of course, being so awesome means that you have to pay quite a bit for one. The FM2's direct ancestor (FM) and cousins (FE/FE2) are almost exactly the same (added aperture priority mode in the FE), and then you can also go slightly upmarket (F3/F4) or downmarket (Nikkormats) from here depending on budget. My current manual SLR is an OM-1, though, and you really can't go wrong with one of those.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2008 19:15
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:I would personally look for a 124/124G if you're willing to spend a little extra, or for a D with the Yashinon lens. The Yashikor once aren't bad at all, but IMO the Yashinon is worth the extra effort. If you get a model without a light meter make sure to budget for one; or do what I do when I go all-manual and just estimate exposure. I would push for going with a light meter though so that you have one less variable to deal with if things don't turn out right. I'm trying out a BlackCat exposure meter now. http://www.blackcatphotoproducts.com/guide.html Looks promising. I haven't developed anything with it yet, but hopefully it'll work out. Clayton Bigsby posted:Generally, there's nothing at all wrong with using one, especially the nicer models that have a wide range of shutter speeds and apertures. However, they often have scale focusing (meaning you estimate the distance to subject) and usually need a little love to work smoothly. Nothing is more frustrating than having to fight your gear when you're first starting out. They have their place and time but for a budding medium format photographer they are not the best choice. I picked up a Baldaxette medium format folding rangefinder 10 years ago, what a waste of time and money. There are so many things that can go wrong on an old folding camera that it's not even worth playing with them. In my case the mechanism that controlled the bellows went and then the shutter stopped firing. Sucks, because it would have been a neat camera to carry around. I don't think I ever even got one complete roll through it. dahkren posted:I'm looking for a manual film SLR to learn the basic fundamentals on. I was searching for a Pentax K1000 on a suggestion, also looked for an Olympus OM1. Having some trouble finding these on ebay, there are K1000s but not so many OM-1s. So I guess my question is are there any other cameras I could add into my search? I don't want to spend a whole lot but I don't want a piece of junk either. There's also not a single camera store in my town anymore, so unless I get lucky at a yard sale my options are pretty much online shopping. I used a Minolta XG-1 with good results. Originally built around 1980, it has an internal meter and you can get a whole slew of cheap used accessories like a autowinder or variety of glass.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2008 22:08
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:I'm trying out a BlackCat exposure meter now. Along those lines, you might want to give this a read: http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2008 23:07
|
|
|
i just got started with a Canon t70 and some cheap lenses, and some portra 160, 200, 400 and 800 i dunno poo poo about film but any advice on getting the most mileage out of my specific camera would be appreciated!!
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2008 23:11
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:I picked up a Baldaxette medium format folding rangefinder 10 years ago, what a waste of time and money. There are so many things that can go wrong on an old folding camera that it's not even worth playing with them. In my case the mechanism that controlled the bellows went and then the shutter stopped firing. Sucks, because it would have been a neat camera to carry around. I don't think I ever even got one complete roll through it. My MF folder experience was slightly better. I got a Chinese folder in a Beijing junk shop before I really knew about choosing a used camera, so it turned out to be missing the lug that turns the film. My grandfather helped me rig together a replacement though, and it's worked fine since. Since it's only scale focus though, and my imagination for distances sucks, I don't have much use for it. I'd put it on SA-Mart if I knew there would be buyers...
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2008 13:48
|
|
|
I just found someone selling a load of 35mm film of various kinds in SA-mart (no affiliation), and thought it might interest the thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2008 17:42
|
|
|
Well I just finished developing my first roll of film. Aside from the fact no tutorials mentioned removing the paper backing it went okay (kind of a shock to find that step while your forearm deep in a changing bag). Of the 12 shots, I think 4 turned out good. Others have severe damage either from errant light or the fact I'm using film that expired in 2006. Fortunately there's nothing crucial on this roll. I mostly just tested exposures and tried some macro photography of leaves and bark. I have to admit there's a certain thrill to unrolling the spool and seeing a crystal clear negative. My strip is currently drying, so I'll scan them in tomorrow and post my results. My hands smell like eggs now. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2008 23:45
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:My hands smell like eggs now. This combined with your avatar makes me laugh. On topic though, does anyone know if it's still possible to find 120 Kodachrome? I've searched google with no real results (mostly it's people complaining about processing and such). Is my only hope to watch ebay and hope that the seller stored the film properly?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2008 00:11
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:My hands smell like eggs now. You know it's been a good day when your hands smell like fixer. It's the smell of success. Or failure I guess if you don't do it right.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2008 00:15
|
|
|
Back_From_Termina posted:On topic though, does anyone know if it's still possible to find 120 Kodachrome? It's been discontinued for over a decade, so finding back stock that isn't trashed is your only hope. Last I was aware, even Dwayne's isn't able to process it anymore, though, so unless you've got a K-14 processor hanging out in your living room...
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2008 00:46
|
|
|
Dang. That's what I was afraid of.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2008 01:50
|
|
|
So the film finished drying late this evening and I cut it into strips and scanned it all in: disregard all the dust, I think my camera insides need a good cleaning     And here is the negative itself. Can anyone diagnose whether this was fixer related (I think I see a chunk on the negatives still), a light leak, or just expired film?  I don't know why, but the pictures look very lifeless, almost sterile. The subject matter is part of the reason, but my old light meter used to slightly underexpose my images, whereas this looks over exposed. I don't remember Ilford Delta having this much contrast. Any ideas?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2008 04:49
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:And here is the negative itself. Can anyone diagnose whether this was fixer related (I think I see a chunk on the negatives still), a light leak, or just expired film? It looks like the film wasn't loaded correctly when you developed it and it got stuck to itself or something else in the tank. That's not what light leaks look like, and expired film wouldn't do that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2008 05:00
|
|
|
What type of reel/tank? Like the man said, looks like the chemicals didn't get to parts of the film, possibly because it was stuck to it's self.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2008 05:09
|
|
|
drat you rich people and your Tri-X! I shoot mostly Arista II (rebranded Fomapan), and develop in Diafine. Used to use D-76 but I'm a lazy bastard. A picture using the above combo (Bessa R + Jupiter 8):  Also: I have 8 rolls of Kodachrome in my freezer. Is this awesome? Y/N 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. Just remember that the lens is more important. Consider these as choices: Bessa R: I own one and love it. Canon 7: Probably the best of the 60's-70's rangefinders. 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. 365 Nog Hogger fucked around with this message at 08:26 on Jun 9, 2008 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2008 08:19
|
|
|
brad industry posted:It looks like the film wasn't loaded correctly when you developed it and it got stuck to itself or something else in the tank. That's a possibility, I had a frustrating time loading the film on its reel. Well that's good. That means my old film has been keeping well in storage. If I can improve my loading abilities I should be able to shoot all of this expired film without too many difficulties. 8th-samurai posted:What type of reel/tank? Steel tank and steel reel. It was a tight fit on the reel, something I hadn't been expecting so I may have rolled it up more crudely than intended.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2008 10:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 17:08 |
|
|
Thanks for the advice guys, I'll keep searching for an OM-1 since that seems to be the most suggested. Could anyone suggest some starting lenses if I can only get a body off ebay?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2008 15:15
|
|