|
QPZIL posted:"It's a free enlarger" whoops, missed that part. doitdoitdoit
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 20:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 07:17 |
|
|
Done! Sitting in my darkroom-to-be right now. I'm sure I'll be back here with all sorts of obnoxious questions as I get into putting everything together. Starting in May, I'm just diving right in. I am so so excited, it feels like I am 5 years old on Christmas 
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2012 03:47
|
|
|
So I've been shooting more film and will continue to do so (and hopefully soon start developing my own B&W) and I've also been scanning everything in using a flatbed scanner. I was wondering what would be the easiest way to add EXIF data to the scans so I can add camera/film data and other information.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2012 14:46
|
|
|
Tshirt Ninja posted:Done! Sitting in my darkroom-to-be right now. I'm sure I'll be back here with all sorts of obnoxious questions as I get into putting everything together. Starting in May, I'm just diving right in. I am so so excited, it feels like I am 5 years old on Christmas what's the projecting lens on your new baby?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2012 18:53
|
|
|
wakeecch posted:what's the projecting lens on your new baby? Unfortunately still have to get one. I've got several friends dissolving their darkrooms, but Nikkor 50mms don't seem too hard to come by and I figure I'll just get tanks and lenses set up for 35mm to start.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2012 02:35
|
|
|
Crossposting from the scanner thread: I've decided to start offering a high quality scanning service. I have access to a Hasselblad Flextight X5. Pro shops charge a ton (up to $50 per image) for this service but since I'm not dependent on this to make a living I can charge a lot less, a flat rate of $15 per image, with a possible discount if you're doing a large volume (30+ images). PM me for details, if you don't have pms post your email and i'll contact you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2012 02:41
|
|
|
Mest0r posted:So I've been shooting more film and will continue to do so (and hopefully soon start developing my own B&W) and I've also been scanning everything in using a flatbed scanner. I was wondering what would be the easiest way to add EXIF data to the scans so I can add camera/film data and other information. Windows 7 will let you edit EXIF data directly from Windows Explorer, though it can be a bit slow and clunky. I expect there are free programs that will work on Macs and / or on PCs. Lightroom is just generally very good, it's worth buying it anyways. Also, you can try it for 30 days for free, so what have you got to lose?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2012 03:55
|
|
|
Shot a roll of Kodak Ektacolor 160, and processed it in a Rollei Digibase kit. It looks to be a cheap version of Portra 160NC, the negatives look a little thinner than real Portra, but the tones are quite nice. Good value and worth a go I think.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2012 13:45
|
|
|
Hoping this is useful. Selling several of my favorite film cameras like my Olympus 35RC, Crown Graphic, & Bronica ETRSi. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3477371
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2012 02:38
|
|
|
Spedman posted:Shot a roll of Kodak Ektacolor 160, and processed it in a Rollei Digibase kit. It looks to be a cheap version of Portra 160NC, the negatives look a little thinner than real Portra, but the tones are quite nice. Good value and worth a go I think. What did you shoot this with? The thin DOF and the razor sharpness and gorgeous bokeh is all too disconcerting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2012 08:24
|
|
|
I have thirty rolls of that Ektacolor now and I'm enjoying it. It can't handle being overexposed so I treat it like slide film. Except it only cost me a dollar a roll unlike my slide film.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2012 12:13
|
|
|
Babby's first darkroom. I just picked up a 50mm lens, tongs, trays, thermometer, timer, contact print glass, safe light, 35 and 120 tanks, reels, spools, 8x10 easel, beakers, burn/dodge kit, gray card, negative squeegee, binder full of negative sleeves and other various odds and ends for $75. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2012 22:56
|
|
|
FP4+ is quickly becoming my favorite studio film. Self Portrait by iantuten, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2012 23:21
|
|
|
Tshirt Ninja posted:What did you shoot this with? The thin DOF and the razor sharpness and gorgeous bokeh is all too disconcerting. fyi: if you click thru, spedmen tagged the details: bronica sq, 80 mm @ f/2.8
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2012 04:08
|
|
|
Schofferhofer posted:I have thirty rolls of that Ektacolor now and I'm enjoying it. It can't handle being overexposed so I treat it like slide film. I get what you're saying about the highlights, and I think thats just a result of the emulsion being a bit thinner than real Portra, but just be careful with the exposure and you'll be treated to a nice negative. Where did you're friend get his stash? Bulk buy of ebay from China/Hong Kong? guidoanselmi posted:fyi: if you click thru, spedmen tagged the details: bronica sq, 80 mm @ f/2.8 Thats the one, always like the 80mm wide open.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2012 10:02
|
|
|
i have no idea what i'm doing     
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2012 20:20
|
|
|
What the gently caress? Are you using a strawberry for a lens?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2012 21:05
|
|
|
HPL posted:What the gently caress? Are you using a strawberry for a lens? Yeah! The CA isn't nearly as bad on a kiwi.  His roll got hosed up and had to be salvaged I believe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2012 21:58
|
|
|
HPL posted:What the gently caress? Are you using a strawberry for a lens? Well, here's what happened. First, I left a roll in the camera (Minolta SR-T 201) for about two years. Then, I finished it out when I got the urge to shoot with it in Colorado. But... I hulked out on the advance lever or something and tore the film out from the roll. I took it into a closet and unwound it from the sprocket and stored it in an empty film cannister. Unfortunately they were transparent so I had to also wrap it in electrical tape and give it to the dude at the camera shop like that. I also gave him my camera because the second roll I shot there I overwound as well. But those shots look normal, if a bit weird because my exposure was a guess based on sunny 16. The film was also probably expired. So it was a comedy of errors but now I want to shoot more film so there's that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2012 03:01
|
|
|
dakana posted:[...] and stored it in an empty film cannister. Unfortunately they were transparent so I had to also wrap it in electrical tape [...] That's it! Haha. The "strawberry" pattern is really just the ridges and valleys of the adhesive of the electrical tape which didn't isolate against light completely. Mind loving blown. Like this, different pattern but nevermind: 
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2012 03:28
|
|
|
VomitOnLino posted:That's it! But that's duct tape, not electrical tape. Electrical tape is just black and flat. Also, how's that SRT? I kinda want one; DOF preview and fully mechanical is real tempting. I learned some things from shooting Tri-X, and getting my poo poo back. 1. Don't loving shoot at night with no lighting. I gave them 2 24exp rolls, got 24 pictures back. 2. Night hand-held shots of car? Bad. Fog? Awesome! 3.  This is the only shot with that weird column of light, should I be worried about light leaks? It is a 30 year old camera, after all. And it's just been sitting in my parent's kitchen for like twenty years or so.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2012 04:18
|
|
|
Hmmm. The electrical tape looks smooth, but it is feasible that it has dots of adhesive rather than a uniform coating. Also, the srt 201 rules. It's so solid. I don't think my meter is working, though -- though that might be because the batteries I bought are like 2 years old now. Either that or the new style non-mercury batteries don't make the needle go to the 'battery check' line. Anyway, I've got the 50 1.7 and a 28 2.8 -- there are plenty of lenses for it but some of them are kinda pricey.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2012 06:10
|
|
|
Zenostein posted:
Tri-X is a great film for shooting at night - as long as you are push processing and keeping the exposures short. If you get too slow with the shutter speed, you're going to have reciprocity failure issues. It gets pretty bad, you're losing 1-2 stops before very long at all. You are lucky to get B+W processing at a lab today, let alone push processing, but it's easy to do yourself. Properly done, Tri-X is better at ISO3200 than the real ISO3200 films (Delta or P3200). If you're going to do long exposures, get yourself some Fuji Acros, it can do incredibly long exposures with no reciprocity correction. It's magic to the point where I want to try shooing a long-exposure 3-negative color separation sometime. I wouldn't worry too much about that. Since it's even across the negative as opposed to mostly on the top/bottom, I don't think it's a light leak. I suspect you're shooting a SLR with a focal plane shutter which is dragging a bit at one spot. Since you didn't see it anywhere else, it's probably not very sticky and won't bother you if you shoot it semi-regularly. If possible, shoot full rolls at once and before you go out to shoot wind and fire a few times at several different speeds to get it moving.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2012 00:14
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:FP4+ is quickly becoming my favorite studio film. I use FP4+ for nearly everything. What speed do you normally shoot it at and what developer are you using, if you don't mind me asking?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2012 03:22
|
|
|
moonduck posted:I use FP4+ for nearly everything. What speed do you normally shoot it at and what developer are you using, if you don't mind me asking? 120 ISO (my handheld meter sets to 120, not 125), developed in Rodinal 1+50 for 15 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2012 03:55
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:120 ISO (my handheld meter sets to 120, not 125), developed in Rodinal 1+50 for 15 minutes. Have you ever tried shooting it at a lower EI? I've had a lot of success in exposing at around 64 or 80, to give me a little more reliable density when working out in the field. That might not be necessary when working in a controlled environment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2012 04:04
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:You are lucky to get B+W processing at a lab today, let alone push processing, but it's easy to do yourself. Properly done, Tri-X is better at ISO3200 than the real ISO3200 films (Delta or P3200). How would you properly shoot and process Tri-X at 3200? I've pushed it to 1600 but i much prefer Delta 3200 @1600. I know you can push it to 3200 and still get a printable neg but does it really look better than Delta 3200 (which is really ISO ~1250 according to most sources)?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2012 07:49
|
|
|
NihilismNow posted:How would you properly shoot and process Tri-X at 3200? I've pushed it to 1600 but i much prefer Delta 3200 @1600. I know you can push it to 3200 and still get a printable neg but does it really look better than Delta 3200 (which is really ISO ~1250 according to most sources)? Shoot it @3200 then process in your preferred developer? Use twice the time you used for 1600.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2012 08:00
|
|
|
I'd say Tri-X is even usable at 6400. Obviously it gets grainy but not in a bad way. (Click for large) Scan of quick test-print, Tri-X @ 6400, 26 minutes in Ilfotec HC 1+31. IIRC that shot was at f/4 1/100s The grain is no worse than what I've seen on the (little) Delta 3200 I have played with.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2012 12:28
|
|
|
Yeah, Tri-X -> 6400 can get pretty grainy depending on the developer. This is developed in HC-110 (B) for 26 minutes. D&D Night by iantuten, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2012 13:02
|
|
|
NihilismNow posted:How would you properly shoot and process Tri-X at 3200? I've pushed it to 1600 but i much prefer Delta 3200 @1600. I know you can push it to 3200 and still get a printable neg but does it really look better than Delta 3200 (which is really ISO ~1250 according to most sources)? I use HC-110 1:100 for 2 hours, 1 inversion every 10 minutes. I've found that this keeps the grain and contrast from getting too ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2012 13:57
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:Yeah, Tri-X -> 6400 can get pretty grainy depending on the developer. This is developed in HC-110 (B) for 26 minutes. I love this shot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2012 17:00
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:I love this shot. It really makes me miss having a 1.4 lens.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2012 17:18
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:It really makes me miss having a 1.4 lens. How in the world do you not have a 1.4 anymore? Adapt a random 50/1.4 and get back to shooting. That's a really nice-looking pic, do you wet print?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2012 18:35
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:How in the world do you not have a 1.4 anymore? Adapt a random 50/1.4 and get back to shooting. That's a really nice-looking pic, do you wet print? I lent it to a friend who moved away. I still have a 1.8 but it's just not the same! That pic was a scan from the film, but I do have a wet print of that that I made. If anyone wants to trade for another print, I'll send it to you It may smell like burning and smoke, but that's a random story from the darkroom.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2012 18:50
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:I lent it to a friend who moved away. I still have a 1.8 but it's just not the same! so your friend stole your lens?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2012 18:51
|
|
|
JaundiceDave posted:so your friend stole your lens? Basically yes, she keeps saying she'll mail it back but eh. It goes to a camera I rarely use anymore, so I haven't sweated it. (swote it?)
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2012 18:53
|
|
|
I have an OM 1.4 with an OM-1 attached that I would take offers on...
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2012 20:31
|
|
|
50 mm f1.4's are fun. A157453_025 - Copy by opensourcepirate, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2012 20:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 07:17 |
|
|
Oh dear sweet Jesus, if you ever look at a jug of D-76 and think "When the hell did I mix that up?", just throw the whole drat thing away.  I thought slightly expired D-76 was bad. I was wrong. Very expired D-76 is horrifying. What a terrible, terrible way to start the weekend.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 18:31
|
|
