brad industry posted:Anyone want to recommend a cheap place to get 120 developed in the Bay Area? I get my 120 processed here, it's only a couple of miles from my house. $6.00 for slide, around $3.50 for negative without prints.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2008 02:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 00:15 |
|
|
I'd like to get started in basic black-and-white photography, and was wondering if anyone could offer advice on a good, fairly cheap starter camera? I've made a few digital films so I'm familiar with the very basics of composition and exposure, but I really know nothing about developing or film itself, and would like recommendation for a basic camera.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2008 18:35
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:I'd like to get started in basic black-and-white photography, and was wondering if anyone could offer advice on a good, fairly cheap starter camera? I've made a few digital films so I'm familiar with the very basics of composition and exposure, but I really know nothing about developing or film itself, and would like recommendation for a basic camera. I posted a very opinionated medum format camera guide earlier in the thread, but if you are looking for 35mm... Figure out if you want an SLR or rangefinder type camera. You can find both types cheap (or expensive). Cheap and good SLR would be something like a Pentax K1000, Minolta SRT101, Olympus OM1.. they can be had for less than a hundred bucks in good shape with a standard lens. Cheap and good rangefinder: a decent copy of a Fed, Zorki or Kiev would be everything you need. Some won't have light meters and you'll have to guess or buy a separate noe. But if you are going to develop on your own I would really push towards medium format. It will be hardly any more money, the film is MUCH larger and can be scanned well on a flatbed (35mm you will want a film scanner for), and you can get results 35mm cameras can only dream of. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2008 19:31
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Well now seems like a good time to go over B&W film developing. I only use one B&W film, Tri-X, because it's so versatile. You can shoot it at an EI from 50 to 12,800 and get acceptable negatives. Sure they are a bit grainy and contrasty but I'm in that. I suggest you mess around and find one film you like then stick with it until you know everything about it. Wait I'm confused. I'm developing my first ever two reels today, and your HC1110 solution is 1:63, the solution I'm using. Isn't B Solution 1:31? Apparently 1:62 is called H solution, doubling the time of using B, but you're using the time for B. So is the Dev chart actually listing H solution (it says B) or are you using half the time?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2008 08:30
|
|
|
porcellus posted:Wait I'm confused. I'm developing my first ever two reels today, and your HC1110 solution is 1:63, the solution I'm using. Isn't B Solution 1:31? Apparently 1:62 is called H solution, doubling the time of using B, but you're using the time for B. So is the Dev chart actually listing H solution (it says B) or are you using half the time? I use 7 minutes for dilution B. It's pretty much accepted that kodak's published times for tri-x in HC-110 are too short. I have heard of people using as short as 5 mins in B but 7 mins is what works for me. Edit: Nice catch on that dilution. I accidentally listed the formula for dilution H. That is what I normally use. I rarely shoot box speed so for big pushes I prefer a longer development time so that I can make better use of the semistand developing technique I described earlier to reduce contrast. 8th-snype fucked around with this message at 10:21 on Jul 16, 2008 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2008 10:13
|
|
|
Pay very close attention to your temps- I was an idiot on a couple rolls and developed with 80 degree B mix of MC110, and all my negatives were waaaay too dark. I use the recommended 3 minutes or so at 78 degrees and am very happy with the results.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2008 19:50
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:I use 7 minutes for dilution B. It's pretty much accepted that kodak's published times for tri-x in HC-110 are too short. I have heard of people using as short as 5 mins in B but 7 mins is what works for me. Okay whew. I thought I developed it for twice as long as necessary, thanks for the tutorial.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2008 00:06
|
|
|
hybr1d posted:Pay very close attention to your temps- I was an idiot on a couple rolls and developed with 80 degree B mix of MC110, and all my negatives were waaaay too dark. I use the recommended 3 minutes or so at 78 degrees and am very happy with the results. Even 78 is a bit hot, I use 68 degrees.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2008 00:44
|
|
|
Be careful because if you go over 80 you can fog your film.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2008 01:47
|
|
|
I just picked up an Epson v700 scanner which seems to do a pretty decent job of film scanning so I'm hoping it prompts me to go back to shooting film some more. Unfortunately for concerts it's horribly cost ineffective to shoot film since there are so many unpredictables and you end up needing to shoot 100+ frames to end up with a handful of good shots. I really wish there was kodachrome 800, I love the aesthetic of it but could never shoot 200 at a show.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2008 18:47
|
|
|
My dad got a big digital SLR camera a few years ago and stopped using his old film camera, which I inherited and promptly stuck in a closet. I recently became interested in doing a little photo essay and dug the gear back out. I am completely clueless as to anything photography related and I was wondering if anybody could give me a quick rundown of what my equipment is really capable of/designed for. TIA. Camera: Minolta XG-M Lenses: Minolta MD 50mm w/ Vivitar VMC Skylight 1A filter Tokina 28mm Vivitar 70-120mm w/ macro focusing zoom Flash: Minolta auto 132X The stuff seems to be in good shape, so I believe it will all work just fine once I get batteries. I never took a photography class in school, so can anybody recommend me a good beginning text? In return I promise to post all my spectacular failures on here for you to point and laugh at.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2008 17:38
|
|
|
I've been looking for a medium-format SLR for some time and just today found one for sale. (a Hasselblad 500 C/M with a Zeiss T* 80mm lens). It's a little over half the price that they usually sell for here used (in Denmark). So naturally I'm worried about buying a lemon. Is there anything in particular I should check for, besides trying out all the shutter-times and making sure the lens isn't scratched?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2008 17:56
|
|
|
This might be a longshot, but I'm seriously thinking about picking up some diafine and finally doing home dev, BUT I like to shoot 4x5 paper negatives, any chance I could develop those in diafine? I've always used dektol at my schools lab in the past, I would really rather not have two different developers, and I don't plan on ever wet printing at home.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2008 06:41
|
|
|
Yeah, you could develop those in Diafine, though I'm not sure why you would want to. Diafine is ideal for roll film because you don't have consistency between exposures. On sheet film you can develop each frame exactly how you want...
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2008 08:24
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Yeah, you could develop those in Diafine, though I'm not sure why you would want to. Diafine is ideal for roll film because you don't have consistency between exposures. On sheet film you can develop each frame exactly how you want... I want to because I plan on shooting a lot of roll film, but also some paper negatives, and I dont want two developers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2008 16:11
|
|
|
So I really had no more excuses not to try this developing thing. I made photos! 
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2008 20:51
|
|
|
johnasavoia posted:I want to because I plan on shooting a lot of roll film, but also some paper negatives, and I dont want two developers. Wait, paper negatives, sorry, I didn't read properly. I don't know if it will work with paper, I just read 4x5 and assumed normal sheet film.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2008 21:22
|
|
|
Yes, you CAN use Diafine to develop paper. However, while a compensating effect is a plus for film since you want a good 'raw' image to work with the same for paper might not turn out so great. I've seen prints developed in Diafine and they do tend to be a little on the flat/muddy side. Give it a whirl though! I'd start with something like 30-60 secs in each bath since paper will be more absorbent than film.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2008 00:54
|
|
|
The best kind of film is free film. A friend of mine just cleared out his fridge and gave it all to me, because he doesn't want to shoot expired stuff. And so here's the loot, expired between 1998 and 2002:
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2008 17:28
|
|
|
breathstealer posted:The best kind of film is free film. A friend of mine just cleared out his fridge and gave it all to me, because he doesn't want to shoot expired stuff. And so here's the loot, expired between 1998 and 2002: Jeebus
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2008 22:25
|
|
|
Hey there breathstealer, my buddy, my pal, my sharing-film-with-me-friend.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2008 22:35
|
|
|
Does anyone have any Rodinal developing tricks or advice? I like what I have seen with it on slow speed films. I tried developing some Plus X 120 in Rodinal last night and the roll did not turn out well. It was easily scratchable and the image was rubbing right off. I am not sure if something happened with the fixer, or what. What is the recommended agitation? I did 30 seconds to start and 5 inversions each minute. Is an acid stop batch recommended? I did a water agitation for 30 seconds.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2008 00:01
|
|
|
Sounds like your fixer is hosed. Get some hypo tester or just make another batch.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2008 01:46
|
|
|
Things like this wouldnt happen if everyone listened to me and did regular clip tests.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2008 05:43
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Things like this wouldnt happen if everyone listened to me and did regular clip tests. Well, I have only used this batch of fixer for about ~10 rolls and the batch is only about a month old, so I wasn't too worried about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2008 05:45
|
|
|
I've signed up for 2 classes in using a darkroom (2 x 2 hour sessions) and should have a clue by the end of it. There's a camera club near me which has enlargers, scanners, chemicals, dark rooms, cutters, everything, but they obviously want you to be accredited before they let you loose on their equipment. I shoot Nikon DSLR, so I've got some Nikon full frame lenses to start with. (50mm f/1.8, 105mm f/2.8 micro, 300mm f/4.5 AI-S ED-IF and hopefully a wider lens of sorts soon). Do I buy an FM2n, or do I spend a little more money and get a medium format camera? I'm tempted by the medium format because I have a 35mm style SLR already (albeit digital) so the MF camera will be new and fun. I'm tempted by a Mamiya RB67, or maybe some sort of 645. I'd also like a 6x6 because square format just appeals to me, but I haven't seen any in my price range yet. Any advice for hot buys? If you really feel like picking something out for me, there are good UK prices at https://www.ffordes.com I don't really want to spend much more than £250-300 for a camera with a lens as I'm not 100% sure I'll stick at it, to be quite honest. I think I'll still use my D300 as my main camera, but I'd like to use film cameras for some specific projects I have in mind or perhaps to get a more interesting take on a photo in a studio. D300 for shots to give to the model, Medium Format for me to play with later. Should I get something with a meter or just accept that I'll need to buy a meter? I plan on getting into studio photography soon so I suppose it wouldn't be a bad investment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2008 13:06
|
|
|
Looks like this ffordes place has quite a few Yashica 124Gs for 99 pounds. If you like 6x6 and TLRs this isn't a bad deal. They also have an RB67 kit for 299, though that does seem a bit high compared to US prices. Check out the Bronica SQ series too for 6x6 if you're really wanting square format, they tend to not be too costly and decent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2008 23:19
|
|
|
TokenBrit posted:I've signed up for 2 classes in using a darkroom (2 x 2 hour sessions) and should have a clue by the end of it. There's a camera club near me which has enlargers, scanners, chemicals, dark rooms, cutters, everything, but they obviously want you to be accredited before they let you loose on their equipment. Have you considered a Bronica ETRSI? I picked one up with a speedgrip, 75 mm lens, 120 back for less than $300. It's a nice solid combo. edit: To echo Clayton Bigsby, If you want Square format, see the Bronica SQ series. A bit more expensive but not by much. If you have those Nikon lenses you might also consider a used F100. Easily one of the best modern SLRs around.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2008 05:21
|
|
|
killabyte posted:
If you are going to go with 35mm, this should be your only choice. I have 2 F100s and they are amazing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2008 06:38
|
|
|
I've recently found the darkroom to be my new sanctuary. I've been making prints the last few weekends from rolls of film I shot over the last year. It's very therapeutic! Nothing to informative or significant to add, just glad a public darkroom opened up in town.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2008 23:36
|
|
|
I'm starting to process B&W at home, and I've got some questions maybe you guys could help me out with. I've done this before (back in 1997 in my highschool freshman photo class), but never since so my memory's a little rusty. Back in the day we didn't reuse fixer, we just dumped it when we were done. If I'm going to reuse it, how do I know when it's gone bad? The clip test mentioned back on the first page tells you how long you need to compensate times for dying fixer, but not how to tell when it's actually dead. When reusing fixer, are you dumping the used stuff back into the unused stuff, or into a separate "used" container? I assume you mix back into the unused fixer, but my Dad who had a fully functional personal darkroom back in the 70's-80's says that he kept two different containers. How do you do a clip test for 120 film? It doesn't have that convenient little tab of film at the beginning. How necessary is permawash? Back in my old photo class, we went straight from fixer to wash with no step in between. A lot of people say it's not needed, but then there's others who who swear it's the most important step of the process. Various places on the internet say that I use the same volume of chemicals for a roll of 35mm 36-exposure roll as a 120 roll. How does this make sense? 120 is close to 70mm wide, so wouldn't you need twice the volume of chemicals to cover it as a 35mm roll? Shouldn't I be using the volume for 2 rolls of 35mm? Many, many thanks if you could answer these questions for me.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2008 08:30
|
|
|
Back_From_Termina posted:Questions. I just pour my used fix back into the container that I store my working solution in. You know its dead when your clip test takes way too long or flat out doesn't work. Even with 120 there is enough film at the beginning of the roll for you to snip off a small piece and use that to test. The film is always going to be longer than just the image frames. I swear by permawash myself but I have not done any testing to see how not using it would effect my wash times. I would assume that in photo class you used some sort of commercial film washer not the ilford method I use. You always need enough liquid to cover what ever film you are using. I use the amount for 2 rolls of 35mm when I soup 120. Those places recommending the same amounts probably have you using way more than you really need for a roll of 35mm. I'd love to help out more but the type of tank you are using can really effect your solution volumes. My recommendation would be to follow the directions set forth by the manufacturer of your tank and reels.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2008 08:47
|
|
8th-samurai posted:much appreciated answers Thanks. My kit arrives tomorrow so we'll see how everything goes then!
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2008 09:53
|
|
|
How are the Russian FED rangefinders? I'm thinking of buying a Bessa R3A down the road, but wanted to try out something cheaper to see how I like using a rangefinder with interchangeable lenses first. I realize the Bessa is a much nicer camera (as are the lenses, although most of the Russian lenses should work on it), but I want to test the waters with something cheap before I put down that kind of cash. I'm looking more at size/convenience of use than optical quality par excellance. For a lightmeter, what's something fairly compact and light that I can slip in a pocket or slide on to the hotshoe? What lenses from the Jupiter lineup are generally recommended/not recommended? I know they're Russian, but are they at least somewhat reliable? I've had one LC-A and now a pair of Olympus XA's die on me and I'm kind of sick of having things break. At least FED's are cheap...
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2008 14:22
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:How are the Russian FED rangefinders? I'm thinking of buying a Bessa R3A down the road, but wanted to try out something cheaper to see how I like using a rangefinder with interchangeable lenses first. I realize the Bessa is a much nicer camera (as are the lenses, although most of the Russian lenses should work on it), but I want to test the waters with something cheap before I put down that kind of cash. I'm looking more at size/convenience of use than optical quality par excellance. So I recently bought a Bessa R3M kit. I am actually looking to sell it if you are interested. I decided I would rather use a Leica M3. I only put a few rolls through it and it is in great condition. As far as a lightmeter, I use a Sekonic L208. It is very small and fits on a hotshoe and is only about $100. It seems accurate enough. As far as Russian stuff, the Jupiter-8 is the most highly regarded of all the Jupiter lenses. The Industar-22 is also good. I have both of these lenses. The reason they are good is that they are copies of Zeiss / Leica lenses. Keep in mind you are going to need an adapter to use these lenses on a bayonet mount camera like the R3A if you ever get one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2008 16:40
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:How are the Russian FED rangefinders? I've got a FED NKVD CCCP Type 1D. I've only put a few rolls of film through it so far - but I absolutely love it, the quality of the camera is really very good. I'd recommend looking through the catalog on http://www.fedka.com/catalog/ and having a look at all the variants, it's going to be up to you just which model you want depending on features etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2008 17:38
|
|
|
Back_From_Termina posted:How necessary is permawash? Back in my old photo class, we went straight from fixer to wash with no step in between. A lot of people say it's not needed, but then there's others who who swear it's the most important step of the process. If you're not using a hardening fixer, archival wash/hypoclear/permawash is totally optional as long as you wash the film adequately. (Ilford method ahoy!) Most fixers today are non-hardening, though Kodak for some inexplicable reason continues to have a hard-on for hardener. If you're using a hardening fixer, you need to use a wash solution if you want your negs to last; the hardener has the side effect of retaining fixer and making it pretty much impossible to wash out with water alone.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2008 19:28
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:How are the Russian FED rangefinders? I'm thinking of buying a Bessa R3A down the road, but wanted to try out something cheaper to see how I like using a rangefinder with interchangeable lenses first. I realize the Bessa is a much nicer camera (as are the lenses, although most of the Russian lenses should work on it), but I want to test the waters with something cheap before I put down that kind of cash. I'm looking more at size/convenience of use than optical quality par excellance. The Feds and Zorkis can be really nice if you get a good one. Don't discount the screwmount Leicas though as they can be affordable these days (figure $200 for a pretty decent one) and can be resold for about what you paid if you don't like it or want to get something newer. The Jupiter lenses are great. The 12 is a lot of fun (but might not work well on the Bessas because of its massive rear element), and the 8 is a good solid performer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2008 23:59
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:The Feds and Zorkis can be really nice if you get a good one. The thing is, that "if" is a pretty big if. Unless you get both the body and lens checked by someone who really knows what they're doing, your chances of getting a dud are very high. Lens misalignment is pretty much an inevitable thing, though it's not impossible to fix on your own. I'd consider a Canon rangefinder for a little more. Look at stuff like: http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-7-Rangefi...09&_trkparms=72%3A552%7C39%3A1%7C66%3A2%7C65%3A12%7C240%3A1318&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14 http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-IIF-Range...51&_trkparms=72%3A552%7C39%3A1%7C66%3A2%7C65%3A12%7C240%3A1318&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14 http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-7-Leica-Screw-Mount-Rangefinder-Camera_W0QQitemZ270263512383QQcmdZViewItem?hash=item270263512383&_trkparms=72%3A552%7C39%3A1%7C66%3A2%7C65%3A12%7C240%3A1318&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14 http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-VL-Leica-Screw-Mount-Rangefinder-V-L_W0QQitemZ270263528144QQcmdZViewItem?hash=item270263528144&_trkparms=72%3A552%7C39%3A1%7C66%3A2%7C65%3A12%7C240%3A1318&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14 The best user cameras from Canon are the 7s and the P, though neither seem to be selling on Ebay at the moment. No connection to any of the sellers linked, of course.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2008 05:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 00:15 |
|
|
I posted earlier in this thread asking whether the messed up prints I was getting were a result of my camera or the people at London Drugs. I got some more prints at a different place today and it definitely looks to me like I have a light leak: How would I go about fixing this? I asked one of my friends and she said I might have to buy a whole new camera. Say it ain't so! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2008 09:07
|
|