|
8th-samurai posted:Nope. You own a piece of photographic history...that no one can develop so don't bother shooting it. That no one can develop right now. There are some insane people making decent progress at a replacement for K-14 process. Not that I'd get your hopes up. But you might possibly maybe be able to shoot and process Kodachrome again in the possibly-distant future. Myself, I'd jam the film in the freezer for shooting in that fairytale future.
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2012 19:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 20:35 |
|
|
If Omega's what the shop's got for stainless gear, make sure they have a liberal return policy if you buy anything. OmegaSatter's quality control on their lower-end Chinese lines is atrocious. Poorly-sealing tanks, reels out of round, reels that aren't parallel, solder balls in the film path, film clips either completely soldered to the core or soldered on backward... so, so bad.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2012 08:37
|
|
|
VomitOnLino posted:Quick breakaway from the camera-chat. The Massive Dev Chart is a helpful tool but by no means the end-all, be-all. Actually, I take that back: the Massive Dev Chart was once a helpful tool, but you've discovered one of its biggest shortcomings as time has marched on. The entries are neither dated nor well curated. If an entry ever existed in the table, it's still in the table, you have no idea when the hell it's from, and the majority lack notes. Ilford did reformulate their emulsions—almost ten years ago. If you look up any Ilford film (XP obviously excluded), you'll get way old Ilford box times, "modern" (ten year old) Ilford box times, and a slew of user times for one emulsion or the other, generally with no indication what's what. There are other brand films that have been reformulated more often and the chart may as well just list zero to infinity minutes. Molten Llama fucked around with this message at 03:53 on Jul 23, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2012 03:50
|
|
|
Definitely do check with labs before you drop $50 on a roll of film. A lot of labs can't develop it anymore because newer equipment either isn't IR-tight or uses IR internally (the same reason you can't use it in many mid-90s+ cameras).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2012 18:15
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:As a rule, scanner software for consumer scanners is nightmarish at best, single button at worst. Apparently the Imacon and various drum scanning softwares are quite good, but for the rest of us it's a lesser of very-close-levels-of-evil thing. Oh Jesus no. If you think VueScan and SilverFast are bad, FlexColor will drive you mad. And drum scanners... MrBlandAverage beat me to it. Don't forget most of them haven't even been supported since the last millennium. Think about how terrible software was 15 or 20 years ago. Now think about how terrible specialty industrial niche software always is. Now combine them and mix that abortion with SCSI. Operator suicide is surely among the reasons good drum scans are getting harder and harder to find. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2012 06:59
|
|
|
Spime Wrangler posted:The only place in town that will even mail film out is another walmart, and they have a blanket WE WILL NOT RETURN YOUR NEGATIVES policy. Say what? 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2012 20:31
|
|
|
I'll start with the least frequently asked question: How sure are you that your filters are good? It's possible (and perhaps most likely) you're producing lower-contrast negatives than you'd like, but especially if you bought your filter book used, it may be the case that your filters are faded.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2012 21:52
|
|
|
Printing while watching TV would be difficult, but you can do impromptu elaborate choreography when a good song comes on the radio. A good gang darkroom is an amazing thing.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2012 16:40
|
|
|
Man_alive posted:Just a general question regarding development, what is the best way to agitate the mixture when developing? I've always taken it that you pick up the tank, and invert it once per second for the ten seconds it recommends each minute, but I see people talking about rotating the spindle fo the same period of time Manual inversion better redistributes the chemistry and is slightly more difficult to gently caress up than using the spindle. But at some tank sizes inversion isn't really an option; a lot of people can't handle the five roll tanks, and I've never seen anyone even attempt an eight roll tank.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2013 16:33
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:I can see if you are gonna flatbed scan them. Mounted slides are probably a little flatter than the shitastic 35mm holders most scanners come with. Mounted slides are (usually) flatter but you do also lose some of the frame to the mount.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2013 21:33
|
|
|
Man_alive posted:Would you use something after the fix wash to stop spots/streaks when the negs are drying? Final rinse with distilled water. Dirty cheap at the grocery store. RO will also generally work if that's readily available and cheaper in your area (i.e. water and ice stores). Molten Llama fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Dec 26, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2013 19:18
|
|
|
404notfound posted:If I'm just going to scan and not make prints, is there any appreciable difference between Kodak BW400CN and Ilford XP2? Kinda wanna try out one of the C41 b/w films. Technically, nah. They both scan reasonably well. Visually, they render differently, but which one you like is a matter of taste.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2014 07:48
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:so basically you are doing a the normal final rinse then dunking it in distilled water? If you're doing the Ilford rinse, you can just use distilled on the last set of agitations.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 20:35 |
|
|
mulls posted:Is residual fix going to eat away at my film forever Doubtful. You don't even need Hypo Clear unless you're using a hardening fix (which you're probably not in TYOOL 2014). Even then, you can wash hardened fix out sufficiently with a really long, super wasteful wash. Molten Llama fucked around with this message at 18:36 on Dec 12, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2014 18:30
|
|