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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 01:36 |
|
|
Dang. That's what I was afraid of.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2008 01:50
|
|
New toy that arrived yesterday: I've put a roll of Velvia 50 and Portra 400 through it already but won't be able to see the results until tomorrow or maybe the day after. I'm very excited.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2008 06:35
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:That's beautiful. The Mat-124's are something I've never really looked at due to price. How much did that one set you back? Oh and the most important question does the meter still work? It cost me $350 at KEH, but it is in EX+ condition. They had one in EX for $325 and one in BGN for $200. I assume the meter still works but I haven't tried it as I use this:  The strap is just a padded Lowepro strap I picked up at the local camera store for $20.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2008 18:55
|
|
Reichstag posted:Look what came in the mail! That is awesome.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2008 23:03
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
8th-samurai posted:much appreciated answers Thanks. My kit arrives tomorrow so we'll see how everything goes then!
|
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2008 09:53
|
|
MrMeowMeow posted: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: Well it depends on where it is. My old Minolta had a light leak, and I was able to fix it by just gaff taping around the back after it was closed. It's a little annoying to do every time I load new film, but it works.
|
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2008 09:10
|
|
|
Anybody know where I can get a 6x6 mask for my Holga? Freestyle has them for 3.99 but they appear to have this BS $25 minimum order thing. B&H also has them for the same price, but they don't stock them and it's a 1-2 week waiting period to ship them.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2008 22:34
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Can't you just file out the 6 X 4.5 mask? Yeah I thought of that, but I'm no good at working with tools and building/modifying things. I'd probably just screw it up, and then I'd have no mask. Plus I want to keep the 6x4.5 around in case I ever want to use it again.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2008 06:25
|
|
|
^^^Yeah, that's what I'll do if I have no other choice. Since mine is an older model that only came with the 6x4.5 mask. The newer models come with both. The problem I have with the 6x4.5 is that if I'm holding the camera the "normal" way it's shooting in portrait format, and I prefer landscape. With the 6x6 I wouldn't have to worry about it anymore. That 70s Shirt fucked around with this message at 06:46 on Sep 12, 2008 |
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2008 06:44
|
|
|
The mask only snaps in one way and turning the camera every time is a bit of a nuisance, but since I also prefer 6x6 I think that's the way to go.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2008 06:59
|
|
MrMeowMeow posted:I was in here a while ago complaining about my camera possibly having a light leak. Turns out I'm just a dork and I was winding the film the wrong way once it was finished. I shoot Velvia in 120 all the time. $6/roll at the local camera store for the film, and $6/roll for processing at the local lab. When I'm shooting 6x6 it's only about $1 per frame. Not all that expensive.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2008 20:12
|
|
|
That's weird. It looks like fog on the lens in the second one (like Luxmore said), but it looks more like a light leak in the first one since it isn't covering a majority of the picture. Don't know what to tell you.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2008 03:23
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:But screwing around with manual mode on a camera that has metering, why? Because sometimes meters lie. Sunsets just for a quick example. Edit for more explanation: Sometimes you don't want to go by what the meter says, it will not give you the results you want. For example, the meter told me that 1/60 shutter speed I should have IIRC F2.8 for this picture. That was exposing for the the whole scene (the wall, etc). But to get this result I needed to stop down to F11 or so.  Full manual lets you make choices like this. That 70s Shirt fucked around with this message at 01:30 on Sep 27, 2008 |
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2008 01:25
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:Re-read what I wrote. If you know that a meter will lie under a certain scenario, you can compensate just fine with exposure compensation in the 'auto' modes. Yeah, but I think most cameras will only let you go +/- 5EV, what if you need more than that?
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2008 01:31
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:Sure, go manual by all means. Nothing against it, but I fail to see the value of touting manual as "serious photography" when most of the time you're just manually doing what the camera was about to do for you. Oh I definitely see what you're saying, and you're right, 90% of the time I'm just spinning the dials until I get a proper meter exposure. For me it's just how I shoot. I come from the cinematography world where there is no auto-anything. Auto-focus, aperture priority, none of this stuff is heard of on a studio film camera. Full manual for me just seems more "streamlined" and I work more efficiently that way. There are rare times I use aperture or shutter priority, when I don't have time to fiddle with the controls, (sports, etc.) But most of my stuff is slow, take-your-time kind of material. Anybody who touts full manual as more "serious photography" is a pretentious twat. How you shoot should be based on your needs and your own personal workflow.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2008 03:24
|
|
And honestly, I can't remember the last time I needed more than +/- 2EV compensation.|
So I just got a load of old darkroom equipment from a garage sale (old chemicals, trays, paper, tanks, reels, etc.) and I've got a question. Most of the chemicals are bad, but there were a few goodies to be found. There was an unopened, yet expired, bottle of Ilford rapid fix (I'm planning to do a clip to see if it's still usable; 4 bottles of Photoflo 200 (who needs that much Photoflo?); and a bottle of Permawash. The question involves the Permawash. There's a small crack in the cap and it's been exposed to air for probably around 5 years. Will it still work? The directions on the side of the bottle say that the working solution oxidizes within 8 hours, but how long will the concentrate last? Internet research reveals claims it last will a very, very long time but no concrete numbers are given.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2008 21:18
|
|
|
Sorry to keep coming back with problems, but I've got another one. For some reason I can't seem to get all of the fixer out of my negatives while washing anymore. Normally the Ilford method up to 30 inversions works fine, but the last 3 rolls I developed didn't work. I even went up to 80 inversions on all of them, and still my negatives are just a teensy bit purple. I don't think it's the fixer because I did a clip test and it's still clearing in a minute-and-a-half, so I don't know what the gently caress. Any ideas? Edit: The only thing that's changed is since it's getting colder here my tap water temperature has gone down by about 3-4 degrees, could this be the reason? But even if it is, why wouldn't an additional 300 inversions make up for it? That 70s Shirt fucked around with this message at 08:37 on Oct 1, 2008 |
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2008 08:34
|
|
|
I'm using Ilford rapid fix. It's reassuring to hear that lots of film stay purple, but the thing is I used to be able to get them completely clear, so now that they're not it makes me kind of nervous.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2008 20:43
|
|
Snaily posted:Haha, I've heard about these but never actually seen one. These are ridiculous and awesome at the same time. I want one! EDIT: drat. It's around $2100 after the currency conversion. That auction has a lot of really neat older cameras. That 70s Shirt fucked around with this message at 22:11 on Oct 9, 2008 |
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2008 22:07
|
|
I came across this tutorial on how to use instant coffee to develop black-and-white film, so I gave it a shot and thought I'd share the results.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2008 07:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 01:36 |
|
Luxmore posted:Seriously, I decided to try this a while ago and I could not find "washing soda" anywhere. If anyone has soda-finding tips, let me know, because I'd love to give this a try. I couldn't find washing soda crystals anywhere either, but it turns out that washing soda crystals are just sodium carbonate, a common ingredient in dish-washing detergent. So I just bought the most generic detergent I could find (to reduce the number of possible additional chemicals) and just used more than the recommended amount in the tutorial to compensate (1 additional scoop). Worked fine, although I think you have to overexpose even more than the tutorial's one-stop recommendation with this method. I shot 50iso and rated it at 25 like the tutorial said, but I also bracketed upward as well. The best exposures were 5 stops over. Dishwashing detergent evidently doesn't do as good a job of activating the developer as pure sodium carbonate would. That 70s Shirt fucked around with this message at 09:23 on Oct 12, 2008 |
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2008 09:18
|
|