|
Yesterday I bought a Minolta-16 MG because it looked really cool. It's basically this, case and all, so it includes a little detachable flash, two filters, and an interesting metal wrist strap: I'm not a photographer and I'm happy enough having this as a pretty thing to display in the house. But I have been interested in trying film, because I'm a big sperglord who likes to do complicated poo poo. So, is 16mm film worth messing with, or is it just too poo poo/uncommon compared to 35mm? Apparently it's really easy to reload the Minolta 16mm cartridges, and since it doesn't need perforated film you can even cut down 35mm to size.
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 16:44 |
|
|
Spedman posted:Your best option would be to buy a bulk roll of 16mm cine film and then roll your own in a dark bag. Here's an eBay link to what you should be looking for: $75 for 4,000 photos worth of film... that sounds pretty good  Do you think learning this kind of stuff on 16mm would be making life harder than it needs to be? I'd be interested in developing my own pictures and, eventually at least, making prints (presumably with an enlarger, I've done a bit of googling). Am I just loving myself over if I try to do this with 16mm instead of starting out on the more common 35mm? For example, you'd need a different enlarger for 16mm vs 35mm, right? What about chemicals for development? I'd like to learn about film photography, but if using the Minolta-16 is a poor choice, I'd just try to find a basic 35mm SLR and experiment with that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Yes, you really are loving yourself over. 35mm film developing gear is super common, in comparison I've never even seen a 16mm developing tank. You'll have more selection of film and developer combination, it will be more readily available at stores, etc. Don't even bother looking into film slitting or any process of "modifying" film. It's more trouble than it's worth unless you just want a challenge of bringing an old camera back to life. Ok, thanks--that's kind of what I suspected, given that pretty much anyone doing film these days seems to be doing 35mm or larger. I'll keep the little camera as a neat-looking display piece (it's really very cool) and look for a cheap 35mm. I saw mention of the Pentax K1000 somewhere in this thread; Google indicates that they're pretty common and don't need those funky batteries that are no longer manufactured, so maybe I should keep my eyes open for a good deal on one of those? Edit: I'm reading through the thread from the beginning. Yeah this is definitely what I should be learning while also planning a wedding, preparing for a move, working, fixing up my old car...
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
Thanks for the tips! I saw a recommendation for keh.com early in the thread, but that's from 6 years ago; are they still one of the better places to buy a used camera? I also see stuff on Amazon, and of course there's always (ugh) ebay L@@K VINTAGE NIKON PENTAX KODAK CAMERA K1000 AE-1 L@@K. I'm not fixated on a Pentax, I just liked that they're all-mechanical and don't need a battery except for the meter (and I guess you can get that battery in a drugstore). I'll take your recommendations and do some searching. Would it be inappropriate for me to post a batch of links to cameras I find, asking for opinions?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
nm posted:Keh sells probably the best used stuff around and backs it with a warranty and unbeatable customer service. You will pay a premium for this. Ok, a warranty plus good customer service sounds like exactly what I want. I don't have any sort of experience with which to judge the quality of some random camera, I'm down to leave it up to them. How about an ME Super in excellent condition for $50? http://www.keh.com/camera/Pentax-Manual-Focus-Camera-Bodies/1/sku-PK020107000090?r=FE No lens, but perhaps: http://www.keh.com/camera/Pentax-Manual-Focus-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses/1/sku-PK060107000400?r=FE Add a battery (does that come with the camera body?) and some film and that's enough to get started, right?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:The 50/1.7 is probably only a little bit more expensive in the grand scheme of things, and is likely worth the money upgrading to it. Sharper, faster, etc. When you say in either case, do you mean for both the camera body and the lens, or do you mean for the F2 and the F1.7? If a BGN camera body and lens should be ok, I could be in business for $50 which would be pretty easy to justify to the fiance
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2014 06:28
|
|
|
Geektox posted:I'm guessing he meant both. Especially considering KEH is really conservative with ratings. That's what I figured. So if I wanted to order a camera from KEH and grab some film while I was at it, what is a good one to start with? I figure I'd like to shoot a roll or two and have them developed at the drugstore or wherever just to make sure the camera functions properly, but after that I'd want to start developing my own; so I figure eventually I'll be doing black and white for simplicity, but can the drugstore machines handle black and white or would I want color film if I'm processing it there? Edit: Is it worth picking this stuff up for free? It's about 20-30 minutes away: http://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/zip/4339813907.html Pham Nuwen fucked around with this message at 07:14 on Mar 11, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2014 06:42
|
|
|
Well, I did it! I ordered a Pentax ME Super, a 50mm F1.7 lens, and a lens cap. I'm sure there's a bunch of other poo poo I'll want, like a strap, but this is a start. Total came to about $70 with shipping and sales tax. I'm excited! I'll order some color film from Amazon Prime soonish, no rush since the camera won't be here until next week. Thanks for the advice, everyone!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
While looking to see what enlargers go for around here, I saw this: http://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/pho/4351955983.html I thought the Lubitel-166B 6x6 camera might be of interest to anyone in the Bay Area:  He's asking $65. I didn't post it in the buy/sell thread because I'm not selling it myself, I just saw something cool  Edit: Ok, an ebay search shows that these are at $30 buy it now, so probably ignore that one
Pham Nuwen fucked around with this message at 02:50 on Mar 12, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
Casu Marzu posted:Psst, buy yourself one of these. I see a few on Ebay for $35+. Are they actually any good? I wouldn't trust it not to drop my camera or gently caress up my belt with the weight. A few hours ago I put in an Amazon order for 2 neckstraps, 10 LR44 batteries, and 4 rolls of color film for $25 total. I figure I'll run one roll and take it to the drugstore to check the camera, then play around to try and figure out how to take a decent picture. If I'm enjoying things, I'll get the gear to develop B&W and start playing with that instead. I noticed that a lot of the products listed in the OP's shopping list are no longer available or are out of stock. Has there been a more recent list of recommended starter equipment? I saw Paul MuadDib's post here with a list of chemicals that look pretty cheap on Amazon, except that I cannot find Rodinal; is that something I'll have to get elsewhere, or am I just searching for the wrong name? Also, hoping his offer of a tank for shipping cost still stands almost a year later
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
The ME Super is here! Both the body and the 50mm lens were BGN condition from KEH, but I'm extremely impressed with the looks. The only blemishes on the body seem to be a little scratching around the Pentax logo, while the lens looks pretty much perfect except for the engraved number on the bottom. I'm in the middle of the first, "test" roll of film, which I hope to finish up tonight and tomorrow morning, then take it over to the Walgreens in the morning. Assuming the prints come back ok (no light leaks etc), I'll load up a fresh roll and try to shoot my fiance's birthday party that afternoon.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
I got my first roll developed today. Mostly it was random bullshit taken to fill up the roll, but I got lucky on one particular attempt: a quick shot of my fiance, taken in my living room. She's in focus, the background is attractively blurred, and the lighting is about right. I'd like to get that picture, and possibly one or two other decent shots, onto the computer somehow. I took the film to Walgreens, so I have negatives and prints. I don't have a scanner or a DSLR. I do have a 10 year old digital point-and-shoot and my Nexus 4. What's the best way to get some rough digital version suitable for Facebook or something? I saw someone mention sticking the negatives on a monitor to grab with a point-and-shoot, but thanks to WaffleImages I couldn't see the results.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2014 05:11
|
|
|
Hollow Talk posted:If you use Walgreens, they can also burn your pictures onto a CD after developing, if I remember correctly. This might at least be an option in the beginning if you'd like to either share particular things or just have them on the computer either way, without having to go all-in straight away and start scanning them on your own. That's a good idea. I didn't opt for the CD because I didn't expect any decent shots out of the roll, but in the end there's about 5 that I'm pretty happy with and the one that I really love. I took the camera to my fiance's birthday party yesterday and shot most of the roll there. I've seen mention in this thread of some system whereby you put your film in an envelope at Walmart and they ship it off to a processing company rather than do a 1-hour themselves. Is this any good, or is it better/more cost effective to send your film directly to a processor? I'd like to give this roll a fighting chance at being developed and scanned nicely since the photo content actually matters. Walgreens seems to have done OK on the last roll but I've seen enough horror stories in this thread about inconsistent 1-hour drug stores.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
So when Walgreens develops my film, they return the negatives rolled up tightly. This seems like a decent way to protect them against dust and scratching, but I'm wondering about long-term curving effects in the film. Is it better to just unroll it, cut into strips of 5, and stick in a binder? I got a CD of scans in addition my prints. Right now they have a $2 processing discount (code 6096, good until April 2) so the whole deal comes out a bit cheaper. Here are my favorites from this roll (my second):   The scans (and the pictures) look pretty grainy, but I prefer grainy to pixelated so I'm reasonably happy.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
maxmars posted:Good job with your second roll. I like the flowers pic, very chilled atmosphere with the people in background defocused and relaxed, although I would have tried to recover some highlights on the flowers themselves. I really like the flower picture too. I didn't do any post-processing on that picture, just uploaded the image as it came on the CD. When you say "recover some highlights", do you mean doing something at the time of shooting, or by applying some post-processing?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
So I'm looking at a cheap pair of Omega D2 enlargers tomorrow. Of course, if I have enlargers, I'll need somewhere to print... so now the question. I've got a spare bedroom that's being used for storage. It has two windows and two doors which tend to leak light top, bottom, and sides. With a little work I could probably black out the windows, and if I turn off every other light in the house (I live alone) I don't see any light coming around the door (at night). It also has one of those light switches that's lit when you turn off the lights, but since the light is faint and orange it would only be a problem for undeveloped film, not for paper. The other option is the basement. It's quite small and I don't really use it for anything:   ^ There's another window like that immediately to the right of where I was standing And there's some really outstanding wiring down there:  There's also a full-sized window at the top of the stairs. Unfortunately I don't have windowless rooms in my house. There are two walk-in closets in the master bedroom, and one is big enough (and empty enough) that I could probably fit a small desk in there. With the bedroom door closed, lights off, and the closet door closed, I can't see any light leaking around the door. Would I be poisoning myself with fumes if I work in such a small place, though?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
So it turns out the Omega D2 enlarger is goddamn enormous: I got two, the other is about a foot shorter than that. One has a 150mm lens, the other has a 105. Neither included the variable condenser lenses, but you don't need the variable condenser lenses for a 150mm lens and you may be able to get away with it for the 105mm lens. Neither has a negative carrier. I've found several on Ebay for cheap... although I'm watching one right now ($10 shipped), it doesn't end for 2 days and I might just decide to spend an extra $5 and do a buy it now on a different one for $15. The bellows on the shorter enlarger have separated at the top. They were "repaired" using black electrical tape but that's failed now. Since my plan was to use one and keep the other as parts, it shouldn't be a big deal; the other set of bellows seem very sound.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
My neighbor is an extremely cool guy. I had noticed some old film cameras on display in his house (didn't get a good look, looked like some TLRs among others) and mentioned that I just started shooting film. He came over and checked out my "new" enlarger, and brought presents! A lightbox and a loupe. I immediately dug through my box of electronic junk and found a 9V power supply that works with it, and now I'm in business! One picture I took of yellow flowers is a really intense blue in negative... I actually think it's prettier in blue. Edit: Walgreens gave me my negatives in a really tight little continuous roll. How would you recommend straightening them out so I can cut them into groups of 5? Pham Nuwen fucked around with this message at 03:26 on Mar 30, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2014 03:21
|
|
|
I just developed my first roll of B&W film and it turned out great! I did Arista Premium 400 in Fomadon LQN developer following 8th-snype's page 1 guide pretty much exactly, although of course I looked up and used the appropriate development time from the massive dev chart. I saw what looked like some water spotting as it was drying, but now that the film is fully dried I don't see any spots. It gets pretty humid pretty quick when you're trying to load film inside the bag, but I managed to get it on the reel. I don't have a DSLR or a scanner, so I don't think I can really show off my negatives very well at this time, but they all seem to have developed nicely with sufficient contrast and everything. Grain looks nice too. I'll try printing some in a few days after I figure out a safelight. Then I'll try taking lovely cellphone pictures of the prints, assuming those come out right.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2014 06:34
|
|
|
Any of you ever try hand-tinting your B&W prints? Could be an interesting thing to try out after I've actually figured out the printing process. My easel should be here soon, I ordered an Airequipt 4-way easel on ebay for $15... I've decided I'm not going to mess around with printing until I have the easel to keep things aligned right.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
The combination of my cellphone camera and the bathroom lights make everything look a little yellow, but here's my first print ever: But what's this?  I don't see any bright spots there on the negative, and my easel actually covers up the blotch on the very edge. Did I fail to get developer on those spots properly or something?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Since the easel is covering up the one on the corner, it looks like something is wrong with the paper, or there was a light leak sometime between when you took it out of the box and put it in the easel, or between when you took it out of the easel and when you fixed it. I made 3 other prints and didn't see anything similar. It was the first print I made so I may have screwed up somehow. If you touch the surface of the undeveloped paper too much, can that mess it up? Second print (a different negative) came out pretty dark, but at that point I had the enlarger set to f8 which made it easy to overexpose. Third print (another negative) was at f16 for 10 seconds and came out beautifully, I'll try to take a picture for the thread once it's fully dry. Fourth print (yet another negative) was at f16 for 12 seconds and came out a little bit light but otherwise nice. Edit: Here's the one I like (3rd print) 
Pham Nuwen fucked around with this message at 08:21 on Apr 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2014 07:22
|
|
|
Looky what I found in the Weirdstuff Warehouse today: (It's that Polaroid video system)
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
404notfound posted:There's good advice there, but that guy sounds like he's trying too hard to pull the "loud and angry and constantly insulting you" bit. His soft voice and ums and you-knows undermine the whole thing, and I kinda wish he'd just delivered it straight. And it doesn't go into how to scan the negatives in the first place, other than to use 16-bit channels. I made a meme picture but then realized that's a bad idea to post, but basically the guy's barely-audible "ranting" (yes, ok, you like Zero Punctuation or whatever) made me think of this guy: 
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
Frobbe posted:Development tanks are actually really, really cheap, so cheap that i got everything in this picture for 30 bucks: If you don't intend to make prints with an enlarger, you should PM me about that timer and easel. I got a Pentax K50 a month back, now I need to rig up the DSLR "scanner" thing. Prints are super cool but difficult to share via email or Facebook. Edit: crap, now I don't remember where that DSLR negative-shooting rig was in the last 350-odd pages. Anybody? Pham Nuwen fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Aug 14, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
LargeHadron posted:It's easy enough to fashion something usable with stuff you can find around your home. I did it with some picture frames, a cardboard box, an iPad (for the backlight), and a tripod. It's only good for B&W; don't try to scan color film that way. I actually have a lightbox, so maybe I can get away with some sort of cardboard holder for the negative (wedged into the negative-holding strip at the bottom of the lightbox) and a cheap tripod for the DSLR. I think there's a little too much curve in the negatives to really get them held in flat using just the lightbox.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
Cocks, tried doing the DSLR scan thing with just a negative holder and my kit lens, but the lens is unable to focus while close enough to the negative to get a good-sized shot. Guess you really do need a macro lens... this is probably something I could have figured out without trying it but whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:Luckily no coffee got inside the lenses, but I think some got inside the battery compartment of the AE-1 which then leaked inside the shutter mechanism. The shutter was much, much slower - I mean like it took over a full second when it was set on 1/125. I cleaned up as much of the coffee as I could, and I think what little coffee that got inside has dried up and the shutter speeds *sound* normal, but I have no way to be sure. Is there a way to test shutter speeds? Does anyone know if they are controlled mechanically or electrically? If they needed adjustment, is there a way to adjust the shutter speeds on an AE-1? I did a google search but not much came up. Can you just shoot a roll of film and see if it develops properly? I do seem to remember reading something somewhere about testing shutter speeds but I don't recall what it was 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:HP5+ small format: I read "small format" and thought you might be using something like 16mm for a minute. I still maintain hope of some day shooting with my Minolta 16 MG: 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:Ok, that sounds ridiculously easy. I watched some lovely youtube video and they made it sound like it was a pain. 10-4 good buddies. It's kind of tedious but pretty drat easy.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:Even if you can get the film, would you be able to develop it? RIP Kodachrome I would expect that future developments in film will lean more toward things which can be processed in the home rather than requiring big lab setups. I'd love a color film that I could develop and print using my black and white equipment... it wouldn't have to look amazing, just be simpler than C41.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
Are there any film scanners that use the sprocket holes on 35mm to automatically load the negatives? Seems like you could just feed in your strip of film and it could generally detect where each exposure starts/stops, although the user might have to help it get the first exposure lined up.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:The pakon f135 does that. We chatted about it a few pages back, but it'll scan a whole roll of 35mm with ICE in 3-4 minutes. Now I really want one of these. Can they scan the usual 5-exposure strips, or does it need to be a whole roll? Yond Cassius posted:Comedy option: the Lomo smartphone scanner does exactly this. I saw some reviews that had Lomo-quality (read: poo poo) samples, but others that had some relatively nice-looking scans from a Lomo smartphone scanner. But for $60, I might just be better off buying a used macro lens for the DSLR.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
So pretend I'm a big idiot babby who doesn't know anything about lenses... because I don't really know anything about lenses. To DSLR-scan negatives, I need a macro lens, right? Just looking for something cheap on KEH turned up this: https://www.keh.com/242314/pentax-28-80mm-f-3-5-4-5-takumar-a-macro-2-touch-k-mount-manual-focus-lens-58. Cheaper than the stupid Lomography smartphone scanner thing... Would that work? If not, I'd appreciate recommendations for something cheap with a K-mount, or just a description of what sort of lens I need to look for.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:I work at an e-waste recycler. People throw away the strangest things. If you find another, sell/give it to me 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
Because I'm a filthy poor I don't have a macro lens... tried throwing a closeup "filter" on my kit lens and shooting against my light box, but this came out looking really poo poo while the negative itself looks really good on the light box and when printed. I just brought it into RawTherapee, flipped the tone curve, and played with the exposure compensation a little until it looked semi-legible. Please feel free to call me a scrub and tell me how I should have processed it differently. I'll get my 50mm prime back soon and plan to try it on a reverse ring, see if that looks nicer.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:Because I'm a filthy poor I don't have a macro lens... tried throwing a closeup "filter" on my kit lens and shooting against my light box, but this came out looking really poo poo while the negative itself looks really good on the light box and when printed. It looks maybe a little better when I photograph the matte side of the film rather than the shiny. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
Color actually turned out kind of decent: I used digiKam, inverted, cropped, and applied auto color correction. I'd describe it as "no worse than a Walgreens scan", maybe?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
I feel like I'm almost getting the hang of it. Unfortunate that Raw Therapee doesn't handle inverting very well, and digiKam's interface is pretty crap. Still holding out against paying $10/mo for Lightroom since I'm just a lovely amateur.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 16:44 |
|
|
Can someone describe their process for processing black and white negatives scanned via DSLR? I've been mostly playing with brightness/contrast sliders and tweaking the ends of the tone curve, not sure what else is good to try.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2014 00:06
|
|