|
Reichstag posted:Well, to put it bluntly, it will be the next thing to go. E6 has experienced a much, much faster death cycle than C-41. It is more expensive to manufacture, more expensive to process, and sees far less consumer use. Now that there's no need for editors to have chromes to work with in making layouts and such there is essentially no commercial need for it, and thanks to the expense and scarcity of labs that will handle it, almost no happy-snappers using it. It is firmly the province of the well-heeled amateur as far as I can tell. I don't use slide film because no one processes it locally and I'm Nashville which is a decent sized city. No one does black and white either, but it's easy to do at home. Plenty of places to do C-41 though.
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2012 02:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 18:34 |
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:Crosspost from SAD These are terrific. I see lots of great pictures with Tri-X, but I just can't get anything good out of it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2012 05:49
|
|
|
Spedman posted:Ugh, thanks Kodak. Better it be more expensive than them stop producing it. I don't use much Kodak film, but Portra is awfully nice.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2012 23:23
|
|
|
So I got a Bessa R3A and so far I really like it. The 40mm framelines are a bit hard to see and I don't even wear glasses, but I need to crop to 8x10 or 5x7 anyway in printing so who cares if I get a little extra poo poo on the sides  Took these today and cross posting these from SAD  
eggsovereasy fucked around with this message at 04:35 on Mar 11, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2012 00:44
|
|
|
So according to Ilford their stop bath only lasts 7 days in working strength (http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2011427101531770.pdf) I thought you just threw it out when the color changed? Anyway, I've been using the same liter I had mixed up for about month. I guess that explains some mixed results I've been getting as this would cause the film to become overdeveloped. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2012 07:24
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Why are you even asking? Why don't you have it in your possession already? I've never done it, but I've read in many places that dev times under 5 minutes can give you pretty inconsistent results. Can you use the Ilfolsol 3 in a higher dilution maybe? Unless there's something in the 11 shots you really want, just start shooting it at 100 or 50 and finish up the roll. No sense in screwing up the last 25 exposures unless you want to experiment with it. I shot HP5 at 200 once and all I had was ID-11 and couldn't find times for that so I just guessed based on the % time difference with pushes with other developers and got good results so I think you're on the right track. eggsovereasy fucked around with this message at 03:00 on Mar 28, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2012 02:57
|
|
|
Is APX 100 available at all in the US?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2012 04:18
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:New Jobo CPP3 rotary processor coming soon.  Any word on cost? If their throwing in a 290 GBP lift just for buying one and sending them an email I bet it's not going to be cheap  EDIT: quote:The processor is expected to sell for around £1990 inc VAT http://www.ephotozine.com/article/new-jobo-cpp3-film-and-print-processor-18905
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2012 17:27
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Does anyone have trouble with 35mm Tri X curling very badly? Not like it's trying to curl back like it was in the cannister (well, no more than any other film), but curling around it's length. Like it's trying to make a 6 foot long burrito. My negative holder for my scanner can't keep it flat and I get newton rings from the scanner glass sometimes. Anyway, I've got it in negative sleeves under a heavy book to see if that helps. I'm giving it another shot as I only used it when I didn't know what I was doing (not that I'm pro at it now) and didn't like the results. Now, other than the newton rings, I'm I liking it. I really like the way HP5 prints, but I'm not overly impressed with my scans of it, Tri X seems to be scanning much better and I'll try a few prints from it later to see how that goes.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2012 04:34
|
|
|
PushingKingston posted:I find putting Tri-X in sleeves just before it dries completely and putting something heaving on it helps much more than doing the same when it's dry. I find that it sticks a lot trying to get it in a sleeve when it's not dry and I'm afraid that I'll damage it  FasterThanLight posted:I usually roll it up backwards and stick it in a film cannister for a few hours. Its fine after that. I might give this a try next time I do it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2012 05:18
|
|
|
So I got that Tri X scanned in, I'm happy with the results. I exposed it at 800 then looked at the documentation. Kodak says process normally for 800 and to do it for 3.5 minutes in HC-110(B). I thought this was way to short so I got on the internet to see about using dillution H or something. Evidently there is a lot of drama about this HC-110 and Tri X times. Anyway, a lot of people were saying they do Tri X in dilution B anywhere from 5 minutes to 6.5. I figured I'd do it for 7 minutes since I underexposed a stop just to give it a little bump and I think the results turned out well. Anyway, here are a couple examples.   Also, tried a roll of HP5 pushed to 1600. It comes out pretty drat grainy. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2012 04:21
|
|
|
nielsm posted:From the few samples here so far it looks like HP5+ generally gets more grainy than Tri-X when pushed. Or would it be more a difference in developer used? Not sure, I used HC-110 for both the TX@800 and HP5@1600 photos I posted above. I've found that scans of HP5 seem to be more grainy than the prints I make from the same exposure, so that could make a difference here too.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2012 19:11
|
|
|
Demon_Corsair posted:What is a good and cheap 35mm rangefinder. I was playing with a friends leica the other day and now I want a rangefinder to call my own. Sadly, there is no way in hell I can afford a leica, so I'm wondering what other good options are out there. I'm not sure what price is too much for you, but you can get a used Voigtlander Bessa + Voigtlander lens for about 1k though. Most of the cheap fixed lens Japanese compact rangefinders from the 70's are AE only, but the Canonet QL17 GIII can be operated full manual. From what I understand the meter gets turned off when you shout it on manual though, which seems silly. Anyway, you can get one for $150 or so.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2012 18:58
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Hell, for $1k you could nearly get a Mamiya 7. Well, 1k is cheap compared to an M9
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2012 20:55
|
|
|
HPL posted:You shot at 3200 in broad daylight? Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose? If you want the grain and contrast then it makes sense, but without a ND filter it would be hard to take pictures at anything but like f/16 or f/22.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2012 18:20
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:How does FP4+ compare to Acros? 100 ISO vs 125 ISO isn't a huge leap, especially since I'd be shooting both at 100 anyway. Acros is $1 cheaper per roll, and I've seen some phenomenal stuff with it, but I've never shot it personally. I guess I should just order some and shoot it and stop being a ween. Acros is T-grain like Delta 100 or T-Max, FP4 is traditional grain.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2012 20:45
|
|
|
HPL posted:Then shoot a 100 film at 400 or something. I don't know. I don't know either, I've not done it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2012 21:22
|
|
|
unleash the unicorn posted:Not really.... Mainly looking for something extremely cheap to gently caress around with. You can find deals on consumer stuff like Gold or Superia for around $2 a roll sometimes. EDIT: They're generally 24 exposure rolls though.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2012 18:44
|
|
|
Looks like Fuji is raising prices "substantially" though... http://photorumors.com/2012/04/24/fuji-to-increase-the-price-of-film-on-may-20th/
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2012 19:59
|
|
|
On my local craigslist someone is claiming to be selling a Leica M6 LHSA 25th anniversary edition kit. This includes an M6 with 35mm, 50mm, and 90mm summicron lenses along with some fancy boxes. KEH has the 35mm f/2 for over $2k on it's own and this guy is only asking $2,200 for the entire kit so I'm assuming this is a scam (or he left off a zero  ), but I'm going to send an email anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2012 23:14
|
|
|
About how many 36 exposure rolls can you get from a 100 foot bulk roll?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2012 03:15
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:How are you people scanning and post-processing your Ektar? I've apparently lost my touch and am having huge difficulties getting mine to look good. (mightaswell, I am talking to you) I just use the software that came with my scanner (Epsonscan) and it gets the color right, then I bump the blacks up a bit and it seems to come out looking pretty good.  
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2012 00:52
|
|
|
guidoanselmi posted:i never liked epsonscan and it is awfully slow. silverfast is what I use and I think there was a ektar profile? I can't get Silverfast to run on my computer, always quits with some cryptic error. I have vuescan too, but it's film profiles for my scanner (V600) seem pretty terrible.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2012 05:32
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:What's the error? I know a few people around here have had Silverfast issues and someone may be able to help you. Well, never mind. I just downloaded the newest version and got the Demo license and all that. Everything seems to work fine now. The color profiles definitely seem better than Vuescan though. The auto frame detection is pretty terrible (or I'm doing it wrong). Epson scan seems to do it perfect 95% of the time (unless the frame is very underexposed then it does weird things).
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2012 19:37
|
|
|
So I was looking at the massive dev chart today and there are times for FP4 and Xtol at ISO 1000. I was under the impression that FP4 was only good for a 1 stop push. I really like FP4, but sometimes it would be nice to get a bit more speed out of it (1000 is a bit extreme, I'll just use Tri X if I need that much). Has anyone pushed FP4 to 500 or higher and have some samples they care to show? I imagine the contrast gets out of control pretty fast, but I'd like to see.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2012 23:05
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:F-F2-F3 is a pretty natural progression. The F4 is a separate beast entirely, with built-in motor-drive and auto-focus. It's my favorite camera that I own (F4S), and easily the most reliable, most ergonomic, just... can't say enough good things about it. If I can ever find a split-prism focusing screen for it, it'll be the perfect camera. Won't a F3 focusing screen work in an F4? I know the reverse is true, but I don't if the F3 screen will mess with the AF on the F4. Anyway, I love my F3. EDIT: It's expensive, but... http://www.ebay.com/itm/NIKON-F4-CA...d#ht_600wt_1130
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2012 19:21
|
|
|
I have a Tokina 28mm f/2.8 that also has the focus ring go the opposite way. I hate it.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2012 21:47
|
|
|
Maybe people are concerned about getting a camera fixed later? I would imagine and all mechanical camera would be easier to repair than one with electronics? Push come to shove you can get a part machined for a mechanical camera whereas you probably won't be able to construct a replacement circuit board. I know nothing about camera repair, this is speculation.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2012 18:41
|
|
|
This battery conversation inspired my F3's batteries to die. No warning, shot a picture then it just wouldn't go again. Hope it didn't screw with the shutter speeds as the batteries were dying.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2012 22:20
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:Here's a PSA to say that if you send your film to Dwayne's ever, don't bother with the scans. I just got my first batch back from them. Is there anyone that does worthwhile scans for a reasonable price?
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2012 16:31
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:I don't think North Coast Photo is that unreasonable for budget scans. The file sizes are 3-5mb. When uncompressed and open in Photoshop they are around 25-30mb. However, it's only really a deal if you get your film developed first because the machine they use to develop the film then feeds it directly into the scanner, so they give you a discount on the scanning if you get your film developed through them. I have a couple rolls of E100G I need to shoot, so I'll mail it out to them whenever I get around to it and I'll try their scans. Do you touch up your photos from their scans, or do they pretty much come how you like?
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2012 03:34
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:They come out how I like. I really don't do much tweaking at all unless I've made an exposure error and then I have to potentially do a bit of work. But with film there's not always a lot you can do to fix it without spending a lot of time, and I don't like to spend a lot of my time fixing things. If you expose correctly at the time of the shot then everything will fall into place. How big are the scans, just say for a 6x6 negative?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2012 04:58
|
|
|
LargeHadron posted:Getting prints/scans is pretty expensive. I'll look into it if I decide to keep going with film. A scanner will quickly pay for itself and give you far better results than what a minilab gets you.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2012 14:36
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Make sure you have the wide-flange reels, the narrow-flange reels are a hundred times worse. The wide flange gets a more even and stronger pressure. I refuse to use the narrow flange reels for 120 and try to avoid them period, eventually I will change over completely. I used plastic reels for the first time yesterday and the wide and narrow flanges are like night and day for loading 120 film. Anyway, I like the plastic reels more than the metal ones. They're a bit fiddly to get started, but once the film is in there it's super easy.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2012 15:21
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:I bought a Pentax 6x7 about 3 months ago and put a fresh 6v battery in it. I shot one roll and haven't had a chance to get back to it since. For what it's worth my Bronica SQ started doing that before just loving up constantly. I ended up just buying a new body (they're pretty cheap).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2012 15:48
|
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:I usually take the battery out of the body (SQ) at the end of the shooting day. Or when I'm not using the camera. Well the shutter (in all my lenses) would only fire at 1/500s about 40% of the time (even with fresh batteries) so i figured it was done.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2012 00:40
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:It's lots of fun to just walk around with a handful of small, lightweight primes. I get to use the cargo pockets on my cargo shorts 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2012 05:58
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:But you wear cargo shorts I never said I was cool.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2012 15:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 18:34 |
|
|
ExecuDork posted:I'd say no, not worth the hassle. I did it, mainly to be able to say "I've done it". I read somewhere recently that freestyle was going to start carrying the tetenal e-6 kit.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2012 07:52
|
|
