The Film Thread: "for sale: packfilm back. never used."

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > The Film Thread: "for sale: packfilm back. never used."

«‹›2 »

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

Everybody go buy some Kodachrome.

Kodachrome is #1 best film.

Flickr search for more.

Now go get some.

# ¿ Jun 1, 2008 06:04

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 12:28

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

TsarAleksi posted:

Fuji Press 800

Fuji Press 800 has been replaced by the equally cool (but completely different) Fuji 800 Pro Z:

I will also add in the interest of full disclosure that I run this used camera store in BC. We sell all kinds of stuff, including darkroom equipment, so if any Canadians out there are looking for used bits and pieces without paying massive shipping and customs fees (Canada Customs :argh:

) you might want to check out the inventory. Let's say 10% goon discount on non-consignment items.

# ¿ Jun 1, 2008 08:14

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

Dread Head posted:

I would love to get into using b/w film, I have a old pentax k1000 with a few lenses but my question is more about where or how to get b/w film processed. Most of the camera places around here seem to ship it off to get developed. Maybe Luxmore knows since you live in the same city?

Commercial B&W film processing is awful and expensive so you may as well put that out of your mind right now.

Shoot a roll of Tri-X and then PM me, we can meet up and I'll show you how to do it yourself (it takes like half an hour)

# ¿ Jun 1, 2008 22:02

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

Yup, excellent post.

Is there any specific reason you do a clip test for the fixer instead of just using a drop of Hypo-Check?

# ¿ Jun 2, 2008 00:12

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

hybr1d posted:

Now for my question- what's a good starter large format? I don't care how big it is, and I just want something that lines up with an old Pentax SLR. I'm not really brave enough to buy one off Ebay.

I've always found field cameras easier to come to grips with than a huge monorail. You can pick up Speed Graphic 4x5 cameras fairly inexpensively these days, and the later ones have a pretty fair range of movements. You can probably also find a Linhof Technika III for under a thousand bucks with lens.

Otherwise, there really aren't any lovely large format cameras out there. I'm quite fond of the Linhof Kardan Bi-System, which is a gorgeous satin chrome/beige gloss paint astronaut-looking thing:

Only registered members can see post attachments!

# ¿ Jun 2, 2008 04:39

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

hybr1d posted:

I can't for the life of me remember where I bought my Yashica TLR. It was used, and not from B&H or Adorama. Where do you guys recommend looking for used gear? If I'm lucky I can find the same retailer again.

KEH probably.

# ¿ Jun 2, 2008 04:55

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

Cannister posted:

So then what's the group consensus on one aforementioned Yashica C for 86 bucks off ebay in repordedly perfect operating condition?

Looks good to me, Now you just have to hope that "the camera's owner" was right about the working condition

Cannister posted:

If I'm just getting the film developed by a printer would I need anything else other than film?

Not really, no. A light meter might come in handy, like Blambert says, but you can usually get by on educated guesses or by using another camera as a meter.

# ¿ Jun 2, 2008 18:19

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

Snaily posted:

The tiny one, which I aim to always keep on my person: The diminutive Minox B. It is about 1.5 x 1 x 4 inches, includes light meter and the design dates from the 30's. It is awesome. The film it uses, however, is rather queer (8x11 mm in proprietary canisters). It is still being produced, but in lesser and lesser quantities, and it commands a pretty awful premium.

The last time I used my Minox, the results were a lot rougher than I remember. Maybe it needs a shutter service or something, or maybe I screwed up the processing (those tiny negs leave no room for error)

They're wicked cool when they're working right, though.

# ¿ Jun 2, 2008 23:02

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

Krispy Kareem posted:

I am curious though, am I going to have to fill up the tanks or does it take less liquid to develop? I'm looking at these bottle sizes (500ml and smaller) and it looks like I'll blow through this in couple of rolls.

You dilute them. A lot.

# ¿ Jun 3, 2008 01:52

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

hybr1d posted:

What's a good rangefinder between the FED's and the Leicas? Although the Leicas are beautiful, optic-clockwork-jewelry beauties, I'd like something cheaper if I can get it without sacrificing too much in quality.

Voigtlander R2m/R3m (or the "a" varieties.) $400-$500 for a body with a built-in meter, for less than half the price of an M6.

# ¿ Jun 3, 2008 04:27

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

MrMeowMeow posted:

Aw man, really? I was hoping to get this roll of tmax developed at like London Drugs or something, 'cause I haven't ponied up the money to develop my stuff at home yet.

Dude it will cost you more to get two rolls of B&W commercially developed & printed than it will to buy the stuff you need to process film yourself.

Meanwhile, negatives sleeves and a binder are the simplest way to keep everything in order.

# ¿ Jun 4, 2008 04:27

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

Cannister posted:

I asked this before without an answer, you save a bunch of money & have more control of results with developing negatives yourself, but once you do that what are your options to get those negatives printed?

A lot of people go the "develop and scan" route, which is the most convenient way of doing things. If you want to try your hand at printing optically and you don't have room for your own darkroom, see if your local university has a photo club with access to facilities.

If you want a few professional prints, any good pro lab will have the means to do it, but I'd strongly recommend just struggling in the darkroom for a while. It's a lot more fun than you'd think.

# ¿ Jun 4, 2008 16:30

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

Some of the higher-quality German folders from the 30s-50s can be a great option for medium format. Many of them have rangefinders, most have pretty nice lenses, and they all fold down to a nice compact size.

6x6 Zeiss Ikontas won't cost a fortune, not will older pre-war Voigtlander Bessa RFs. This guy has a nice site with information and pictures, plus he sells reconditioned ones on eBay.

# ¿ Jun 7, 2008 18:45

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

killabyte posted:

I went ahead and pulled the trigger on the R3M package with the Heliar. Looks like a nice well made camera.

Someone will have to explain to me these rangefinder metering comments I see around? I'd never buy an SLR without a meter so I don't quite understand why I would want a rangefinder without one.

The R3M is pretty much my primary camera, and it's great. I haven't played with the Heliar, but I do recall some glowing test reports when they first came out.

As for the rangefinders without meters, there are some pretty amazing cameras out there (like the older Leicas) that are just as usable today as they ever were without a meter. You get kind of used to adjusting your exposure half a stop this way and that way when you're using a built-in meter, and it's useful to remember that unless you're shooting in massively variable lighting conditions, you can get away with a single meter reading to give you a baseline and then tweak by eye. Print film is a lot more forgiving than you'd expect.

That said, slide film goes in my R3M, because that stuff needs to be dead on.

# ¿ Jun 11, 2008 17:56

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

So I'm gonna be hangin' with Tom Abrahamsson on Friday, anybody need some softreleases or anything?

# ¿ Jun 12, 2008 04:32

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

Clayton Bigsby posted:

I could use a free Barnackwinder for those high speed shoots

Would you mind asking him what Swedish paper he worked for? I saw somewhere that he worked for one a long time ago and have been curious as to which since.

He says he worked for a bunch of forestry papers, which are no longer in existence. No names unfortunately.

As for the winders, keep in mind that they are complex hand-built machines. I think they're fairly priced when you consider that it's pretty much just Tom building them for kicks in his workshop.

Also if anyone wants some short-dated (August 08) Neopan 1600 for $5 a roll, let me know, because I just picked up a crapload of it.

# ¿ Jun 14, 2008 06:59

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

I have some Efke 25 6x9 sheetfilm that I can't use because it won't fit in my 2x3 Speed Graphic holders :argh:

UserNotFound posted:

A quick flickr search interests me to this film, what is your experience with it? I would be interested in a few rolls if a beginner like me could develop it.

I actually have no idea, my first roll is hanging up to dry right now, though it won't tell you anything about the low light performance since I shot it during blazing mid-day sun. Looks like johnsavoia's got that end covered, though.

# ¿ Jun 17, 2008 06:01

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

hybr1d posted:

My question is- are there any benefits of using bulk loaders, or has that died off with digital? I loved the bulk loader we had for film, and I don't need 80 million 35mm cannisters floating around.

I'm not sure why bulk loading would lose relevance because of "digital"; if it's done anything, it's made the loaders cheaper, so you're actually further ahead.

Congrats on the 4x5, by the way.

Luxmore fucked around with this message at 06:58 on Jun 17, 2008

# ¿ Jun 17, 2008 06:54

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

Pompous Rhombus posted:

What's the difference between the ETRsi/etc from the SQ-A/etc lines?

Mostly that the ETR series is 6x4.5, the SQ series is 6x6.

# ¿ Jun 19, 2008 16:15

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

Back_From_Termina posted:

New toy that arrived yesterday:

That's pretty hot. It's always a pleasant surprise to see older cameras in such nice shape.

Nice meter, too.

# ¿ Jun 24, 2008 04:44

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

hybr1d posted:

My Epson 4490 doesn't seem to scan negatives as negatives- when I tell it I'm scanning film, it takes 20 minutes to give me an ugly black strip- not of the negatives. I have to put them in the holder, tell it to preview in photo mode then scan the negatives at 3200. Does anyone out there have any better luck?

This is a stupid question probably but you do have the backlight exposed, right?

Otherwise I'm not sure, my 4490 is pretty quick to produce terrible scans.

# ¿ Jul 3, 2008 04:17

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

hybr1d posted:

Doh! Nothing like making an idiot of myself in the forum I said out loud, "Backlight, there's a backlight? I suppose there has to be one here somewhere" and found the handle for the cover about 10 seconds later.

I don't have access to a darkroom and don't have the resources to make one- so a scanner is as close as I will get for a while- is there a better than the 4490 or 4990? I know drum scanners are supposedly the best but insanely expensive.

I use a Nikon Coolscan V, which is a dedicated film scanner, and they run around $600. You can pick up older models for much less, and any of them will do a better job on 35mm film than a flatbed.

Medium format is another story- the 4490 will do pretty okay work as long as your negatives are properly exposed.

# ¿ Jul 3, 2008 07:37

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

Omits-Bagels posted:

I would like to see how well the 4490 scans medium format negatives. I have been thinking about picking one up.

Would you mind posting am image or two?

Colour, B&W.

Black & white generally works pretty well, but the scanner is a disaster with poorly-exposed negatives, and it can't seem to figure out colour balance (at least not through VueScan)

# ¿ Jul 3, 2008 19:43

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

Krispy Kareem posted:

Aaargh, I think my 120 film reel might be defective. Even watching videos on how to thread the film I can't get it the film to roll up properly. The spring loaded clip doesn't hold the film and the spool itself seems a smidge too small for the film size. The end result, whether I'm in a changing bag or testing it with a dummy roll is film stuck on film which is resulting in horrible developing results.

I could be loading the film wrong, but I'm thinking a plastic reel might be my best bet. Anyone know if I can use a plastic reel in a metal tank or am I going to need to replace the whole set?

Have you dropped or otherwise impacted the spool? Even a tiny bend can make it difficult to get film on a metal reel.

Meanwhile, no, a plastic reel won't fit in a metal tank (the reel is too fat)

# ¿ Jul 5, 2008 02:19

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

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:

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!

Still looks like a processing issue (not printing)

If it is a light leak, all you need to do is get your camera's light seals replaced. We do it for $30-$40 depending on the camera, and any repair shop should be able to do the same. Or you could buy a light seal kit from eBay and do it yourself (search for the seller name "interslice")

# ¿ Aug 15, 2008 21:54

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

Back_From_Termina posted:

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.

Wait, since when do you need a 6x6 mask for a Holga?

# ¿ Sep 12, 2008 06:27

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

pseudonordic posted:

The AE-1 hails from a time before autofocus was invented. As far as a wide-angle lens, I'd suggest a 28 or 35mm lens. KEH carries lots of 3rd party 28mm lenses for under $15.

Canon made a few FD-mount AF lenses; I know I had a 35-70mm in the store a few months ago. They take AA batteries

# ¿ Sep 16, 2008 16:24

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

Reichstag posted:

Who just bought a nokton 50 1.5?
This guy.

Nice. I just picked up a Nikkor 5cm f2 lens (with some noticeable-but-not-deadly internal marking) to test out. Always weird to see a Nikkor M39 lens.

e: I think your lens will be better than my lens

# ¿ Sep 17, 2008 04:53

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

Reichstag posted:

"Newer, Sharper, Faster" not better.

We shall see!

# ¿ Sep 17, 2008 06:09

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

gib posted:

Diafine lasts an insanely long time.

Can someone tell me what the hell is going on in this photo?

and this one

Both are on Fujicolor 100 or Superia 100 on a Zeiss Ikon. This white thing shows up in a bunch of the shots on that roll, especially near the end. I was changing lenses a bit, but these may both have been shot with a 3rd-gen 50mm Summicron, which I guess isn't known for flare resistance. Although, I used the same lens for tons of shots on other rolls and on the digital with no flare problems. This doesn't look like regular flare to me anyway. The security guys at Heathrow refused to hand-check my film, and insisted that they had done "extensive testing" proving that their x-ray machines wouldn't damage film. The problem occurs in different places on each frame.

What is this? Light leak? Improper development? Some crazy sort of flare?

It looks like fog on the lens, really, and both those pictures seem to have been taken in humid conditions. I don't think any x-ray machine would fog ISO 100 film.

Next time just to be sure shoot Velvia 50 instead

# ¿ Sep 23, 2008 02:39

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

MrMeowMeow posted:

Trying to win auctions on eBay makes me want to shoot myself in the foot. I was trying to get a canon 28mm f2.8 lens on the cheap, but kept getting outbid by a few cents at the last second and on another auction I hit the bid button a second late and it had all ended by that time. I also tried to find the canon lens in stores in Vancouver but I only found people selling them for $100, and a sketchy pawn shop selling a 28mm lens for $35 but it was of very questionable quality.

$100 for a Canon EF 28mm lens isn't exactly extortionate.

Heck it's not even that bad for an 28mm S.S.C. in FD mount.

MrMeowMeow posted:

Do you guys ever get in a rut where it's like you can't find anything interesting to take pictures of? What do you when this happens?

Buy a new lens.

# ¿ Sep 24, 2008 17:58

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

Kilonum posted:

I remember back in my freshman year of high school at the school newspaper we loaded our own 35mm rolls of Tri-X 400 from 100ft rolls.

We found you could actually get 100 frames into a can.

You know I tried doing this once and it was pretty cool until I realized that processing reels only hold about 40 frames.

# ¿ Sep 25, 2008 19:14

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

MrMeowMeow posted:

I had to look up what SSC meant, but is Super Spectra Coating really that great?

The S.S.C lenses were the "best" versions of Canon's non-L FD series, so they're the most sought-after today, and prices are correspondingly higher. I've never shot with any FD glass myself, so I'll leave it to someone else to comment on whether there's any appreciable image quality difference.

# ¿ Sep 26, 2008 07:32

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

killabyte posted:

So, what kind of scanner do you guys use? I am finding the scans I am getting out of my Epson V500 on 35mm suck. I recently shot some Provia 400X (great film btw) and some Ektachrome and the scans I am getting are awful. The detail looks terrible and the colors look off as well. How much better would a Coolscan V be? Can anyone post comparisons of a flatbed vs a dedicated film scanner? I haven't been able to find any good comparisons.

After trying to scan negatives with an Epson flatbed, I went ahead and spent the money on a Coolscan V, and the only thing I regret is not saving up for a Coolscan 9000. The scans from the V are infinitely superior in pretty much every way to the scans from my Epson 4490.

All I can say is buy the thing, you won't regret it.

# ¿ Sep 28, 2008 06:41

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

Pretty hot stuff from Fuji & Cosina right here

# ¿ Oct 4, 2008 06:09

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

Clayton Bigsby posted:

I wouldn't call it "compact" (though I guess it's all relative); it's still a sizable beast.

By the way, a good travel camera in medium format that's pretty modern is the GA645 series. Yeah, it's "only" 6x4.5 but the lenses are amazing.

The vertical format on those drives me nuts. I know I can just flip the camera sideways, but argh.

# ¿ Oct 4, 2008 17:40

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

killabyte posted:

I bought the goods to do that (washing soda is REALLY hard to find) but I haven't gotten around to doing it yet. Maybe I will try it tomorrow.

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.

# ¿ Oct 12, 2008 09:12

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

Celluloid posted:

Too bad noooooobody uses 2x3. I have a box sitting in my fridge for when I find someone who does!

I have a 2x3 Graphic :unsmith:

# ¿ Oct 19, 2008 18:04

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

gib posted:

I just came across one of these enlargers. This thing any good?

We had one in our university darkroom and it did an excellent job for years and years, until finally the abuse of being manhandled by bro'ed-out undergrads got to it and I had to replace it.

Excellent enlarger, though.

# ¿ Oct 21, 2008 03:08

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 12:28

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

dorkasaurus_rex posted:

Anyone got any tips on good portrait film/lens for a Pentax 6x7? Of the 1989 make I believe. I'm having some trouble exposing faces correctly with a 67mm:

Is the focus off? Am I not shooting fast enough (1/60th)? Was it scanned poorly? (I get it scanned at the same place I get it developed but they're really professional so it seems unlikely)

Help a filmbrother out

The exposure seems fine, but your focus isn't quite on, and the scan might be a bit magenta-ey (but that depends what kind of film you're shooting with)

# ¿ Oct 21, 2008 18:31

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > The Film Thread: "for sale: packfilm back. never used."

«‹›2 »