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

I too would like to hear this trick.

dorkasaurus_rex posted:

P.S. Does anyone know a good place in or near NY to get 35mm Kodachrome developed?

The only place in the world still doing Kodachrome is Dwayne's Photo in Kansas.

# ¿ Oct 21, 2008 20:07

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 9, 2024 07:23

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

I've never paid a whole lot of attention to the temperature using HC110 and so far no problems.

It's true that a lot of my negatives end up with pictures of lost astronaut ghosts on them but according to the bottle that's normal.

# ¿ Oct 23, 2008 17:45

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

Jahoodie posted:

No. The mechanics in an SLR are the mirror and the shutter. The mirror reflects the light from the lens up to the viewfinder, and slaps out of the way when you take a picture. The shutter is still there to cover the film/sensor from exposure, and only opens for the fraction of a second it takes to expose the picture.

And then you get into stuff like Hasselblads where there's a leaf shutter in the lens that's open and then closes and then opens and then closes again and the light baffle flips open with the mirror and bwooahhh.

# ¿ Oct 27, 2008 04:41

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

e: i am smart

edit for content: Velvia 100f is pretty swell.

# ¿ Oct 30, 2008 23:07

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

I developed some film in that instant coffee developer yesterday:

The film comes out very heavily stained, but the end result is not unpleasant. The pictures are very grainy, which I suspect has something to do both with the film (Neopan 1600 @ISO 800) and the fact that the scanner really has to work to pull an image off the darker base.

Next time I'll try it with some vitamin C, which apparently helps clear the film a bit.

# ¿ Nov 12, 2008 19:10

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

dorkasaurus_rex posted:

Hey guys. Remember how I had that gorgeous 6x7 I was in love with? Bad news. The little tabs you'd use to unwind and extract the film broke. I still have them, but I don't think it'd very easy to re-attach them. I think I might just be buying an entirely new Pentax 6x7, since this one is falling apart, but the real problem is that there's a spool of film stuck in there I really want to get developed b I simply can't get it out without the spools in place!!

Any sorts of information on repairing it or getting the film out (120) would be greatly appreciated!!

If the film is already shot, it should already be on the takeup spool- no? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the problem.

Either way, if you can get the door open, you can pull the film out in a changing bag and finish off the winding by hand.

# ¿ Nov 13, 2008 20:40

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

They still make Velvia 50, though, I just ordered some in from Fuji the other day.

# ¿ Nov 15, 2008 09:39

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

ryangs posted:

I am a huge fan of Efke.

http://flickr.com/search/?q=efke&w=81882815%40N00

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/efke.php

You'll probably never find it in a photo store, so you'll have to order it from Freestyle. While you're waiting for it to arrive, pick up some HP5+. It's another old-school film, very much like Tri-X 400.

Got some in my store :cool:

It is pretty sweet, the ISO 25 variety is essentially grainless... plus it got me into using water as a stop bath, which is a good idea all around.

# ¿ Nov 17, 2008 01:08

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

Celluloid posted:

I just got back my Kodachrome and I can't really say I'm happy with the results.
One roll came back VERY magenta. It's new film, kept in the fridge. I shot it outside.
The other roll came back with a note "we recieved your film damaged".... A piece of masking tape was on the film. The space under the tape was not developed, so I assume it was there before the film went into the processor. It was mid-roll and spanned a frame and a half with no showing of a splice. So wtf?

Has anyone else had experiences with Kodachrome recently? I spend a large part of my job scanning old Kodachrome and it's all WONDERFUL... That's why I started shooting it. But, knowing only Dwayne's does it, if this is what I'm to expect out of modern service I think I'll pass.

I've never had anything but great results from Dwayne's- but I can't really explain what happened to your film :confused:

# ¿ Nov 17, 2008 05:53

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

Mello Clello posted:

My first proper experiences with medium format:

I took my dad's old Lubitel 2 to a couple of student protests earlier this year. It's rugged as poo poo, and I even dropped it on concrete a few times, not even any superficial damage. I just got my first roll of Ilford 100 back.

This is pretty cool.

Clayton Bigsby posted:

Depends on the model. Canonet QL17 GIII for instance is shutter priority.

I might be crazy, but I'm pretty sure you can set both the aperture and the shutter speed on a QL17.

# ¿ Nov 19, 2008 06:37

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

ryangs posted:

What developer do you use with Efke? I always used D-76 1:1 (for everything) at school and have never experimented with anything else, but now that I need to buy my own chemicals, it's time.

I use HC110, for the same reason killabyte uses Rodinal: it's a lot easier to mix the liquid concentrate on a per-film basis than it is to keep 4 gallons of XTol or D76 in storage. It's also pretty flexible in terms of dilution if you need some extra control.

# ¿ Nov 20, 2008 06:37

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

pwn posted:

For people who have bought bodies from keh.com: What's the most reasonable grade you would personally buy? The difference between BGN and LN is quite a lot, as far as price is concerned, so hopefully someone can shed light on this.

Basically BGN is just fine- you'll just receive a camera that looks like someone has used it.

# ¿ Nov 21, 2008 06:33

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

pwn posted:

So to anyone who's used and handled an F4... is the AF really that slow, that it would be frustrating, or is it a non-factor? Like I said, I don't shoot film like the F4 was originally made to, which is to say, fast and furious shooting for journalism. Two of my best photos I've ever shot were using a friend's old beater Pentax ZX-50, with a lens that you could hear dirt grinding when you zoomed, and the AF was so horrible and jerky that it was simply easier to manually focus, and which has finally seemed to die completely in the last couple weeks, so it doesn't really matter what camera one uses. That said, the F4 is a drat fine camera and it's tempting at the current prices.

Just assure me that the AF isn't a dealbreaker so I can buy this beautiful bastard guilt-free.

The F4 gets such a bad rap and I have no idea why; I love the way it handles and the autofocus is just fine.

Buy it and go nuts, it's my favourite Nikon AF camera and there's no reason it shouldn't be yours.

# ¿ Nov 24, 2008 00:48

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

Celluloid posted:

Now, if only I can get us in on that "suprise" Polaroid shipment...

Explain please.

johnasavoia posted:

But you could go in an entirely different direction than this, I despise the cult of lomography, but you can still use those cameras to great results, provided you dont just do what you described.

The usual justifications of "Lomography" can be pretty dumb, and I like the idea of exploring why the pictures look like they do- there's so much wrong with, say, a Diana photo that you could spend a semester learning about photography just by going over the vignetting, aberration, lens distortion, leaks, etc. And once you understand all that, you're better equipped to use any camera to the best of its abilities- even a DIana.

On the other hand, I expect that someone signing up for a "Lomography" class isn't going to care. Life is cruel

# ¿ Nov 24, 2008 04:29

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

Gnomad posted:

Given that film equipment in general has tanked value wise, can anyone give me a fair to unfair starting price on this? I'm not even sure what a Zone 6 enlarger is, and looking it up has given me the impression that the Zone 6 part is the light source that attached to a enlarger. Any feedback appreicated.

Well, first, figure out which 120 carrier comes with it; there are several formats out there. And see if the seller cal give you a model number, because that'll help determine the price.

If it's a standard 35mm/medium-format enlarger, $400-$450 is pretty much the most he could sell it for, depending on what your local market's like. He bought it fairly recently, and new enlargers still cost into the thousands, so he may be reluctant to part with it if you make him too low an offer.

A large-format enlarger can go for more, but without knowing the model it's hard to say.

From what we know, and the fact that it comes with pretty much everything, $400 might be a good starting point.

# ¿ Nov 25, 2008 05:53

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

MMD3 posted:

Does anybody have any experience with Voigtlander rangefinders? I get the impression they're basically just a poor man's Leica. True?

The Voigtlander rangefinders are pretty sweet. They're not built to the same standard as a Leica, but they're very good quality machines, and the lenses are great. I promised myself I wouldn't baby my R3M, and it's been nothing but reliable in the years I've owned it (samples here).

dorkasaurus_rex posted:

Get the T70 instead if you can find it. Basically the same camera just with more nifty tech stuff (like autoexposure etc)

Ugh the T70 is gross :barf:

I'd take an AE-1 or an A-1 any day over one of those... or at least a T90.

# ¿ Dec 11, 2008 19:51

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

MMD3 posted:

I don't suppose you know anyone in Portland that I could rent/borrow a rangefinder from? I just want to get my hands on one to try them out at a concert and see how well I can determine wide aperture focusing in the low-light conditions of a music venue.

You can borrow mine if you don't mind driving 8 hours north and taking a boat.

# ¿ Dec 12, 2008 02:37

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

jollygrinch posted:

Would the pressure plate on a Rolleiflex being just slightly out of position cause focus issues? I had a whole roll out of focus, all of them increasingly so toward the bottom of each frame. It wasn't all the way over into the other position, just slightly off which held it back a little. I hope. I don't have any other ideas.

Also, FP4+ is pretty nice stuff. I'd probably have more to say if I weren't so distracted by the focus crap.

Check the pressure plate, because it does look like the focus varies unevenly over the image. Did it just start doing this recently?

If this is your first roll with the camera, check that the previous owner (or shop) hasn't taken the lens apart to clean it and mistakenly reassembled it slightly crooked. I had something similar (though much more extreme) happen with a Summicron I'd reassembled with a reversed rear element.

dorkasaurus_rex posted:

What's so gross about it?

The grey-paint-over-beige-plastic construction ensures that it will get uglier with wear, and the controls are needlessly obtuse since they hadn't quite figured out how to build a pushbutton interface yet.

# ¿ Dec 16, 2008 07:52

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

killabyte posted:

I just got a few rolls of Ektar 100 from Freestyle. Has anyone else tried it yet?

Nope, but we have an order pending from them so I may just add that on.

Now let's see them bring back Ektar 25 :monar:

# ¿ Dec 17, 2008 05:38

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

Kaluza-Klein posted:

Ah no, you are right. There is a focus adjustment, but you can't see it.

I'm sorry to possibly repeat a question here, but is there seriously no groundglass at all in those things?

# ¿ Dec 27, 2008 13:59

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

Kaluza-Klein posted:

Rotating the viewfinder lens (to focus) also rotates the "taking" lens. But what I was really trying to say is that the image in the view finder does not change as you adjust focus. So whether you are focused on 0.8m or infinity (this cameras limits) the viewfinder image looks exactly the same.

It's pretty weird that they bothered to couple the lenses if you can't see the focus, but I guess it's more ironic that way?

Still a pretty cool looking camera.

# ¿ Dec 28, 2008 05:20

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 9, 2024 07:23

Luxmore: Jun 5, 2001

pwn posted:

I'm looking on Keh.com for a nice lil' used F4 and I see a lot of them are denoted "LEADER OUT MODIFIED." What does this mean and functionally what will it mean for me? Because there's this BGN F4e that is just singing out to me, but I just don't know what the implications of this leader out mod business are.

Automatic rewind on the F4 pulls the leader into the film cartridge by default, but you could have Nikon modify the camera to leave the film leader out, so you could more easily rewind mid-roll and then reload.

# ¿ Jan 12, 2009 21:23

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

«‹›2 »