|
 New load of film  Tri-X used to be my black and white film stock of choice. But i'm gonna try and switch to Fomapan 400, because a roll of 135 format costs me €4,50 while Tri-X is €13 these days and often out of stock. Also Velvia. Ordered Provia, got Velvia cause they were out of Provia. There's a first time for everything! I've used the Fomapan 400 only once before in medium format, i really wonder what it looks like in 35mm.
|
#
¿
May 28, 2022 22:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 19:16 |
|
|
 This picture was taken in 2018. Sigh. Prices in euro of course. This drug store also rebranded actual Kodak Ektar as their own brand for stupidly low prices. Thanks for the advice re: fomapan 400 btw. Good to know to expose it at 200 instead of 400. I prefer overexposing negative films rather than underexposing. LimaBiker fucked around with this message at 18:18 on May 30, 2022 |
|
#
¿
May 30, 2022 18:15
|
|
|
jiffypop45 posted:Fuji stopped making film. Seriously? I've been buying superia and velvia pretty recently. I knowna bunch were discontinued in the last 5 years but afaik they're still in business
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2022 16:06
|
|
|
Ethics_Gradient posted:I've got some 50 year old Tri-X in 4x5 I'm gonna try and shoot in a month or two when I get back from my trip. I was thinking I'd do a test sheet the same way as I do plates - move the darkslide holder out in 5 steps, increasing the exposure for each one. I have some experience with Tri X from the 1980s (so 40 year old) as bulk 35mm. I exposed it at 100 iso and stand developed in rodinal 1:100. The base fog and maximum density were pretty high, you'd need a scanner that can handle the high density if you go for 100. If it's 50 years old, i wouldn't go for any slower than 100 iso. I felt like 100 is already a bit on the overexposed side, but perhaps 100 with better development would be a better idea.   You can see vague variations in brightness. Somehow that's related to the perforation, as if there was a vertical movement of developer. A lot of noise is sensor noise of the bad scanner (read: camera) i had. One of those cheap drug store scanners wouldn't poke through the dense highlights, i needed my camera and a light box to 'burn' through it. A good modern scanner might do it properly, but still the density was super high. I once got the advice to add a chemical to the developer that reduces base fog, maybe a bromide thingie? Idk anymore. If you have a lot of those sheets it definitely is worth it to see how you can get the best results because although base fog is high, you can still get usable results out of old Tri X LimaBiker fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Jul 5, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2022 20:01
|
|
|
You would need to replace it with a LDR/potentiometer/battery setup. It's not easy to replace. I am not aware of any modern replacements for the selenium cells. You could try and see what happens if you use those little solar panels like you see in dual power calculators. No idea how to calibrate, how good their response is etc etc.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2022 21:25
|
|
|
What's special about Velvia 100? It's standard E6 process right? As far as i know. CeWe (Germany) and Fujifilm (The Netherlands) still develop it. Velvia 100 is not available for sale anymore, though. CeWe development is around 6 euro, Fujifilm via the Hema department store chain is 3,75. Fuji's "hema" development is of decent quality, always got great colors out of it, but there's a significant chance of long straight scratches. Almost all dutch photography shops send their E6 stuff to Fujifilm Steenbergen. Odoyle posted:The prompt for all this personal film development revival is that I uncovered three daylight bulk loaders at the bottom of a box last weekend. I picked em up in DC at least 15 years ago and never touched them. They still have film loaded. Labeled "Tri-X," "Plux-X," and "Day." The test TX strip I did didn't seem fogged much but again I think my developer was bad. When I get fresh chemistry I'll test again and see what this daylight balanced color film is. I'm guessing some kind of Ektachrome according to the old tape labels visible under other tape layers on the other bulk loaders. I've shot 10 year expired, non-cold stored 400 iso slide film and it came out somewhat flat with low density in the blacks. I have the slides somewhere, but haven't yet scanned them. If you got a lot of it, it's worth experimenting with your development to dial it in. I also tried to get 40 year expired Agfachrome E6 developed at the dev plant, but they did not believe it was e6 (it really was!) and refused to develop. E4 in E6 chemistry ruins the chemistry because the emulsion requires hardener. I also have a daylight bulk loader with about 30 year old Tri-X (edge marking says kodak safety film 5063) in it. I shot it at 200, develop Rodinal 1:50 with a time of 13:30 at 19-20 degrees C. The base fog is intense. It's usable, but only if your scanner (or printing setup) can punch right through the fog.   'Scanned' by taking a picture of it on a light box. This one was pretty overexposed afaik but i haven't found this particular negative strip. Didn't get around yet to scanning these. You can see that there are some artefacts from the sprocket holes, idk what caused those. LimaBiker fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Mar 3, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2023 16:24
|
|
|
Putting this in its own post because it's such different a subject. About 5 years ago i was involved with a squat called (translated) The Binoculars. I offered to get them a nice graphical-looking logo for use on zines and stuff. I bought two rolls of Adox CMS20 film. 20 iso film that's actually meant for use as microfiche film, but spooled up on 135 format rolls. Because i didn't need 36 pictures of monochrome binoculars i also took a few shots elsewhere and some flash shots during a party at the squat, and then snipped the film in half, shoved it into a black film canister to develop 'soon' (didn't want to gently caress up the whole roll of film if my dev time and exposure were off) and saved the rest of the film in the fridge. Life was turbulent, the squat got evicted quite soon after taking the pictures, and i essentially forgot about the exposed film sitting in the canister for a long time. Yesterday i finally developed the pictures.      I'm very happy with how they came out. I expected even harder contrast. Development 11 minutes in Rodinal 1:50. Agitation 1 min continuously, then 1 inversion per minute. Exposed at box speed. Lens used: Auto Rikenon 55mm/1:1.4 Even at 100% crop there's just not a trace of grain visible. To get 'real' grey scales, Adox sells a developer specifically meant for this type of film. But other people use Rodinal 1:100 or 1:200 semi stand. Never tried that, probably won't bother with that because i really dig the look. LimaBiker fucked around with this message at 16:49 on Mar 3, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2023 16:37
|
|
|
Oooooof.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2023 10:54
|
|
|
I use a Plustek Opticfilm 8200i for 35mm, and i'm very happy with it. Handles dense negatives well. Doesn't manage its claimed 7200dpi resolution, the difference between 3600 and 7200 is small. So far i've been camera-scanning 120 format pictures because the Plustek doesn't handle those. I've tried two different flatbed scanners (consumer level) but i wasn't too happy with those. Very clunky, film not exactly straight in the holder, bad dynamic range etc etc. Never tried the more professional oriented >200 euro scanners.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2023 12:32
|
|
|
36 per hour is possible, but only barely, if you're scanning at 3600dpi. It is not fast, things get even slower if you use the (pretty good) infrared dust/scratch remover, and dreadfully slow if you do the multiple exposure thing. I do think it's worth archiving everything at the highest possible quality, which realistically is 3600dpi even though it has a 7200 setting. I haven't yet found much benefit in the multiple exposure, up to the point of wondering if it's doing anything at all. If you do some basic manual color correction per frame, and occasionally have to use the infrared or software dust reduction, an average of 5 minutes per frame is a good estimate. Just scanning to a 16 bit per color RAW file is a lot quicker of course, and allows you to batch edit the whole strip in Lightroom or whatever. I don't mind the fairly slow speed. I just do what i normally do on an evening of browsing, while the scanner is quietly humming away, occasionally prompting me to do a few adjustments to a picture and advancing the film holder a click. One important benefit of the Plustek is that it's really not dust sensitive. It's been sitting without a cover in my dad's bedroom for a month with dust covering the outside, but there's not a trace of dust ingress into the optics of the scanner.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2023 18:26
|
|
|
  Olympus Trip Kodak Tri-X 400 (30 years past expiration date, dev'd in Rodinal)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2023 23:36
|
|
|
If you smoke film you'll probably end up with cancer and/or argyria, and a very nasty taste in your mouth. If you smoke celluloid film, you'll have an exploding cigar like in the cartoons. There is something about the Trip's pictures in general (not just on those expired film pics) that make me go 'eh, it's sharp but meh'. It never was really my thing. But even so, i used it a lot. The auto exposure works fine and in a predictable way. The scale focus never failed me. It's also sturdy. Dropped it right onto the lens ring once, no damage apart from the dented ring. Survived a couple of mosh pits. It served me very well for about 5 years. Someone else is probably very happy with it now Before the Trip was my main 'take everywhere' camera, i had a Ricoh 500g. I'd say it's every bit as good but a bit more lively. Also manual control over everything if you want, and a built in range finder. Got rid of it because of a weird shutter malfunction causing perfectly straight white bands on the left side of the shot. Almost as if you get light through the opening of a roll of film, but sharper, and also not in every frame. After the Trip, i got a Mju-2. It is every bit as good as its reputation suggests. SLR sharpness in an extremely small form factor. However, i'm getting rid of it. Sad times, i love the lens, but i just can not deal with the 'auto everything' of that camera. Point, shoot, pray that the autofocus actually focused on what you had in mind. Also don't forget to turn the flash off everytime you take the camera out, even if it's bright outside it might just choose to flash if you don't force it off. With the money of the sale of the Mju, i'll probably buy a nice CLA'd Ricoh 500g again, and have some cash to spare to spend on an enlarger.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2023 10:48
|
|
|
Mine has been working fine for a couple years now, but i have to admit that i've only shot a handful of rolls with it in that time. I've now put it for sale for an asking price of €175, let's see if someone bites. I got it at a flea market for a flea market price so i don't mind not getting the full 'ebay listing price' for it. Image quality wise it's definitely worth 100 bucks. but i just can't stand the 'Let me think for you' system behind it.   Two pics i took with the Mju on Agfa CT Precisa slide film.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2023 15:35
|
|
|
I live in The Netherlands. Most 2nd hand stuff is a bit cheaper here. I could export it, the customs stuff is no big deal, but i'd rather give someone who doesn't have €350 to spend on a camera a chance to get one.  Porst TTL with Auto Rikenon 55mm f/1.4 lens. That lens is so drat good, and still pretty cheap. Film: RPX400. Didn't write down what developer. Either PC-TEA or Rodinal. I used PC-TEA once and i loved it, but i didn't develop enough film to keep it without expiring. LimaBiker fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Mar 12, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2023 19:22
|
|
|
The Mju was sold today for 150 bucks. New owner very happy. Going to the shops to grab some dark room lights and chemistry tomorrow and spend a not-insignificant part of the money i made again lol
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2023 20:28
|
|
|
What kind of film did you get? I can give you some specific advise if you want it. Some films need to be treated in a slightly non-obvious way.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2023 23:29
|
|
|
HP5 is good stuff to start with. It can handle a LOT of abuse. Absolutely do one roll first before shooting the rest, though. Every black and white film has to be developed for a different time. So when you send it to a development place where all black and white stuff goes through the same machine, you might end up with unexpected results. I would recommend to 'meter for the shadows' - point your camera at a darker part of the scene while taking the light meter reading - because in general, it's easier to correct for overexposure than to correct for underdevelopment when scanning or printing. In general, negative film is super resilient to overexposure but less so to underexposure. If you bring it to a specialized photo lab that does development in house, ask them if they tailor the development time to the film you send to them. If they do, you don't have to correct for anything. If after a few rolls you decide to develop yourself, you'll have to read up on how sensitive your film is when using a specific developer. For instance, Rodinal will reduce the true speed of HP5 to 320 or 250 iso. You can overdevelop (push) a bit to compensate, but you'll always have some loss of shadow detail if you expose it for 400 iso. But that small difference is not really that big of a deal. I can recommend home developing because it's like 1 euro per roll of film in dev cost and you can scan/print it the same day. You can also develop half a roll if you're experimenting with exposure and development. Side note: i do not recommend Rodinal for hp5. I recommend it for many films, but not hp5. LimaBiker fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Mar 19, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2023 00:12
|
|
|
True. But the difference might not be huge. Grab a digital camera and set it up according to the light meter of the analog camera (sensitivity, shutter, aperture). See if the resulting picture is to your liking. Yes? Use a cheap normal battery. No? Get one of the more expensive 1,35v ones, or modify with a germanium/schottky diode to eat away 0,2v. Disagree with the sunny 16 thing if you're shooting with a 'proper' camera with coupled light meter simply because those are so easy to use that the alternative (estimating) is more work. Sunny 16 is imho a good alternative to separate light meters. Then again, it's easy enough to carry a simple meter, do one reading, add a stop when a cloud moves in front of the sun, subtract one when the sun comes back, and get the meter out again if you go to a completely different light situation. Try everything. I found great joy in walking around with box cameras that don't have any exposure settings whatsoever, except the film you're taking with you. LimaBiker fucked around with this message at 12:41 on Mar 19, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2023 10:01
|
|
|
frogbs posted:Oh...no. I hope most labs don't use the same dev time for different films? In my experience that's why B&W development usually costs more. Has anyone worked for a lab, do they really process stuff in bulk? As far as i'm aware, the Fujifilm and CeWe labs - the really large scale ones that do the development work for individual photo shops, department stores and drug stores - do bulk everything, and many photo shops send their stuff to those development plants. It is reflected in the price. E6 slide and black and white are both 3,95 euro AFAIK when using the Hema department store development service. I have only used the black and white dev service very rarely. I think i sent fomapan 400 once to Fujifilm. It came out too thin, but that might have something to do with Fomapan being not really 400 anyway. Unless Hema uses the photo dev service as a loss leader with serious loss, i don't think Fujifilm tailors it to each film - at least not on the consumer grade photo service. No idea if they run different quality lines for different retailers. If you feel like trying to find it out, you can search for "fujifilm steenbergen". Individual shops that offer push/pull processing very likely tailor development to your film because their workflow already offers the possibility to vary development time. LimaBiker fucked around with this message at 21:53 on Mar 19, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2023 21:49
|
|
|
QuasiQuack posted:I've also dipped my toes into film photography recently and found it be a ton of fun, shooting with an Olympus 35RC. Loading and advancing the film, adjusting dials, firing the shutter, it's all so incredibly satisfying. Light leak of some sort. Looks like something in your camera, not a processing issue. Are the light seals around the film door still good?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2023 17:22
|
|
|
Often the light seals are made from foam. The foam always deteriorates and starts to crumble. If you rub it and it comes off, it's bad. You can buy new light seal sets on ebay etc or make it from thin felt yourself.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2023 23:35
|
|
|
A Trip is good, but it's never been my favorite. The pictures i took with it, often came out a bit lifeless and drab. A Ricoh 500g is much better in my opinion, because it offers more manual control (in addition to automatic) as well as a rangefinder.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2023 19:10
|
|
|
 My first 5 darkroom prints in about 8 years time. They're made on Ilford MGIV paper, at least 20 years old, so not terribly contrasty - but usable nonetheless.  Camera for the high voltage line: Canon Dial 35, Bergger BRF400 in Rodinal. The others are made with a Ricoh Singlex TLS with 50mm/f1.4 auto rikenon lens and are RPX400 in Rodinal.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2023 19:19
|
|
|
At first glance, those scraps of wood looked like some kind of usually brightly colored 90s artwork to me. Like it! A long time ago, i took a bunch of pictures on Adox CMS20 microfilm in standard 35mm format. I just printed a few of the pics in the darkroom   Although most people who use this film try to reduce the contrast to get good grey tone separation, i really like the black and white effect it gives when printed. Taking pictures of semi-glossy paper is pretty hard. I'll repost these when they're completely dry and i can handle them a bit easier.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2023 20:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 19:16 |
|
|
The only way to be sure is to do a white balance and a color card, set your processing to what it should be based on the card, and then never touch the color settings (whether it's the ones on your RA-4 printing setup or your scanner) again. But it's likely that it won't give you the kind of pictures you want. Correct and nice aren't always the same. The green cast might be 'in' your film, but that's a thing that regardless whether you scan or print, you'll have to correct for. RA-4 processing involves a LOT of loving around with either a color meter system, or with transparent filters that make a print with a color cast look neutral, and then have 'Add 20% extra yellow' or 'add 50% blue' or whatever on the enlarger's color filter system.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2023 18:21
|
|