|
Very nice atomicthumbs.
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2013 09:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 07:59 |
|
|
365 Nog Hogger posted:No it isn't. The guy from Mad Men was a heart surgeon.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2013 05:04
|
|
|
Sludge tank what kind of ship is that? I recently visited an LPG tanker on its maiden voyage, it looked like a similar kind of setup to that one. Had to leave my camera with security on the dock as they allowed ZERO electronic equipment on deck including phones and cameras.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2013 07:41
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:Why wouldn't they want electronics on a ship? Well the one we were on was loaded with 15,000 tonnes of propane, so understandably they have to be very cautious about ignition sources.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2013 08:11
|
|
|
Yeah sorry for the derail but yes I work in the LPG industry (Australia's biggest distributor) so we were invited aboard for a tour of the ship and a bit of a party to celebrate the maiden voyage. It was pretty cool, I had not been on a ship that size before.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2013 08:29
|
|
|
What's the benefit of stainless steel? I do fine with the plastic ones, apart from one horror experience where my hands got too sweaty and it took half an hour to get the film onto the reel.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
Better make every shot count at nearly $10 a pop once you develop and scan.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
My recent ebay impulse buy arrived the other day: The surprising thing was how big it is, next to the Canonet QL17 it looks huge. The rangefinder is much bigger and brighter though so focusing it is really easy. The QL17 feels more solid too although the build quality of the Yashica is still nice. I put a quick test roll through it to see if it is working properly - everything seems great. It's a nice lens, pretty sharp and seems to have minimal distortion. Aperture priority keeps it simple and the metering seems pretty good. A few scans from the test roll:  aboriginal advancement by s d photo, on Flickr  untitled by s d photo, on Flickr  sales entrance by s d photo, on Flickr  printers by s d photo, on Flickr Fomapan 400 deved in Rodinal
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
It hardly seems worth it to do your own c-41 if it costs that much, especially factoring in buying the initial equipment. We can get dev-only here for $3-6 a roll and it must be cheaper in other places.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
I used a roll of 5-year expired Fuji Superia 400 that hadn't been stored in the fridge. Lots of weird colour casts but they weren't consistent across the whole roll - standard for being expired? Pedro at the beach, June 2014 by s d photo, on Flickr  Toodyay, June 2014 by s d photo, on Flickr It does add some retro charm to some of the photos. Expensive instagram filters.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
I shot a roll of 400tx at 3200 last night, unfortunately I scratched the poo poo out of the negatives because it just would not go on to the reel but I am really happy how the film look being pushed like that. Stand developed in Rodinal. I took some shots in near darkness at a party last night that look amazing but I pretty much ruined the negs  Here's the last shot that survived with minimal damage:
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
Nice rear end shot.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2014 06:09
|
|
|
I put a few rolls of Kodak Ultramax through my new Yashica Electro last weekend. I'm very happy with this camera - although lack of full manual control is annoying it is fun to walk around in happy snap mode. The look of this film is quite nice too but it just has no shadow detail at all, even though I am overexposing by 1 stop (rating it at 200 ISO) the shadows are just crushed.   
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2014 13:19
|
|
|
I've been lusting after an all-mechanical 70s/80s SLR for a while, after missing out on a few on ebay I just said gently caress it and clicked order on KEH for a black Om-1n w/ 50mm 1.8 and 135 mm 2.8. Hoping it was a good decision haha.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2014 09:47
|
|
|
Yeah take it to ebay asap, it should be against their terms to cancel after your winning bid. It's nlikely that someone with that much feedback would risk any negative consequences over one transaction.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
Or use them as cheap snapshot rolls by developing yourself in b&w chems.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
I just scanned some more Kodak Ultramax 400, this time I rated it at 200 and it turned out much better. All taken with the Yashica Electro. Cactus, Doubleview, June 2014 by s d photo, on Flickr Motel Room, Bridgetown, June 2014 by s d photo, on Flickr Bridgetown 3, June 2014 by s d photo, on Flickr Bridgetown Outskirts, June 2014 by s d photo, on Flickr Bridgetown Roadside, June 2014 by s d photo, on FlickrThe colours are slightly muted, which I like, and overall it's really good for a cheap 35mm film.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2014 15:15
|
|
|
My new love has arrived. All mechanical, all black with a beautifully big viewfinder. Thanks KEH. The body was rated BGN but it is really clean except for the brassing you can see on the corners and scratches on the bottom around the battery cover. The 135mm f2.8 was rated EX but looks and feels like it has literally never been used.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 08:42
|
|
|
The body was $90 but only because I wanted a black one, regular chrome models are around $40-50. The 50mm was $30, the 135mm was $120. So if you want to get one you could get a body and fifty for under $100 bucks, that's basically free in photography terms. They are a sexy little camera and don't need batteries unless you want to use the light meter... if you do depend on the meter a lot maybe don't get one because it takes the old mercury batteries and will actually be a few stops out if you use a zinc-air as a replacement. Apparently the Wein cells work perfectly.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2014 11:29
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:Are these lab scans or your own? I always find I like the look and feel of everyone else's cheapo film processing more than my own. I dunno if it's just a bias I have against my own work. Haha I know what you mean, I think it's because when you scan it yourself you probably correct the colours more accurately so it loses some of that hipster "film look".
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
You are underestimating the sexiness of getting an OM in black though.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 08:19
|
|
|
There is definitely a market for that stuff, I dont really get it though. I am loving the OM-1. Here are a few shots from a roll of expired Tmax 400 I shot yesterday.  Doubleview, July 2014 by s d photo, on Flickr Caravan, Perth, July 2014 by s d photo, on FlickrHas anyone ever done the experiment of limiting themselves to one type of film and one all-manual camera/lens combo for a few months? I'd like to give it a go when my bulk order of Tri-X arrives, anyone else interested in making it a challenge? While it could get boring being limited to black and white it would be good practice. Lately I have noticed that so many of my black and white shots don't quite convey what I was seeing because the detail or scene was too dependent on colour rather than just the light and composition.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
Interesting, I guess that is part of why you have such a consistent look.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2014 07:13
|
|
|
TheJeffers posted:I choose lenses, films, and formats based on my interpretive goals. If color is important to a composition, then I'll use color film. If it isn't, or if the scene lends itself especially well to black-and-white, I'll use black-and-white. I apply the same thought process with square versus rectangular formats and wide versus long lenses. If I limit myself in any of those categories, I limit what I'll shoot, because it's rare that I set up a shot by considering what gear I have first. I like to ask what the scene needs and work back to the film plane from there. What I am talking about is not a life-long commitment but a short term exercise to improve as a photographer.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
TheJeffers posted:I understand this. I'm questioning the value of the exercise. It sounds like you should just go take a bunch of digital shots in color and then do B&W conversions to see how each scene looks without it. As it stands, you're proposing to go through a lot of film and chemistry without solving the underlying problem, which has nothing to do with gear. Wtf are you even talking about. Thanks for contributing I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
Yeah exactly, I think I will do it for a month then see how it goes from there. Set a goal to shoot X rolls per week (probably no more than 5, I do have a full-time job) of Tri-X on the OM1 with 50mm lens. With the caveat that if I see something amazing that has to be done in colour then I can use my MF camera with Portra. Which is limiting in itself because it's too bulky to be carried around all the time.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
In sad news the OM1n is going back to KEH because the meter doesn't work and it has light leaks... now I have to wait for the replacement. On the other hand, 50 rolls of Tri-X arrived safe and sound and I am loving this film so far. Instead of doing some kind of formal challenge the plan is just to use it as my go-to film for the next 5-6 months on either the Ricoh or (replacement) Olympus with a 50mm lens. A bit of colour here and there won't hurt though... Some Tri-x:      
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2014 15:36
|
|
|
Here's a comparison - 35mm film, cheapo Kodak Ultramax:  Nearly exactly the same scene on medium format Portra: 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 11:22
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:
Yeah but if you get something like the EOS 33/Elan 7 whatever for $30 that is practically free. I will be picking up an EOS 3 at some stage though...
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2014 13:35
|
|
I'd strongly advise against buying a cheaper EOS film model 
)
|
Aw man I'm going to get into some double exposures over this weekend, those last few have been really cool.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
yeah nice portra(it) bra
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2014 07:00
|
|
|
Tri-x medium format: Tri-x 35mm: 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:HP5+ small format: Nice
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
Yep get an Eos 3 or 1n, all your EF lenses will work but not EFS obviously.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2014 12:26
|
|
|
Yeah get a developing tank with reels ($30 second-hand) some Rodinal R09 One Shot ($15) and fixer ($15?). The Rodinal and fixer will last for ages.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2014 10:49
|
|
|
Love me some Ultramax. Looks like you got pretty good detail in the shadows though, how did you meter it?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
Yeah that's what it looks like when you crease the film loading it onto the reel.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
There's a typo in your watermark
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
My changing bag is a fkn nightmare when it is humid and/or hot, I sweat so much and the film will not go onto the reel. Next time I will try putting a box in there (beer carton?) to create a bit more space. Or do I need to just get one of those changing tents? Building a proper darkroom is not an option.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 07:59 |
|
|
Sludge Tank posted:I tried the box-in-a-bag thing for A while and found that the box "leaks" heaps of cardboard dust/particles. if you do this maybe try cutting down a plastic box rather than a cardboard one? I'm super glad I got the tent though. Makes life 1000x easier. I just tried it with a cardboard box, wow, massive difference, that was so much easier. I can see how the particles could be a problem but more so with sheet film? With film you are washing them anyway. Will see how this roll turns out anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2014 06:01
|
|