|
I'm trying to compile all the necessary pieces and parts to develop my own 120 negatives and haven't seen this answered anywhere - can I use ANY kind of light while loading my film rolls onto their spools? Like a red light? It probably shouldn't matter, I just don't know how delicate I have to be loading film.
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2008 15:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 11:03 |
|
|
twovansnotone posted:I don't have an answer to your question, but I may have some equipment you could use. I'll have to look for it, but I'm pretty sure I have a stainless steel developing tank and reel for 120 film. Today only deal! Free, plus s/h! (s/h = $99.95) I was set to pay $21.95 for a plastic developing tank. Is this a daylight tank with a 120 reels? If so I'd be more than willing to buy used. Cannister posted:Yeah I'm not a huge fan of the Holga look at this point. TLR is what I meant by Medium format, I'm gonna read up on Wikipedia on that but is there anything good worth knowing as a consumer? Maybe a link to some into to TLR cameras & getting film processed and developed? Yashica TLR's seem to be decent values on eBay. You can usually get a Yashica A for around $50 or a fancier model for $100 or more. I'm biased because that's the first model I used, but they're built like tanks and stupid easy to use. If you're going to try filter adapters or even a lens hood (kind of necessary with TLR setups) then you need a Yashica C or better I believe. They use the same lens threads as Rollei's.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2008 17:28
|
|
|
Luxmore posted:Looks good to me, Now you just have to hope that "the camera's owner" was right about the working condition I've misplaced my old battery powered light meter and picked up a 40 year old Sekonic for $10 off eBay. Haven't had a chance to test her out yet, but the selenium cell is at least responding to light so I'm hoping. Otherwise it'll be sunny-16 for me. Fortunately I don't use my Yashica for anything but outdoor photography.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2008 19:14
|
|
|
twovansnotone posted:Krispy, Here's what I have: Looking at my shopping list, I think I'm just going to get the new container. In my youth I'd be all over spare parts, but I'm not sure what kind of luck I'm going to have finding a cover and if it's online there will be shipping charges at least equal to the item cost. Plus I need $50 in stuff for Adorama to ship free and I'm only at $44 even with the developing tank. Thanks for the offer though. 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. 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. I had a Minolta knock off of the Minox that I lost (drat thing was too small). It was never very practical, but I loved the push pull film advance. I think it took 16mm film. Strangely enough the best discrete camera I've ever used was the TLR. It looks so odd that people don't seem to recognize it for a camera. Plus the top down viewfinder makes it easy to compose a picture on the sly.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2008 01:30
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:What developers are you looking at? Most stuff comes in a concentrate form. I was looking at this, plus fixers and wetting agents: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00009R6AO/ref=ord_cart_shr%5Fencoding=UTF8&m=A17MC6HOH9AVE6&v=glance I guess it does say concentrate on the bottle. I've heard it's about a buck a roll in processing fluids, so that'd make sense if I bought $15 in fluids I'd squeeze a little over a dozen rolls out of it. friendship waffle posted:yeah, I've found this to be the case as well. You can just sit in a corner and do street photography and since your head is not only looking down, but tracking people's movements in the wrong direction, most people don't ever think you're taking photos. The shutter is also pretty quiet. Yeah, the shutter's whisper quiet. I had always heard rangefinders were great for that as well. And the Minolta A rangefinder I picked up does have a very quiet shutter. Unfortunately the film advance sounds like I'm racking a shell into a shotgun. So much for discrete. Krispy Wafer fucked around with this message at 03:00 on Jun 3, 2008 |
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2008 02:57
|
|
|
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? I'm planning on just buying a new scanner with a film insert. Sucks, since I already have 3 scanners as it is, but none can do film. Still, for the upfront cost of $200 I'll have a new scanner and all the equipment necessary to develop negatives. And my wife's very happy I won't be turning our bedroom closet into a darkroom.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2008 14:06
|
|
|
Caddrel posted:Which model is it that's $200? My friend mentioned looking for one but said they were prohibitively expensive so he would be interested. They can be horribly expensive and someone in this thread may come out and say my cost cutting ideas are going to end in tears, but this is the scanner I'm looking at: http://tinyurl.com/478kn6 The max resolution is better than my current 5 year old scanner which I've been using to scan old prints. I'm hoping this will scan my negatives without too much degradation of quality. Obviously it can't beat a drum scanner, but I don't know if I even need that kind of quality. Especially if I'm going to be shooting mostly black and white. EDIT: fixed URL VVVV - I'd love a dedicated film scanner and found a $200 35mm one, but I can't afford the prices they're asking for 120 negatives. If there's a shot I really want a high quality print of I'll have that professionally processed. Krispy Wafer fucked around with this message at 14:31 on Jun 4, 2008 |
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2008 14:21
|
|
|
friendship waffle posted:What about using a flatbed scanner for 35mm slides or negatives? If you need to scan slides for using on the web, then you can use a flatbed, but most flatbed scanners do not have a user-controlled focusing system. The scanner most see through the glass (there is no glass in front of your slide on a dedicated 35mm slide scanner). The actual slide is a few mm higher than the glass plate due to the cardboard or plastic mount. So your slide may not be as crisply in focus as a slide in a slide scanner (where you can focus). Is there a reason why you can't put the negative directly on the glass? That would resolve the millimeter difference in focal points. Of course it probably does something else horribly wrong otherwise that'd be the defacto way to scan negatives.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2008 16:30
|
|
|
brad industry posted:I have the Better Scanning film holder that's adjustable. It makes a big difference. I don't really shoot much film anymore anyways but it's good enough for making decent sized prints, if I need anything super high quality I just have it drum scanned. What are the issues with 35mm scanning? Is the film just too small for good detail? Does it do 120 okay? And how much of a difference do the Better Scanning inserts make? That's a pretty high premium to pay for a negative holder (60 bucks!!!).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2008 18:51
|
|
|
brad industry posted:It just doesn't do a good job, you don't get much detail out of them. I always got way better results doing it on a dedicated scanner (ie. Nikon Coolscan 5000). When I shoot film I shoot 120 or 4x5 which it does a pretty good job of. The Better Scanning thing makes a difference if your scans are already soft, all the scanners are slightly different so if you get one it may not be as bad as mine was. It made a pretty significant difference I thought, once you get it adjusted right. Thanks for the info. It sounds like the scanner might work out for me afterall. I found a pretty comprehensive review on it and the scanned negatives looked pretty good out of the box. If they don't pass muster I'll spring for the Better Scanning holders.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2008 20:03
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:I would personally look for a 124/124G if you're willing to spend a little extra, or for a D with the Yashinon lens. The Yashikor once aren't bad at all, but IMO the Yashinon is worth the extra effort. If you get a model without a light meter make sure to budget for one; or do what I do when I go all-manual and just estimate exposure. I would push for going with a light meter though so that you have one less variable to deal with if things don't turn out right. I'm trying out a BlackCat exposure meter now. http://www.blackcatphotoproducts.com/guide.html Looks promising. I haven't developed anything with it yet, but hopefully it'll work out. Clayton Bigsby posted:Generally, there's nothing at all wrong with using one, especially the nicer models that have a wide range of shutter speeds and apertures. However, they often have scale focusing (meaning you estimate the distance to subject) and usually need a little love to work smoothly. Nothing is more frustrating than having to fight your gear when you're first starting out. They have their place and time but for a budding medium format photographer they are not the best choice. I picked up a Baldaxette medium format folding rangefinder 10 years ago, what a waste of time and money. There are so many things that can go wrong on an old folding camera that it's not even worth playing with them. In my case the mechanism that controlled the bellows went and then the shutter stopped firing. Sucks, because it would have been a neat camera to carry around. I don't think I ever even got one complete roll through it. dahkren posted:I'm looking for a manual film SLR to learn the basic fundamentals on. I was searching for a Pentax K1000 on a suggestion, also looked for an Olympus OM1. Having some trouble finding these on ebay, there are K1000s but not so many OM-1s. So I guess my question is are there any other cameras I could add into my search? I don't want to spend a whole lot but I don't want a piece of junk either. There's also not a single camera store in my town anymore, so unless I get lucky at a yard sale my options are pretty much online shopping. I used a Minolta XG-1 with good results. Originally built around 1980, it has an internal meter and you can get a whole slew of cheap used accessories like a autowinder or variety of glass.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2008 22:08
|
|
|
Well I just finished developing my first roll of film. Aside from the fact no tutorials mentioned removing the paper backing it went okay (kind of a shock to find that step while your forearm deep in a changing bag). Of the 12 shots, I think 4 turned out good. Others have severe damage either from errant light or the fact I'm using film that expired in 2006. Fortunately there's nothing crucial on this roll. I mostly just tested exposures and tried some macro photography of leaves and bark. I have to admit there's a certain thrill to unrolling the spool and seeing a crystal clear negative. My strip is currently drying, so I'll scan them in tomorrow and post my results. My hands smell like eggs now. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2008 23:45
|
|
|
So the film finished drying late this evening and I cut it into strips and scanned it all in: disregard all the dust, I think my camera insides need a good cleaning     And here is the negative itself. Can anyone diagnose whether this was fixer related (I think I see a chunk on the negatives still), a light leak, or just expired film?  I don't know why, but the pictures look very lifeless, almost sterile. The subject matter is part of the reason, but my old light meter used to slightly underexpose my images, whereas this looks over exposed. I don't remember Ilford Delta having this much contrast. Any ideas?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2008 04:49
|
|
|
brad industry posted:It looks like the film wasn't loaded correctly when you developed it and it got stuck to itself or something else in the tank. That's a possibility, I had a frustrating time loading the film on its reel. Well that's good. That means my old film has been keeping well in storage. If I can improve my loading abilities I should be able to shoot all of this expired film without too many difficulties. 8th-samurai posted:What type of reel/tank? Steel tank and steel reel. It was a tight fit on the reel, something I hadn't been expecting so I may have rolled it up more crudely than intended.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2008 10:35
|
|
|
Chriskory posted:The 4990 can scan at something like 12,800 dpi, it's really pretty good for what it is. Yeah, I messed up and bought the wrong scanner (4490 instead of the 4990). I thought the price seemed low. Still it appears to work pretty well. I've scanned in some negatives at low DPI just to test proof of concept and they came out surprisingly well. I may still need to invest in a better negative holder though, but for right now it's working.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2008 13:07
|
|
|
blambert posted:That's a beautiful camera. I've always wanted that form factor, but went with TLR's instead. I'll scan eBay for Kiev 88's occasionally, but I can't justify another film camera when I'm still in need of a TTL flash for my DSLR.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2008 15:08
|
|
|
Back_From_Termina posted:New toy that arrived yesterday: That's beautiful. The Mat-124's are something I've never really looked at due to price. How much did that one set you back? Oh and the most important question does the meter still work? What kind of strap is that? I need to find something simple for my TRL.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2008 15:20
|
|
|
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?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2008 23:39
|
|
|
Luxmore posted:Have you dropped or otherwise impacted the spool? Even a tiny bend can make it difficult to get film on a metal reel. No, I haven't dropped it and it's possible the reel is working to specifications. I just can't imagine it being this difficult on purpose. This last time I tried my best to roll a spool of film on there in daylight and still couldn't get it to fit right. Looks like I'll be investing in a plastic tub and reel next.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2008 03:40
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:I've heard mixed reviews of their scanning, mostly bad. You don't know anyone with a scanner? I had my first two rolls of Kodachrome scanned by Dwayne's. The crappy scan job pretty much turned me off to Kodachrome for the next year. Although some of the poor quality may have stemmed from the old Minolta rangefinder I was using. I just finished a roll in my significantly newer Minolta SLR so we'll see how much better 30 year old technology is compared to 60 year. Plus I'll actually get prints this time. Took my old Yashica out into the desert for the first time in years:  
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2009 19:23
|
|
|
On a lark I just bought a Bronica ETR-Si with 220 back and 75mm lens for $101 off eBay. Does anyone have any experience with this brand? I've been wanting a modular SLR MF, but the cheapest thing I've been able to find was a Kiev and that was three times this one's price.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2009 03:23
|
|
|
Gnomad posted:Download the manual from the Michael Butkus site, don't be like me and load the first roll of film backwards. Doing that results in significant underexposures. You may or may not have much luck loading 120 film in the 220 back, but the film inserts interchange between the shells and are relatively inexpensive. My Bronica has a couple of wierd quirks but was cheap enough to ignore them, I got a 150mm and a 75mm lens with camera, prism finder and speed grip for $135. Yeah, I downloaded the manual already and ordered 5 rolls of 220 film. I wasn't aware I could run 120 film through it. I really want a waist level finder since I have no idea how I'm supposed to hold this at eye level without a grip. It's lacking a darkslide, is that a problem if I don't plan on switching backs out midroll? quote:When you use it, you'll feel like a real photographer. Skinny underfed digital users will hide their puny P&S's in shame. DSLR toting photophags will act try to look down on you but will be secretly envious, and the cute art student girl with the raspberry beret (the kind you find in a second hand store) will follow you around like a love smitten duckling. I absolutely guarantee all of this or my name isn't Bob. Oh man, I remember back in the day when I could get girls to pay attention to me just by pulling out a fancy camera and there was always a cute friend with aspirations to be a model who'd pose for me. Alas, it doesn't last. I mostly just take pictures of my kids and dog these days.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2009 13:52
|
|
|
Does anyone have experience with Dwayne's for processing 120 and 220 film? Their prices and turn-around time are good, but the results seem meh. I'm used to bright vivid colors from my old Yashica and everything came out kind of dull and underexposed. An earlier roll off this same pack of film looked fantastic when developed locally. So either my light meter has finally given up the ghost or Dwayne's sucks. I'm inclined to say light meter, but I didn't know if anyone else had experience with their MF developing. That said, my new Bronica ETRsi is performing great. It's a thing of beauty and except for the underexposed results the lens and body are a joy to use after spending 10+ years on an old TLR.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2009 14:31
|
|
|
TokenBrit posted:Are you going by the negatives, the prints or the scans? The prints seem washed out. Some of the shots were taken indoors without a flash so I expected those to come out poorly, but even the outdoor pictures with partly cloudy skies came out underexposed. This was using two different cameras and two different film types. The only constants are me, my meter, and the developer. I am going to scan in some of the images tonight and I can post them to see if anyone knows where I went wrong. Hopefully it's not the developer. It costs $15 and over 2 weeks to develop 1 roll of 120 locally. Dwaynes' did over 90 shots for $30 in a little over a week.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2009 16:25
|
|
|
Does anyone know of a film that's similar to Agfa Portrait? I used to run that through my TLR's and always liked the toned down realistic colors. Unfortunately the Kodak and Fuji film I've used in my 35mm SLR always comes out oversaturated and it'd be nice to use that camera for something other than black and white.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2009 15:47
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:Have you tried Kodak Portra? The NC version is pretty laid back. Awesome, that's exactly what I was looking for. And they even have 120 versions. Most of the film I've found locally is all about vivid colors. I only found the Agfa by accident, and now that of course is gone.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2009 17:48
|
|
|
So my 12 year old wanted a Holga this Christmas. Rather than unleash another hipster on the world I figured I'd get her an old range finder so she could cut her film teeth cheaply. I found a Yashica Electro 35, got a battery, verified everything worked, and ran a test roll through it. That's where things got ugly.  Everything's blurring, like the shutter was left open too long. But I handhold down to 60th of a second on a DSL no problem so that doesn't make sense. Every shot was like this. Is the lens hosed? There's also a red line along that top, but that appears to be a printing problem. I didn't see it on the negatives that I scanned in. Unfortunately the blurriness was still there on the scans.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2012 19:26
|
|
|
nielsm posted:It looks like shake, not misfocus-blur. I thought it looked more like shake myself. As far as I can tell the shutter speeds sound correct. The Electro is aperture-priority, so I set the film speed, f/stop, and the camera determines the shutter speed. So it could very well be an issue where the shutter is being left open too long. The photos were a bit over-exposed and that is the most likely point of failure (other than a damaged lens). I haven't tried a tripod and honestly if that's the case then the camera will just become a paperweight. I can gift one of my existing film cameras to my kid. I just thought this would be easier for her to use. Plus I couldn't think of a camera I was willing to lose to a clumsy child.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2012 19:51
|
|
|
Got some pictures back in the mail. At some point I'll need to invest in a better scanning solution since I seem to lose both color and detail in the transition. Would scanning the negatives rather than the prints be a better option? Some Fujifilm in 220.  Jordan Smiling by I Like Natty Light, on Flickr And Ilford 120 shot as 220.  Liz on Ilford by I Like Natty Light, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2013 00:02
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Yes. The most common rec though is the Epson v700/750, which is the best consumer flatbed film scanner on the market. Dedicated scanners are hard to come by for medium format, but are definitely higher quality. As far as I know, the only two currently produced dedicated scanners that will take 120 are the Plustek 120 and a Reflecta something or other. Neither company is held in high regard generally, and I haven't seen much in the way of reviews of either product, but iirc there is one goon with the plustek, maybe they can chime in. I'm using an Epson V500 and the quality is meh, but probably good enough for my needs. I was considering a glass negative holder from betterscanning.com. Has anyone heard anything good or bad about those? Where is everyone buying their B&W 120 film these days? I see the cheap Chinese film is pretty scarce, so the cheapest prices I'm seeing are Ilford for around $4.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2013 04:36
|
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:I like the betterscanning holders but I found one thing - with some rolls, they're out of shape enough so that they sag down (imagine a slight U shape). I found that putting the film right on the glass and topping it with the betterscanning ANR glass flattens it out without loss of detail. If anything, the photo looked better since it was flatter. So in that case you're not even using the glass holder? Thanks for all the reviews. I'll plan on grabbing a holder and glass from betterscanning. Now I just need to remember how to develop my own B&W reels. My chemicals are probably 3 or so years old. Still good?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2013 20:04
|
|
|
What are you guys using to figure out exposure? I usually have an old light meter handy, but a couple of weeks ago I had to subsist solely on a ratty old Black Cat and an iPhone app and it worked surprisingly well.  Sap bucket by I Like Natty Light, on Flickr Outdoors is pretty easy, but I'm a tad impressed I manage to correctly expose ISO 100 with a 1 second exposure.  Sugaring Season by I Like Natty Light, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2013 19:13
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:If you have a phone app then that works I guess. It's just an app that let's you select from a list of lighting situations, film speeds, and f-stops. I don't think they've made an actual light meter replacement for the iPhone, although I'm hoping the Luxi incident meter attachment works out when it's released.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2013 22:03
|
|
|
Shooting straight film is pretty scary, if only because I've gotten so used to checking my shots on a LCD. Of course nothing compares to the excitement of getting that fat envelope of prints in the mail. But I was shocked. After being forced to shoot film on my last trip I actually had a pretty good ratio of good to bad shots. Like 2/3rd made the cut when it's usually the other way around.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2013 12:44
|
|
|
My only issue with 120 home development was threading the film on the spools. I ruined a couple of rolls that way before I started practicing spooling the film over and over on my bus rides. Is 35mm any easier to spool than 120?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2013 02:57
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:
Aw, I have my mom's old XG-1. Nice camera. It was my primary shooter in the 90's. Had to check out Flickr for some of my old scans from like 10 years ago. Probably should redo them.   I need to use it more, but I've never had good luck with color 35mm film. Does anyone have any suggestions? Edit: Yeah, I guess I should have known that answer. Krispy Wafer fucked around with this message at 02:10 on Nov 5, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2013 01:46
|
|
|
I think this is where I heard about the app 'Shutter-Speed' and I was trying to use it to measure the shutter on my Yashica D, but it isn't as simple as I thought it would be. Here is the output for 1/60th of a second:  Does anyone know how I'm supposed to figure out my shutter speed from this? Is it peak to peak? Because if that's the case my camera is really off.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Yeah. Peak to peak would be about 1/45, so about a half a stop slow. So this is pretty close to 1/30th of a second? 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
I found a random roll of used 120 film and this is what Ultrafine 400 looks like 7 years after its expiration date.  Probably improved the shot to be honest.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2019 19:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 11:03 |
|
|
I have the worst luck with light meters. The CLA’d Yashicamat I just got whose light meter was supposed to be one stop off actually doesn’t move past say, 1/3rd the way across the meter range. But that’s okay because I got an excellent rated Sekonic L-398a from KEH at the same time aaaaaand that is under exposing by 2 stops when I test it with a DSLR. Good times.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2019 19:27
|
|