|
w_hat posted:Good advice on checking it out. Do pro labs usually have a good film scanner, not drum scanners but maybe a Nikon coolscan or something? I can't say in SoCal - most scanning services are high-end oriented. Early on I went the Epson flatbed route - I have a 4490, but should have gotten the 4990. I think the new hotness is the V500 or something.
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2009 02:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 17:51 |
|
|
Echoing the challenge of rolls. Some new film photographers worry about getting shots wrong, over/under exposure, etc. which I am sure does happen- but pretty much universally swear words are uttered the first many times you roll in a changing bag or a dark room. I initially hated my changing bag, evn though it was the largest one I could find. It's now a welcome part of my gear, and much of my frustration is from improper rolling of the film.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2009 14:46
|
|
|
CanuckBassist posted:How does the dpi value of a scanner translate to the resolution of a scanned image? Maybe I'm not understanding this right, but dpi = dots per (square) inch. so 1024 divided by 6 inches is about 170 dpi. I don't know what level of print quality you want, which is what I think you should be aiming for an consider that your minimum. If you need to do editing or cropping of any of your 6x6's then you'll want a higher dpi. Looking online I see the 'standard' is anywhere from 150+ all the way up to 300 dpi.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2009 20:43
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Thought you guys would like this: This is awesome. As mentioned in the lighting thread, I think I will get off my rear end and run a project thread of converting my garage into a studio. Making it a darkroom wouldn't be too much of a stretch either, although it's way too hot for developing during the summer.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2009 21:14
|
|
|
Here we go, the project thread is posted here: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3067423 We'll see how it goes. I am hoping it doesn't turn into a sausage fest like the Post-Production thread did around the end of page one, but hey it's SA  Also, someone mentioned wanting to see our cameras, and I had both my DSLR and my LF cameras close, so I snapped these of the LF:  
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2009 06:42
|
|
|
As much as I hate double replies, here it goes. I've currently got an Epson 4490, and my LF habit has me looking at a scanner that can accomodate 4x5's with a larger backlight. I am looking at the V500 and V700 - can anyone provide an opinion on either? I think the V700 is the only one with a backlight big enough to do 4x5's, and with my experience with MF on the 4490 I am thinking about getting a Better Scanning film holder for the new one.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2009 04:29
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm not really excited about scanning LF negatives, but considering they are $100 each or so for drum scans or $11 each for generic ones from the pro shop, it's really my only option beyond making prints. I have 30 or so exposures I am waiting to get back- I may really really suck still at LF (it's hard!), and combine that with saving up for studio lights and hardware, it's on the bottom of the list for me.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2009 04:55
|
|
|
Kaluza-Klein posted:The V700 is $500+ and in a whole different class. I am sure it is very nice :o. I don't know if it is worth the extra $300 though, unless the item you want to scan is simply wider than what a V500 or 8800F can do. This is great feedback - thanks. I am looking to get medium quality scans from 4"x5" negatives, so it looks like I will have to wait for the V500 budget to get there. If my next set of negatives demonstrate I can operate my LF camera, then I'll go with the Epson. If the negs suck or show some kind of issue with the camera, then it will likely go on hold and I'll stick with my 4490.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2009 02:48
|
|
|
Here are some scans from contact sheets that I just picked up for my LF Speed Graphic. Unfortunately, I spent the same amount on 20 negs/contact sheets as I would have on a single decent studio light, so this is it for my LF for a while. When I come back to it, I will likely be armed with my own dark lab and LF enlarger. Edit: I would love some critique on my shots too, I am always looking to improve. Swami's in Encinitas, CA. Year round surf spot, but the locals don't like visitors. They seemed cool with my 50 year old camera though.  Playing around with the camera, thought I might end up with a wallpaper or AI image post out of this one.  A Neighbor's house. I really like the DoF on this, everything is in focus.  Another shot of the same beach area. This one came out a little dark, but the graphlex is un unforgiving bitch sometimes. 
hybr1d fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Feb 5, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2009 21:30
|
|
|
Injection-molded plastic is the same cheapness that makes the cameras affordable. Sure, the companies aren't doing too poorly on margin, but keep in mind many of the cameras still alive today sold for quite a bit more than low-end DSLRs do today.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2009 00:11
|
|
|
I have a Yashica 124G and I'm looking for a more compact, non-tlr camera to carry with me when I travel. Can anyone recommend one that's fairly 'cheap'? If anyone has one for sale, PM me. I'm also interested in trading my Graphlex Speed Graphic depending on the trade arrangements.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2009 17:34
|
|
|
Yeah, the top-down viewing is just very fumble-prone for me. I may just play with it until I've used all my 120 and then play with a 35mm for a while.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2009 20:08
|
|
|
I don't have a caliper, but found this: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090208132340AAmEFv7 quote:The frame itself is 36mm x 24mm, each frame takes up 38mm of film. So multiply 38mm x 5 frames = 190mm long and 35mm wide. Edit: The whole film vs. digital isn't an argument with an end. The important benefit of film is that the chemical reaction on the negative does not have the same limitations of pixels. I don't know anyone who shoots 35mm for its resolution (again a sore point for arguments), although nearly everyone I know that shoots large or medium format does so for very competitive resolution compared to digital. hybr1d fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Feb 18, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2009 19:50
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:I went through a bunch of this thread, but after 15 or so pages I start to gloss over, and I didn't see mention of scanning techniques on the first page. I think it would be really helpful. Thanks. It's in there... somewhere... I think most people are using flatbeds, specifically the Epson 4990 and V500, but I have a 4490 that's ok, and sometimes wish for a V500 or V700. I don't think anyone here has a film scanner, but maybe brad industry does.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2009 03:15
|
|
|
pseudonordic posted:Aside from spending money on film and lenses, I also threw out a small bid on ebay for a Calumet 4x5. I highly recommend giving the print paper as negatives a try- although I didn't do it, my 4x5 negative development killed me for a while on my b&w budget. Getting 4x5 negs developed is far more expensive from labs than roll film, and the darkroom developing gear seems to be pretty pricey too.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2009 17:24
|
|
|
Nedsmaster posted:And an old slide I found of the happiest place on earth around 60 years ago... Holy crap- that's what it looked like when I was a kid. For those not local, the holes in the Matterhorn have been long since filled in since they closed the Skyway. It's been closed for nearly 10 years. Cool find on the negatives- my Grandfather took photos of archeological dig items here in Southern California, but unfortunately was a poor note taker.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2009 20:48
|
|
|
I got a Yashica Lynx 5000 in the mail today from Ebay. The trouble is, either my battery is wrong or the lightmeter doesn't work. Two questions- first, has anyone else tried the 1.5V battery and faucet washer trick? Second, can someone else recommend a good semi-cheap replacement off KEH in case I can't get the light meter working? I was hoping this was going to be my carry-around camera, but I want a light meter for this task. Too bad KEH doesn't seem to carry Yashicas much, at least not 35mm ones.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2009 04:34
|
|
|
http://www.digitaltruth.com/products/kodak_tech/j24.pdf Bottom of page 4, not 3 unless you are using sheet film.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2009 10:45
|
|
|
Oops, missed that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2009 00:14
|
|
|
a Wizards dick posted:Nobody really makes a living off just photography. Not only is there a living to be made via photography, but we even have our own very thread with a ton of suggestions here in SA. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2959985 I highly encourage you to read more before posting stuff like this. To add to the thread, I've started shooting/scanning with my 124G again, since the weather is cold enough to use my chemicals (long story).  A couple rolls of film and I remembered the lesson from way back about documenting exposure settings. I had two rolls that were completely underexposed and pretty much blank when shooting with studio flashes. It's worth noting that my digital camera at ISO 400 needs far less light than my TMax400 120 at ISO 400. Fun stuff, though.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2009 05:18
|
|
|
From a retail perspective, it's also worth calling back to the store and nicely asking for the manager/owner's contact info. I don't know if they care, but douchebag employees deserve to be ratted out to the owner. A manager will give them a warning, or let them go if there's been multiple complaints in many retail stores. If you are lucky enough to get the owner, they will usually drop the employee like a bad habit. I hate to suggest doing that to someone, but camera stores are 99% customer service. The only reason I deal with the horribly inflated prices on some things for my local shop is the customer service. Also, +1 to Freestyle. Even their mail order customer service has been great for me.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2009 20:32
|
|
|
Can anyone tell what model camera this is?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2009 21:05
|
|
|
johnasavoia posted:looks like Annie Leibovitz and i know she shoots with either an m6/7 It's her- I was more interested in the camera. I feel like it's a trap of a question, but why so much for a Leica? Are they worth it? I'm interested in them if they're reliable, which I can only assume that workmanship is the driving factor for the newer models, since they don't use magical film.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2009 23:38
|
|
|
Kaluza-Klein posted:Weird question, but how do I keep my stripes of 35mm from trying to coil up? I use a combination of small and large binder clips from Staples or some other office supply store. I use the large ones to clip one end of the film to the support bar on my garage door, and the small clip on the end to weight them AND keep them flat. I then use a squegee sparingly and allow them to dry. I leave them hanging until I cut and scan them, then they go in archive sleeves.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2009 16:36
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Tri-X is a great, versatile film, buy it cheaply as Arita Premium 400 at freestyle photo. Reading some stuff online, it appears that the Arista.EDU Ultra is Fomapan for the ISO 200 versions. I need to restock on 120 ISO 400, and would be interested to know if you're developing it as Tri-X or what.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2009 16:48
|
|
|
Shiggen posted:What kind of film scanner do you have? My dad and I are looking to get one so he can scan his lot of kodachrome. I have an Epson 4490 (NOT 4990), but the consensus in this thread is the Epson V500: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000VG4AY0?ie=UTF8&tag=jaysblog0f-20&link_code=as3&camp=211189&creative=373489&creativeASIN=B000VG4AY0
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2009 20:02
|
|
|
Hi all, it's been a little while. I am looking at Hasselblad 200's and 500's, and have quickly noted the sharp price difference. Of course many sites of fans of the 200's say they're worth the money, and the 500's say they are good enough. What's what? I am looking for a new favorite MF camera. I'm open to the Mamiyas, but I'm still a bit of at sucker for the aesthetics of the Hasselblads. Does anyone here own one that they can recommend? The requirements are: -interchangeable backs -interchangeable lenses -meter (prism ok, but I prefer in-body, hence the 200 series)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2009 02:13
|
|
|
I've got a Bronica ETRSi headed my way (probably via freight), and while my tripod will handle the weight, I'm having trouble finding the proper anchor/ballast/weight that I can hang off the bottom of my tripod's center column. I could probably just use a coat hanger and a weight from the thrift store, but since I'll need to fly with it, I need it to not look like a bomb or weapon. Also, any other Bronica owners here?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2009 04:36
|
|
|
I've found that I feel better out and about if my older cameras are in a pelican case, but they seem to be designed to inflict the human body with pain on the outside. My ETRSi is due at the house today, but I won't be back until Thursday, when I'll have a 40mm lens and a dozen rolls of Ilford waiting for us
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2009 15:58
|
|
|
Radbot posted:How do you guys feel about 6x4.5? I've got a Mamiya C330 and I'm loving medium format so far, however I don't have a ton of cash. The Mamiya 645 series and the Bronica ETR(s,i) stuff is ridiculously cheap. I've heard a lot of people say that the quality gain from 6x4.5 isn't worth the weight and expensive/crappy metering/lack of zooms/etc, especially with modern high quality film. What do you guys think? I am pursuing landscape photos through my Bronica, so zoom isn't an issue for me at all. All the durable cameras are metal, and all the affordable cameras are heavy The ETRSi has a decent meter from what I hear, but like any meter you have to get to know the one with the camera and understand its limitations. MF is bulky, and not very portable, but the stuff is pretty cheap compared to just about any other format.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2009 17:23
|
|
|
killabyte posted:6x4.5 is not worth it. It's not big enough to justify the weight of the gear required. I had an ETRSi, and while a nice camera, was much more of a pain in the rear end to use than a regular 35mm SLR for landscape work. I can understand the idea of "go big or go home" when it comes to negative sizes, but 600mm x 450mm is substantially larger than the 36mm x 18mm of 35mm film. That detail allows blah blah blah detail, blah landscape, etc. MF also carries a wider angle than 35mm does for the similar lens sizes. From my understanding a 40mm on the Bronica is the approximate equivalent of a 22mm on a 35mm.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2009 01:44
|
|
|
TokenBrit posted:You won't be readily sharing lenses between systems. I hadn't planned on sharing lenses- I am way beyond hoping to save any money with this habit Can someone help me understand why ASA 800 35mm black & white film isn't more common? I see tons of 400, and 1600, but not so much 800.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2009 17:11
|
|
|
Does anyone know if the Bronica ETRS(i) and SQA(i) bodies can use the same lenses?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2009 18:22
|
|
|
The edges of the black adhesive stuff on the back of my Yashica 5000 is starting to peel at the edges. Is there a fix for this to get it to stay in place?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2009 23:33
|
|
|
I shot 3 rolls of 120 this week with my new Bronica, using my Sekonic for metering. I went out last night and took similar photos using my Nikon D80, and for grins still started using the Sekonic. The problem is that my digital shots were over-exposed by 2-3 stops. I'm assuming my 120 film is going to be over-exposed as well, what should I do to 'pull' the development, assuming that's the correct approach? I double checked, and my ISO was set the same on the meter which is the only thing I can think of that would do this. Edit: It's Ilford Delta Pro 400, and my solution is HC110 B, which the dev chart says is 7.5 minutes.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2009 13:37
|
|
|
I took my Bronica ETRSi and Nikon Coolpix to the beach today in medium-high surf. I finally know the difference between film and digital... when you drop your viewfinder from the Bronica in the drink, you can rinse it and clean it off, and it's fine. When seawater splashes on your Coolpix, you need a new camera
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2009 01:21
|
|
|
My first test 'roll' of 12 4x5's from a couple months back nearly killed me when I saw how much they cost to develop from the local shop. I'm happy to report I used the 'taco method' for some this weekend and developed 5 spectacular exposures using some hair bands and a tall stainless roll tank. I was using Ilford HP something 125, with 8 minutes of developer time and 5 minutes in fixer. Now I really need to find a scanner- looking at them with my loupe and telling you all how nice they are is kind of missing the point
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2009 17:03
|
|
|
I'm going to be listing my Epson 4490 (NOT the 4990) on SA-Mart this weekend. I'll follow all the rules about posting/selling gear and do it through there, but I thought I would mention it here first. I'm going to make the jump to the V700, and would be willing to let the V500 (including all the accessories) go for $110 shipped if anyone wants it. I don't have the original box, but I do have the MF and 35mm holders. PM me if you're interested or I can do my best to follow up while I travel home today and tomorrow.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2010 19:18
|
|
|
Koth posted:I'd actually love to see a vintage camera thread. I've gotten really interested in them in the past few months, but I really don't have the knowledge to start a thread on the topic myself. I went ahead and started one here: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3271237 It's for film, which should cover all the 'vintage' stuff for you whippersnappers.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2010 18:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 17:51 |
|
|
When I got back into film, I bought what I learned on (stainless tanks & reels). They are a little harder to learn for some, but I love them. Not sure about heat/temp transfer, but then again I get my bathroom to temp several hours before I do anything and have all the gear in there before I start. The water temp shouldn't really be impacted by metal or plastic too much.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2010 06:22
|
|