|
Thanks for the tips, I will give this a try in a little bit. I bought everything on the Amazon wishlist that was posted, save for some of the clips because I already had those. I have the HC-110 developer.Paul MaudDib posted:e: And just to repeat, don't put fixer down the drain. Anything more than the amount in the wash-water will probably poison your septic tank or waterways. Everything but rinse water and one-shot developer solutions can and should be reused. No problem, I definitely will not pour any of this stuff down the drain.
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2010 20:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 07:55 |
|
|
Hmm. Just got done developing my Tri-X 400. The one step that I'm not sure if I messed up is the amount of time I had the fixer in the tank, because the clip test was supposed to take about 3 minutes to show transparency, it took me 6.5-7 mins. I was going to double the time, as the instructions suggested on page 1, but then I got nervous midway through and dumped it out at 10 mins. Could there be any potential problems with putting the fixer in too long? What happens if you don't go long enough? The negatives look... interesting. I forgot I used that roll for a lot of night photography so a lot of the frames look completely blank except for some darkness in the center which was my subject. A few of the negatives also look like they have a few blotchy spots, not sure what that's from. I was stupid and didn't use a test roll, so if I messed anything up it was on a good roll.  Edit: Oh poo poo, I just realized I forgot to dilute the fixer 1:3  What is the repercussion of that?
Mannequin fucked around with this message at 08:31 on Dec 27, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2010 08:03
|
|
|
Would be curious if anyone knew the answer to this:Mannequin posted:I just realized I forgot to dilute the fixer 1:3 I was using Kodafix and forgot to mix in the water, so I used a fully concentrated solution. Will that affect the development in any way? I imagine it might only affect the time it takes for the fixer to work, (making it longer), but won't actually affect the outcome as long as my times were accurate? That's my guess. It's hard to tell just from looking at the negatives.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2010 22:03
|
|
|
I notice when my negatives are drying some of the water droplets leave a mark on the surface. Does that happen to any of you when you are developing? If so, what do you use to get it off? Q-Tip with some water?
Mannequin fucked around with this message at 00:36 on Dec 29, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2010 00:31
|
|
|
No, tap water filtered through one of those PUR filters. Guess I should get some photo-flo...
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2010 02:28
|
|
|
Cannister posted:I don't know about how to get 120 printed around here... seems like getting it developed might be fine but until I get a darkroom setup (no room in my apartment & no community darkroom - it seems) how should I go about getting 6x6 prints made? I know they have to be cropped, but does the printer usually just make a call on how to crop or what? Who's good to go through? North Coast Photographic Services might be able to do that. You should give them a call. I just sent two batches of 35mm negatives for them to scan, but they also do prints and stuff. I formerly dealt with a company called Slide Converter, but their website appears to be down at the moment. (They might be able to do 6x6 prints also). They were okay, but I'm giving North Coast Photo a try since they have a good reputation. Otherwise, you could always get the negatives scanned and turned into digital files and then go about printing it yourself. Or if you don't want to do the actual printing, you could get them professionally printed and then just slice the photos with a paper cutter. Rontalvos posted:I shoot both 120 and 35mm, but I shoot more 120. And that's precisely the problem, they aren't much different, but does anybody know what ARE the differences? This guy seems to know his poo poo when it comes to scanners. His native language is German so some of his English is a bit muddy, but his reviews are pretty good. If that doesn't help, try calling Epson and asking them what the differences are. Or give B&H a call and see what one of their sales reps says.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2010 00:03
|
|
|
Apparently, this was posted already in the "Good Pictures by Other Photographers" thread and I didn't see it. And I saw this posted on reddit for the last couple of days and pretty much ignored it, and then I clicked just now and I am really pretty moved by this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWEDOnBfDUI Sorry if it's old hat and you've already seen it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2011 00:35
|
|
|
I got my negatives back from North Coast Photographic Services (they scanned them), and I was pretty happy. Their turnaround time was very fast. Anyway, here are a couple of the photos -- the first two from my botched tri-x development. Thanks to everyone who helped with that, and 8th-Samurai for writing up the OP. Now I basically know what I'm doing  Tri-x:   Delta 400:  
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2011 21:07
|
|
|
Found this pretty neat film database a short while ago on flickr: http://www.flickr.com/groups/filmdatabase/. I prefer taking the tag and doing my own search with it and sorting the results by "Interesting". Example for the tag "KodakEktar100" - http://www.flickr.com/search/?s=int&ss=2&w=all&q=KodakEktar100&m=text. The only disappointment is that more people aren't using these tags so the results are somewhat limited. Nevertheless, it gives a good general overview. Mannequin fucked around with this message at 05:05 on Jan 11, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2011 05:02
|
|
|
echobucket posted:I'm thinking about picking up a manual Nikon SLR. I have a 50mm f/1.8D I can use on it, so I just need the body. What's the consensus on what model I should be looking for? I like the FE2 for its Auto mode (aperture priority) because it's very accurate and will expose for up to several minutes, meaning you can get some great night shots without having to figure out the correct exposure time yourself. Here are some I took that were 2+ minutes each, shot in auto:   (you can't do this with most modern-day dslr's beyond 30s) If you prefer a full mechanical, the FM2N is good or the FM3a but good luck finding one that's inexpensive. The one thing I don't like about the FM/FE series is the 93% viewfinder. I believe they all have this. Reichstag posted:The difference is that if the battery in the FE dies the shutter will not work, whereas in a mechanically shuttered camera the battery powers only the meter, and is not required for operation. To be fair the batteries will last years. echobucket posted:On KEH, the FE2 is cheaper than the FM2n, but it looks like it doesn't operate in mechanical shutter mode (I'm not sure what difference this makes though). The focusing screen in the FE/FM series is very good. You can also switch them out for a few others. I have the K type (which is the default) and I like it. I'm thinking of experimenting with the E2 matte fresnel also. In terms of your requirements, either the FM2n or the FE2 would be good for durability/portability/focusing/manual controls, etc. The FE2 has the electronic shutter, but it also has the auto setting which I personally like and use quite often. If I'm not mistaken, I believe the auto setting will time itself down to a very precise shutter speed - so even if the shot requires 1/160 it will snap the photo at that speed (vs. selecting the shutter speed manually and having to choose from 1/125 or 1/250.) Mannequin fucked around with this message at 04:20 on Jan 26, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2011 03:07
|
|
|
Is it better to get your slides mounted or unmounted? Edit: I guess I should ask, what is the disadvantage of not having slides mounted after they are developed? Mannequin fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Jan 26, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2011 23:37
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:so in about 2 hours I will get my first scans from my first roll of the new portra 400 MF back from the lab... Didn't do any crazy pushing but I'm still really curious to see the general look of them. Are you still using the same place in Manhattan for development?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2011 06:16
|
|
|
nonanone posted:Sooo I might have just gone on some kind of rampage and got a lot of film cameras. Can't wait to sort through them though I love the Olympus OM series. I want to get an OM-1N with the 50mm f/1.2.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2011 05:13
|
|
I know there's at least a k1000, minolta srt201, and of course, there's that Olympus om-1 from rednik that should be coming in. Time to stock up on 35mm.
|
I've been comparing 35mm development/scanning costs lately, and here is what I have come up with. The four places I got estimates from are Dwaynes of Kansas, North Coast Photographic Services of California, Manhattan Color Labs of New York, and my local lab in New Jersey.code:So if you wanted your 35mm color negatives developed and scanned at the lab in NY it would cost $13, unless you have a student discount and then you save a dollar I think. At NCPS it would be $12. etc. etc. Overall, Dwayne's seems like the best bargain.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2011 05:40
|
|
|
Does this seem to have rather a lot of grain for Ilford Delta 400? Link goes to original size. I'm wondering if I actuated it too much in development. Same goes with this one:  Or is this pretty standard?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2011 05:57
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Looks over agitated or over temperature. Delta 400 should have roughly the same grainularity as T max 400. It's probably a mixture of both.. drat.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2011 03:33
|
|
|
Cannister posted:Uh oh, I smell an addiction.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2011 13:29
|
|
|
Have any of you had experience with the Luna-Pro F meters from Gossen? I'm picking one up later today. They seem to be popular on KEH so I figured I would give it a shot.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2011 21:05
|
|
|
It takes a 9V Alkaline thankfully.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2011 21:43
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Preliminary woot: That's a neat picture! ... Hey, anyone know how to read this light meter that I bought? There's a manual for it that I found online and it explains what the dials represent, but it doesn't explain how to interpret the reading based on those dials. I was able to of course set the ASA and measure the reflected light off a wall in my apartment. Then I rotated the dial, per the instructions, to null it. Here is what you see after I have done that:  At this point I am supposed to "read the desired combination of f/stop and shutter speed on the computer scales." But I can't figure out how. Where is this being indicated? It looks like it's telling me the reading is at approximately 8 EV if you look in the lower portion below ASA speed, and this is helpful to a degree. I can determine what the shutter speed should be based on the aperture, or vice versa, using the chart here. But I should also be able to determine aperture and shutter speed on its own. If I look at the white indicator towards the top of the dial, beneath the red zero, that constantly stays put in between the '2 and the '4. The white indicator at the very bottom next to the 1 also stays put at that 1, whenever you rotate it. So I am confused here. Does this make sense to any of you?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2011 03:31
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:You're looking at all of them! For example, between f/11 and f/8 and a 1/2s shutter speed should yield a proper exposure at that IS/EV reading, as would ~f/2.4 at 1/30s, etc. Ohhhh! This makes total sense now. Awesome, thanks! Rednik posted:If this is for your Hassy, you can just use the EV value it points to at the bottom there, and the lens will figure out all the shutter speed + aperture combos. Yeah, I noticed this because my lens arrived yesterday and I saw the EV markings. But I was also befuddled with the rest of the meter.HPL posted:Yeah, all you need to get rolling are the "Time" and "f/" parts. I assume you hold down a button and twiddle the dial until the needle goes to "0" then take your reading from there. Bingo.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2011 05:41
|
|
|
Question for you guys: what do you do with your film cameras that have the normal shutter speeds: 1/1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/15, 1/30, 1/60, 1/125, 1/250, 1/500, etc. and you need something in between? Like let's say you need 1/80 or 1/100 instead of 1/125. Or 1/320 instead of 1/250. Or 1/400 instead of 1/500. Or 1/800 instead of 1/1000. It can make a difference. How do you deal with this problem? Just underexpose or overexpose? I hate to do that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2011 00:50
|
|
|
Dr. Cogwerks posted:Yep. Expose for shadow detail, then develop for the highlights. What if you don't have control over the development process? I would think in that case it's probably better to underexpose since you'll be dealing with a digital file anyway, right? ExecuDork posted:Are there ND filters available that come in 1/3 stops? Yes there are, but none that I could find for the Bay 60 mount. I bought a Cokin adapter for my hasselblad, but I believe their ND filters (which are considered one of the industry's worst) only deal in full stops anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2011 05:03
|
|
|
Hmm, yeah I thought so. My lens is wrapped up right now so I can't get to it but the official specs read full stops only. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2011 05:22
|
|
|
I decided to play the "I have money in the bank" game and loaded a B&H shopping cart full of various 120 films in a number of desired quantities... Anyone got $307.45 I can borrow?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2011 04:25
|
|
|
Edit: Moved to the other thread
Mannequin fucked around with this message at 06:02 on Apr 4, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2011 03:07
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:I wish this existed Same here. I would totally buy it just so that I could enjoy the use of my FE2 without having to wait for the film. I'm sure the old-school Minolta users would go nuts for one of these, too.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2011 04:22
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:what's stopping someone putting the sensor onto a back that replaces the back of a SLR? Nothing, and it's been done. Here's a recent ebay auction of a Nikon F3 with a Kodak sensor: http://nikonrumors.com/2011/04/02/this-is-the-digital-nikon-f3-everybody-wants.aspx
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2011 04:24
|
|
|
echobucket posted:I would like a completely manual digital camera... I wish someone made one Isn't this what the Fuji X100 is? Or a digital Leica? You can go into the AE modes but if you want full manual it's there.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2011 23:45
|
|
|
notlodar posted:The lovely lab in NYC always returns my film with crap on it Which lab were you using, just out of curiosity?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2011 03:46
|
|
|
10 sheets of 8x10 Portra 160NC from B&H is $85. Color Developing 8x10 from North Coast Photographic Services is $7 per sheet. So each picture costs around $16. I think it's worth it if you're careful and take really good pictures.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2011 04:39
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:Hewes is the only maker of reels. Are all the reels standard sizes? Would this one fit in the Paterson Universal tank? It looks kind of weird to load, I guess it just slots in between the bars. Edit: Unrelated question - do any of you find UV filters helpful for cutting down on purple fringing/chromatic aberration in your photos? I know they can help with color correction and obviously for lens protection, but this article states it can help with fringing. One of my first 35mm rolls with Portra 400 had some pretty bad examples but they were shot at widest aperture without any UV. Obviously stopping down helps, but some situations call for wide aperture and I don't want CA to ruin the image. I am also deciding on whether or not I should invest in a Bay 60 UV filter for my hasselblad, but new they're like $150 and I'd rather not spend it if it's not necessary. Truth is, I haven't shot enough film to really know the difference yet. Mannequin fucked around with this message at 05:00 on Apr 28, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2011 04:22
|
|
|
Adams says overexposing a negative is better than underexposing because once you underexpose below a certain point the data is lost forever. On a negative, the darks are represented by lights and lights are represented by darks, so underexposing is akin to blowing out the highlights on transparency film or with a digital camera. Beyond a certain point the data is gone. Alternatively, if you overexpose, you can compensate for this in the darkroom and resuscitate some detail. I think that makes sense. But my question is this: what if you're not developing your own film? I don't really develop my own film, certainly not color, and the last b&w I sent away for because I knew they would do a better job than me. So if you are handing your film off to someone who will standardize its processing, isn't it better to underexpose even the negatives? That is to say, if you are erring one way or another when you are taking the shot, it's still better to underexpose because when they give you back the prints, (or the CD with JPEGs in my case), I can pull more out of the shadows using Photoshop just like I would with a regular digital file.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2011 03:55
|
|
|
Mannequin fucked around with this message at 01:48 on May 26, 2011 |
|
#
¿
May 26, 2011 01:45
|
|
|
I ran into a problem the other day. I was in the woods taking pictures and accidentally had the diffusion dome over the sensor on my light meter. The purpose of the dome is so that you can get a meter reading by aiming it at the camera instead of the subject (or grey card). I typically do the latter. With the dome on I guess it takes off about 1.5 stops, maybe more? Anyway, I took a few pictures with it accidentally on, and when I realized it I made a note that the shots would be underexposed. Then I went back and re-shot the pictures using the correct metering. Here's what I came up with: With dome (should be overexposed):   Without (should be exposed correctly):   Why do the second batch lack contrast? Is it because they're underexposed? They don't really look it, but I'm thinking that maybe I overcompensated and underexposed a little too much. And maybe the dome actually helped give me a correct reading with the first pictures just by chance. What do you think? Mannequin fucked around with this message at 07:29 on May 28, 2011 |
|
#
¿
May 28, 2011 06:57
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:If something keeps light away from your meter but not your sensor/film, it'll come out overexposed, not under. It gets shot for a lower amount of ambient light that what's actually there! D'oh. Typo in my labeling, but yes, that's why I was surprised because it is the second batch that was underexposed, not the first. So I am thinking that I was just metering wrong in the woods. There was a lot of overhead leaves and in some places you could meter in the light and get one reading, and meter in the shade and get another. The changes were very subtle, though. Basically, though, I just wanted to confirm that the issue with the second batch was underexposure. I thought the first batch would be overexposed so I compensated for the second batch too much, and they are underexposed. (It's just weird because I am used to underexposed shots having more contrast, but I guess with film it's a little different.) quote:Did you have your meter set correctly apart from the dome? Are you sure the meter's not meant to be used with the dome on? Yeah, the meter is otherwise set correctly.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2011 07:28
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:It may just be your technique. I'm not sure how often you use a hand held meter versus in camera matrix metering. Reflective meters are looking for a neutral gray subject and some of them are very easily fooled by bright areas. So in the second set the meter gave you the settings for the sky light coming through the trees. Which would underexpose the vegetation. Meters with incident modes compensate for the loss of light from the diffuser so that coupled with the effect the dome more evenly spreading out the incoming light is how you ended up with decent negs on the first set. Negative film has great dynamic range but handles over exposure better than underexposure so there is a greater margin of error when overexposing. I meter off an 18% gray card in the light that I want my subject exposed. It's the only type of metering I use for my Hasselblad, and I base it off of the instructions here (last section at the bottom). But that lighting was tricky because one moment you would be standing in the light and the next you might be in the shadows because of the leaves overhead, and the difference was visually quite subtle but strong enough that you really had to be careful about how you were metering. I think I just overcompensated in the second batch. I thought I way overexposed the first time and became a little too conservative for the second lot. Again, I'm just not used to seeing underexposure in film and to me the characteristics look quite unusual. In digital, when you underexpose the contrast seems to go up. But in film the contrast seems to go away.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2011 18:31
|
|
|
If f/16 warrants an exposure of 1/2, it's safe to say that f/22 would warrant 1 second, correct? If so, what if I put a 3-stop ND filter over the lens at f/22? The 1 second would have to go to 2, then 2 to 4, and 4 to 8 seconds. Right? Or would an 8 second exposure be underexposed because it doesn't take into consider reciprocity - i.e. for very long exposures you have expose beyond the normal doubling up method? I'm just trying to think if I screwed up a shot today.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2011 04:30
|
|
|
Rontalvos posted:Dome off, it's a reflected light meter and (probably) needs an 18% grey card to be correct, and is subject to the same limitations of an in-camera meter. (objects being above or below average reflectance throwing the reading off, hence the grey card) I use the reflected method with the dome off and an 18% gray card. I get the best results this way. Where I think the meter is limiting is in wanting to get shots like this:  ...where I want to expose for the sky. Using my method in this photograph would give me a reading for inside the room and throw everything off. I guess I could just point the meter directly at the sky and that would work. Ultimately, I know I need to get a spot meter. It should simplify things. Too bad they're so drat expensive.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2011 05:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 07:55 |
|
|
Walking around NY with my Hasselblad today every now and then someone would pass me and try and look down into the waist level finder. I guess they were curious what it looked like in there. Kind-of funny.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2011 04:21
|
|