|
HookShot posted:Can someone humour my stupid question? I know you can't run film through X-Ray machines. That much I remember from when I was 10 and used film. It's only fast undeveloped film (ISO 1600 or more) that can be affected. Checked baggage gets even stronger x-rays than carryons, so don't check any film. If you're paranoid ask for a hand check - have all of your film in a ziploc bag. I've done this many times and never gotten any hassle aside from one overzealous TSA agent wanting to open the boxes the film canisters came in.
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2011 13:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 02:57 |
|
|
the brown santa came
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2011 23:27
|
|
|
Acros   Oak Cliff by RHITMrB, on Flickr  Oak Cliff by RHITMrB, on Flickr HC-110 Dilution E, 7 minutes at 20 degrees C.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2011 07:17
|
|
|
DJExile posted:God help me, I might get into developing my own B&W. The process doesn't seem that complicated, but I have a few questions: If you're just developing film, you only need a sink to pour chemicals into your tank and a closet to load film into your tank. Having a darkroom with tub things and ventilation is only necessary if you're planning on doing wet printing. I personally have my thermostat set to 20 degrees C anyway so I get the water in the ballpark out of the tap and then leave a tub of it out and it gets to room temperature after an hour or two. Getting the water temperature right is only going to be a major issue if you live someplace so warm that the cold water is warmer than 20 C.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2011 17:27
|
|
|
guidoanselmi posted:It should have one of the highest, I thought. I figured ISO corresponds inversely with Dmax Pan F+ has given me the thinnest-looking negatives I've ever had. Still scans/prints great, like nielsm said.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2011 18:44
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:The developed roll is completely blank. Not even frame spacing, just a 5-foot strip of grainy medium gray, with about 2 inches of black at the leader.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2011 06:21
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:It's translucent gray - light comes through it if I hold it in front of a bulb, but fuzzy. Is there a way for film to not get fixed even in the presence of fresh, known-good fixer? Now it's sounding more like your film got exposed to light. Sorry 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2011 07:45
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:So, I scanned in some 35mm film on my V500 and had it printed at 8x10 at the local Ritz Camera. It looks like total poo poo. Is it's Ritz's fault? Is it the V500's fault? Can 35mm just not be blown up reasonably to 8x10? I want to say the resolution was around 2000x3000 on a 30mb TIFF file, so I didn't imagine it would look so blurry and pixely. How does the scan look at 100% on your monitor? If it's blurry and you can't see detail there at 2000x3000, something isn't right with the scan. Otherwise it's Ritz. I scan at 2400dpi on my V500 and end up with about 2250x3400 scans with plenty of detail, so it's not that the V500 isn't capable of it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2011 17:42
|
|
|
nielsm posted:What I've understood is that you do not need to push Portra 400. Underexpose by three stops (like you did), develop as normal, then print or scan some crazy-rear end negatives. I posted this before, but - this was way underexposed, maybe two or three stops:  And this is what the negative looks like: 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2011 17:13
|
|
|
I bought $350 worth of Portra just in case. 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2012 03:29
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:Yeah but what will you do in 6 months? This is in addition to the brick and a half of 400NC I have in the freezer. I'm set for another two years. That should be enough time to save up for a medium format digital setup 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2012 03:49
|
|
|
Schofferhofer posted:So who's buying up Ektar and chucling it in the freezer? I've got 15 rolls of ektachrome to work through right now but am thinking a few Kodak pro packs might be a safe bet. I'm not a fan of Ektar but I'm stocking up on Portra. This is in addition to the brick of 400NC-3 I already have in the freezer. All 220.  
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2012 19:16
|
|
|
Geek USSR posted:So does this mean my negatives should be OK? Because the prints came back with the same line as the scans. The prints could very well have been made from the scans. Check the negatives for scratches, and show it to the lab - at the very least you could get some free film as consolation if it's actually scratches on your negs; otherwise they'll rescan it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2012 05:56
|
|
|
the posted:Can you guys go into a little bit more detail on this? The -/+ explanation was really helpful, but it looks like I don't see that on my camera. You may actually be retarded. In the Canon thread you referenced having read the manual, so I know you have seen this text: quote:[SETTING] MrBlandAverage fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Feb 15, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2012 21:09
|
|
|
echobucket posted:Sounds like you don't have a visible meter in your viewfinder. I would be looking into another body or buying an external light meter. Or just shoot in Aperture or Shutter Priority. the seems to think that the camera is metering when you hold it up to your face without pressing any buttons. edit: he should learn how to use a camera before buying another one. MrBlandAverage fucked around with this message at 21:17 on Feb 15, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2012 21:15
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:I legitimately mourn the loss of ortho sheet film. Developing by inspection sounds pretty cool http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/24605-REG/Ilford_1813157_Ortho_Plus_4x5_B_W.html http://www.freestylephoto.biz/3728100-Rollei-ORTHO-25-iso-Orthochromatic-8x10-10-sheets ?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2012 00:10
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Both of those are basically copy films. They're "ultra-contrasty", "technical, steeply working." You may be able to tame them with special developers and poo poo, but it's kind of unappealing to have a grand total of like two film-developer combinations available. I don't have personal experience with this, but there seem to be a bunch of 8x10 shooters using x-ray film because it's super cheap. You're certainly right that it would be cool to have more normal film/developer combinations...
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2012 00:31
|
|
|
whereismyshoe posted:So I just bought another camera today - it's a canon EOS rebel, but..it's just a rebel. no x, no xs, no nothing else. On the body it just says "EOS Rebel" with a red streak under rebel. I can't seem to find any other information about this specific camera anywhere, anyone know anything about it? It's probably this: http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/eos/eoscamera/EOS1000FRebelS/index.htm
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2012 21:31
|
|
|
New Jobo CPP3 rotary processor coming soon. With this and that Plustek and maybe a V700 for 4x5 I won't have to leave the house except to take pictures  http://www.firstcall-photographic.co.uk/blog/?p=47&preview=true 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2012 10:37
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:How does FP4+ compare to Acros? 100 ISO vs 125 ISO isn't a huge leap, especially since I'd be shooting both at 100 anyway. Acros is $1 cheaper per roll, and I've seen some phenomenal stuff with it, but I've never shot it personally. I guess I should just order some and shoot it and stop being a ween. Acros is a magical film made of pixie dust and fairy wings. That said, it's a tabular grain film, so if you prefer the more traditional "look" of cubic grain, FP4+ is what you want.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2012 20:44
|
|
|
unleash the unicorn posted:Is there any cheap B&W film still in production or is it all acros and delta now? Talking 120, Acros is pretty cheap at $3.20/roll but there's also Lucky SHD and Arista EDU for under $3/roll. Is that not cheap enough?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2012 16:25
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:When you're developing, at what point can you turn the lights back on? I thought I read in this thread that once you've dumped out the developer, you were ok to remove the lid of the tank to wash and then do fixing. It's not safe until after the fixer. Also, don't stick sheets together - that's just asking for trouble. Use the "taco method" if you don't have a specialized 4x5 film holder.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2012 00:47
|
|
|
About half of my freezer is film.   Edit for list: 35mm: HP5+ Portra 400 Velvia 50 random Kodak/Fuji/rebranded consumer film 120: HP5+ Brick of Portra 400NC Brick of Portra 100T about 30 rolls of New Portra, both 400 and 160 Pro 400 MC Vericolor II VPL Tri-X Plus-X T-Max 100 Provia 100F Provia 400X 4x5: FP4+ HP5+ Acros Astia Provia Velvia NPL 160 Portra 160 Portra 400 Ektachrome Era 100 Instant: Polaroid Pogo Polaroid 669 FP-100C, FP-100C45 FP-3000B, FP-3000B45 MrBlandAverage fucked around with this message at 14:44 on May 1, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 1, 2012 14:19
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Does anyone know where I could get some film reels with the large guide flanges? I see a few kits with them, but no one seems to be selling individual large-flange reels, only short flange reels or kits. I use these exclusively now. $8.99 at Freestyle.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2012 02:18
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Those are also fine for AP/Paterson tanks, right? Yep! I use them interchangeably in my AP 2-reel tank and my Paterson 3-reel tank. Even the agitators are compatible between the AP and Paterson tanks.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2012 06:19
|
|
|
aliencowboy posted:How are E100G and Provia 100F for skintones? Not bad to pretty good, depending on the light. Looks to me like E100G does better in the shade. http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=68222134@N00&q=e100g http://www.flickr.com/search/?ss=2&w=68222134%40N00&q=provia&m=text http://www.flickr.com/search/?ss=2&w=all&q=e100g+portrait&m=text http://www.flickr.com/search/?ss=2&w=all&q=provia+portrait&m=text
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2012 16:29
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:Hey you buttheads, KEH is having an up-to-10% off everything sale right now. Buy everything except the 6x7 TTL finders because I'm buying one Sunday or Monday. Thanks for reminding me. I just snagged a multicoated 210mm Symmar-S for less than eBay prices.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2012 02:37
|
|
|
astia owns that is all 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2012 00:55
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:Ektar is awesome As long as you're shooting in bright sunlight. And as long as you don't overexpose. Or underexpose. And as long as you don't need the dynamic range you get from other negative film...
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2012 02:03
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:Any opinions on Fuji Reala? It's the cheapest decent 100 ISO film on Adorama, and I'm about to take a vacation where I need to stay on a budget I get magenta casts in anything other than direct undiffused sunlight, so for my purposes it's in the unusable category along with Ektar. Is your vacation far away enough that you could get some lightly expired Portra 160NC off eBay instead?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2012 16:10
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:Looks like Fuji is killing more film, Velvia 100F is discontinued in most formats and they're stopping Velvia 50 in 4x5 and 8x10 formats: http://www.petapixel.com/2012/07/19/fujifilm-discontinues-a-number-of-formats-from-the-velvia-film-lineup/ Fujifilm UK has made announcements like this before, where they say it's true worldwide but it's in fact only for the UK. I'm all stocked up on Astia now so I may be biased, but I'd wait and see before freaking out.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2012 00:24
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:So I shot a couple rolls of Pan F today and I've not had a lot of luck with. I used Rodinal 1+50 for 11 minutes at 20C like Ilford recommends and the massive dev chart says. The negatives came out very thin. I had this problem the last time I tried to shoot Pan F and just assumed I'd hosed up the exposure because I'm still pretty new with using a flash manually. This time I noticed that the text in the rebates (frame numbers and the "Ilford Pan F") are also very thin so I wonder if it is a developing issue and not a shooting issue (for what it's worth I also shot two rolls of FP4 today and they came out perfectly exposed). I've always had Pan F+ come out looking way too thin but somehow scanning and printing perfectly v  v If you're having trouble scanning with the Ilford recommended times, add some agitation and/or time and you're set.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2012 17:30
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:Speaking of potentially poo poo products, has anyone had any experience with Lomography's DigitaLIZA masks? I'm waffling between $60 for a set of DigitaLIZA masks (120+135), or $80+ for one BetterScanning 120 holder. The negative holders that come with the V500 are pretty lovely. The Betterscanning holder is way more than $20 worth better than the Digitaliza.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2012 20:55
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:As a rule, scanner software for consumer scanners is nightmarish at best, single button at worst. Apparently the Imacon and various drum scanning softwares are quite good, but for the rest of us it's a lesser of very-close-levels-of-evil thing. Nope, drum scanning software is a piece of poo poo too. At least it's got the extra power that comes with the drum scanner features (focus, aperture, etc.).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2012 04:46
|
|
|
Anti-Derivative posted:just grabbed a V500. 4800dpi is way beyond what the V500 optics are actually capable of. Try 2400dpi.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2012 19:51
|
|
|
Anti-Derivative posted:I'm *really* used to digital cameras which are more ... forgiving ... when it comes to obtaining a decent exposure. I... I don't understand...  Are you shooting slide film?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2012 21:01
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:My eye is guessing 35mm, I'm curious if I'm right. A hint of the rebate at the top of a portrait orientation image tells me 645.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2012 20:31
|
|
|
This is what happens when I rely on zone focus because the rangefinder on my XA is badly out of calibration   Pylsur by Isaac Sachs, on Flickr Thanks to Man_of_Teflon, though, I have a new, perfectly calibrated XA! 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2012 13:56
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:Does Man_of_Teflon know how to make the rangefinder patch visible again on an XA? I didn't get mine fixed, I just bought another one Dim rangefinder patch usually means you just need a good cleaning!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2012 17:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 02:57 |
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:acros good, but picture severely overexposed because of wrong metering You just need to shoot larger formats.  I didn't see any weird grain in this shot overexposed by 7 stops...
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2012 19:53
|
|