|
Only what was out of the canister will be toast, everything still in it will be fine.
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2010 03:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 23:30 |
|
|
Cannister posted:Color: I'd suggest giving Fuji Provia 100F if you're going to give Ektachrome E100G a shot, personally I find Fuji's slide offerings to be a little better than Kodak's. And of course, don't forget Ektar 100.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2010 18:38
|
|
|
Neopan 1600 pushed to 3200.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2011 00:38
|
|
|
Stregone posted:Yeah but dealing 1000 negatives is alot more difficult than 1000 digital files :p It's pretty easy to lose 1000 digital files
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2011 04:16
|
|
|
If you've got a local lab, make sure to use it - I can get E-6 120 developed same-day 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2011 18:17
|
|
|
Definitely underexposing. edit: and apparently those are 100F, which definitely has a slightly different look than 50.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2011 19:12
|
|
|
Does anyone know of a good reference book on making RA-4 prints? Figured I'd ask here instead of the print thread as it's a bit more faster-moving.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2011 20:53
|
|
|
C-41 isn't easy enough for home development?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2011 16:45
|
|
|
Make your own! 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2011 22:30
|
|
|
Walgreens sells 10mL oral syringes real cheap, great for HC-110.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2011 20:11
|
|
|
Citizens is totally my favorite lab. Nice dudes working there.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2011 22:06
|
|
|
Plastic reels are super super easy with 120. The only time I've ever had a problem loading was when I had the rollers slightly wet.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2011 19:17
|
|
|
That's the right one. I believe they're 'compact' because you can bring them down to 135 size when not in use.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2011 00:06
|
|
|
But the P67 lenses actually get into Hasselblad territory of resolving power, so why not? :V
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2011 00:10
|
|
|
Developed film is fine, exposed is not.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2011 19:39
|
|
|
██████████████♫LIKE!♫██████████████ ██████████♫My Favorites♫♫ ████████████ ►►►►►►►►►►GREAT:)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2011 01:12
|
|
|
If you're using one-shot, I think you can just throw your film in the developer without removing remjet if it's alkaline. Should be pretty easy to 'brush off' afterwards.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2012 18:09
|
|
|
Don't scratch your wet emulsions.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2012 01:35
|
|
|
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. Can you just read your manual and come back to us? Holy poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2012 20:48
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:the seems to think that the camera is metering when you hold it up to your face without pressing any buttons. the seems to think a lot of stupid things about photography
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2012 21:16
|
|
|
the posted:As you can see I'm making an effort to do that. Thanks for pointing out that spot in the manual, I must have missed that the first read through! Have you considered digital? It seems like instant feedback is better for someone of the "can't pay attention" generation.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2012 22:02
|
|
|
the posted:lmao And, judging by that thread, it seems like you're working with film for the wrong reasons.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2012 22:15
|
|
|
soap
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2012 22:36
|
|
|
Not rumors: http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2156493/kodak-discontinues-colour-reversal-films
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2012 20:54
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:My impression was that the meter took in the light coming at it and deduced that at a given aperture, X shutter speed was required. It didn't care if you were metering for a white sign or a black one because the meter was aimed at the direction that the light was coming from. So, theoretically, it should make a white sign white look white and a black sign black look black, and there shouldn't really be over/under exposure (barring, of course, any intricacies with the camera/lens configuration where if you get a meter reading for 1/2505 at 5.6 you are safer to meter at 1/125. That's kind of a separate issue). The meter is going to read the black sign as grey and the white sign as grey. Meters read grey. If you point a meter at the sky it's going to see a higher EV than if you pointed at the pavement. Spend a few hours playing outside with your meter and learn how to interpret the readings it gives you into a proper exposure.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2012 00:24
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:Well, sometimes the sky is the light source, especially if it's diffused and gray. In the examples I tried outside last week I aimed the meter to where the camera was going to be. The dome was not facing the sign, so it didn't know if the sign was white or black. All it knew was the amount of light hitting the dome. My assumption, and perhaps this is where I went wrong, was that it would see the light coming in and specify a shutter speed at the given aperture. But like I said, I wasn't aiming the meter at the sign so it didn't know what color it was. Sometimes I found that aiming directly at the camera gave me incorrect results, and aiming closer up towards the source of the light was more accurate. I haven't had enough experience practicing this so I guess I just have to run it through some more tests. If you pointed your meter towards a light bulb, would you expect it to meter correctly? The light source is not what you should be metering - you should be metering your dome where the light is falling. My method is to consider what kind of light is falling onto the subject. If the subject is lit in constant light (say, an overcast sky), I put the meter over my head (so that it's facing the direction the camera is facing) and pick the resultant EV. If the subject is lit in a constant light that's not the same as where I'm standing (maybe a building lit at night), I go and stand where the light is similar to my subject and meter there, facing the camera. Sometimes these need adjustments, and over time you'll start to understand a reasonable EV for each situation based on what you've shot in the past. Sometimes you also need to hold the dome at different angles - how much of the light source is falling on the subject?Is the sky too bright? You need to take the whole scene into account before putting the settings into your camera. It's just a guide.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2012 01:50
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:No, there was a white sign stuck on a fence. I took the meter and pointed it at the camera. The back of the meter was facing the sign. I took the shot at the given exposure and found that it was overexposed. The camera was in manual mode. ISO, aperture, shutter speed, were all based on the settings from the meter. Then I took a second reading by aiming upwards towards the clouds. It was the difference between 1/125 and 1/250, and the latter was the winning exposure. I was following the directions from the manual and from what I knew about incident reading and it was not giving me proper exposure. So I guess sometimes you have to just do a little bit of educated guesswork and you will find success. Now I think I've said everything I need to say on this topic. Do you scan your negatives yourself? If you do, I doubt you're using film with a low enough DR that you couldn't handle the highlights during scanning.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2012 01:51
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:Well, never mind. I just downloaded the newest version and got the Demo license and all that. Everything seems to work fine now. The color profiles definitely seem better than Vuescan though. You might be better off making your own "film profile" by scanning all of your negatives as positives and inverting/making a curves action in Photoshop. Frame detection sucks in Epson Scan, too, but just not as much  .
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2012 20:07
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Point the dome at the light source, not the camera :-) Not always true, but this is what the whole "learning to interpret your meter" thing is all about.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2012 01:40
|
|
|
Is your scanner glass completely clean? If there's glass in the calibration area your scans can get strange lines.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2012 07:03
|
|
|
aliencowboy posted:I have a roll of Fuji Pro 400H that I bought a while back. Am I correct in my understanding of it as a slightly less flexible Portra? Lots of grain, magenta tinge on overcast days. I bought a box as a Portra replacement and I was seriously disappointed.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2012 16:17
|
|
|
What would you expect from Lomo film? The entire point of it is that it's absolute junk.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2012 17:26
|
|
|
RustedChrome posted:It's passable for seeing what you shot. And I've seen perfectly fine scans from cellphones for web presentation. Please save your elitism for your next gallery exhibition. Looking at your negative through a window is a pretty passable way to see what you've shot, but you don't see me advocating it as a scanning method.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2012 19:44
|
|
|
Print film has more exposure latitude than digital can ever dream of. What world are you in?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2012 21:02
|
|
|
Anti-Derivative posted:i mean that i over and underexpose photos all the time because I am used to relying on a digital histogram, and yeah - that I can't just take the shot again when I get it wrong. Learning how to meter correctly is a very large part of photography.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2012 22:25
|
|
|
I wouldn't trust my film to a supermarket. What's wrong with sending out somewhere like NCPS or Dwayne's?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2012 19:13
|
|
|
"Compatible" is not the same. ECN-2, even without the remjet, is not the same as C-41. Ask Photo Engineer on APUG how to do it and prepare to be scolded into oblivion by an old chemist.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2012 21:14
|
|
|
Portra 800?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2012 03:38
|
|
|
Sweaty changing tents are disgusting, and Hoganing your canisters is the only way to go.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2012 23:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 23:30 |
|
|
whereismyshoe posted:Itts only between frames and very slightly on one frame. Ill take a picture. I'm guessing I didn't wash well enough or my hypo clear is bad or something, but I tried snipping a piece off the end and refixing / re washing and it persisted. The fixer was brand new and cleared a snip of film in like a minute so I don't think that was it. How are you metering?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2012 23:07
|
|
