|
I'm thinking about Buying a Bessa R3M w/ 50/2 lens. Any thoughts? I am interested in trying a rangefinder out. My requirements are that the camera have a light meter and be reasonably affordable.
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2008 03:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 14:47 |
|
|
gib posted:Meters in RFs are nice if for no other reason than they let you know when you've left the lens cap on. I went ahead and pulled the trigger on the R3M package with the Heliar. Looks like a nice well made camera. Someone will have to explain to me these rangefinder metering comments I see around? I'd never buy an SLR without a meter so I don't quite understand why I would want a rangefinder without one.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2008 03:11
|
|
|
Well, I got the Bessa R3M kit. It comes in a really nice presentation box. It seems very nice. The camera feels very solid, even more so than my SRT-101 and about on par with my F3. The heliar lens is nice, very compact. I'm impressed how small rangefinder lenses are. The lens is very heavy for it's size. The collapsible feature is a bit gimmicky in my opinion, though it would be cool to have a lens that collapses down very small. I will try to run some film through it this weekend if I get a chance.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2008 06:57
|
|
|
I need some ideas or anyone with experience on develping ancient film. I was cleaning out my closet in my bedroom at my parent's house and found an undeveloped roll of Tri-X from the mid 90s. I want to try and develop it and see what exactly is on there because I took a lot of really hosed up pictures when I was a kid so I bet it will be fairly amusing. I have Diafine and D76 at my disposal. Which one should I try? I am thinking I will go for the Diafine. Would the D76 be a better option? At least the Diafine takes the guessing game out.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2008 21:18
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Diafine. It will reduce the fog on the film, I have seen 70 year old negs come out printable with that stuff. An update: I just finished developing the film. It is hanging dry right now. I used standard 3+3 diafine and fixed it in Kodafix (I really need to get a non hardening fixer). They look somewhat overexposed. There's about 15 usable images from the roll of 24. The film looks to be circa 1994-1996. The images consist of some bizarre looking self portraits, a few pictures of my television set, a couple pictures of my computer, a picture of my dog, my brother, and my backyard.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2008 05:12
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:They look overexposed? Or are they really light? Hardening fixers just make washing the film take longer there shouldn't be any other difference in modern films. Yeah, I made the hardening fixer comment because it sucks washing film for 25 minutes. The pictures are overexposed but not too bad. They are extremely grainy. It's funny, I have been looking through the pictures (they are very mundane pictures) and I narrowed the date down to Memorial day weekend of 1995. There was a calendar on the wall in the picture of my bedroom. All the days were X'd out up to May 27th. There was also a nice stack of Pogs sitting in my windowsill. I would have been in the 6th grade. killabyte fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Jun 30, 2008 |
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2008 16:22
|
|
|
Lambster Bisque posted:Here's some hastily shot pics of my current collection. When I moved from Australia to Scotland about 6 months ago I came with a duffel bag containing about 4 shirts, 2 pairs of jeans, and 5 cameras ... (I've built on it some, since then) What do you think of the Olympus Six? Do you shoot with it much?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2008 22:41
|
|
|
Lambster Bisque posted:I love it, it was a gift/loan from my girlfriends grandfather. I've only had a chance to run a few rolls of film through it - but when I finally spring for an Epson 4490 or something of the sort (in the next week or so) I'll scan up some of the negs so we can both see just what sort of shots I'm getting out of it. So far the initial impressions are really good though, it has a really nice feel to shooting with it, second only to my Leica-clone FED. I just bought an Epson V500 scanner and it seems to work pretty well. Try one of the windows live ebay deals to get one at a good price. I'm interested to see how the Olympus Six performs. I would love to have a semi compact medium format camera.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2008 23:53
|
|
|
Snaily posted:So my Diafine finally arrived (got stuck in customs, You really can't develop them in Diafine without overdeveloping, especially the Tri-X. Tri-X in Diafine is rated at between 1200-1600. Developing it in Diafine is going to lead to a 3 stop overdevelop.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2008 01:32
|
|
x 5 lost there). At least it turns out I was sent a gallon while ordering a quart. Also got a hugeass changing bag and some Minox film, so I'm ready to roll. Is it a bad idea to only mix up like a pint of each of the solutions? I don't have any gallon-sized airtight bottles at the moment.
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:That's complete and utter poo poo and I suspect you have never used Diafine or any similar developer (or you'd find out like everyone else that Tri-X is nowhere near the rated 1600 but rather closer to 1k if you care at all about shadows). Because of the two step solution and lack of real agitation, the developer will wear out in the highlights before overdeveloping. I generally shoot Tri-X and Plus-X at box speed and have not once 'overdeveloped' a neg. They come out gorgeous, and because of the way Diafine works you are unlikely to ever gently caress up exposure or development too badly. Sounds like magic? Probably is, but as long as I get great negs I am not going to argue with it. Chill the gently caress out. I have used Diafine. It's sitting in my closet right now. I've never shot Tri-X at 400 and developed it in Diafine, except for a 15 year roll that I don't take too much stock in, but have never read of anyone besides yourself doing it. Everything I've read on other forums seems to suggest that ~1200 is about as low as people generally go in it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2008 00:44
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Anyone want to recommend a cheap place to get 120 developed in the Bay Area? Where in the bay area? Foto Express is pretty good and they have a few locations. They do 120 C-41, E-6 same day.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2008 01:05
|
|
|
Does anyone have any Rodinal developing tricks or advice? I like what I have seen with it on slow speed films. I tried developing some Plus X 120 in Rodinal last night and the roll did not turn out well. It was easily scratchable and the image was rubbing right off. I am not sure if something happened with the fixer, or what. What is the recommended agitation? I did 30 seconds to start and 5 inversions each minute. Is an acid stop batch recommended? I did a water agitation for 30 seconds.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2008 00:01
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Things like this wouldnt happen if everyone listened to me and did regular clip tests. Well, I have only used this batch of fixer for about ~10 rolls and the batch is only about a month old, so I wasn't too worried about it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2008 05:45
|
|
|
TokenBrit posted:I've signed up for 2 classes in using a darkroom (2 x 2 hour sessions) and should have a clue by the end of it. There's a camera club near me which has enlargers, scanners, chemicals, dark rooms, cutters, everything, but they obviously want you to be accredited before they let you loose on their equipment. Have you considered a Bronica ETRSI? I picked one up with a speedgrip, 75 mm lens, 120 back for less than $300. It's a nice solid combo. edit: To echo Clayton Bigsby, If you want Square format, see the Bronica SQ series. A bit more expensive but not by much. If you have those Nikon lenses you might also consider a used F100. Easily one of the best modern SLRs around.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2008 05:21
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:How are the Russian FED rangefinders? I'm thinking of buying a Bessa R3A down the road, but wanted to try out something cheaper to see how I like using a rangefinder with interchangeable lenses first. I realize the Bessa is a much nicer camera (as are the lenses, although most of the Russian lenses should work on it), but I want to test the waters with something cheap before I put down that kind of cash. I'm looking more at size/convenience of use than optical quality par excellance. So I recently bought a Bessa R3M kit. I am actually looking to sell it if you are interested. I decided I would rather use a Leica M3. I only put a few rolls through it and it is in great condition. As far as a lightmeter, I use a Sekonic L208. It is very small and fits on a hotshoe and is only about $100. It seems accurate enough. As far as Russian stuff, the Jupiter-8 is the most highly regarded of all the Jupiter lenses. The Industar-22 is also good. I have both of these lenses. The reason they are good is that they are copies of Zeiss / Leica lenses. Keep in mind you are going to need an adapter to use these lenses on a bayonet mount camera like the R3A if you ever get one.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2008 16:40
|
|
|
TsarAleksi posted:Borders aside, under 800 is fine. I took ISO 400 film to Europe, and it got scanned twice on each side, came out looking fine. I'm always scared of that. I always ask for my film to be hand checked at the airport. Usually they complain and ask if I have anything over 800 ISO, so what I usually do is throw a roll of 1600 Fuji in the bag so that I can point to that.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2008 22:44
|
|
|
Does anyone have any tips for cleaning up black and white negatives for scanning? Do any of these anti stat cloths or solutions work? Some are quite expensive. I can deal with a little bit of dust in Photoshop pretty well but some of my negs are downright filthy and my attempts with brushes and Eclipse aren't cutting it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2008 04:49
|
|
|
brad industry posted:I don't like antistatic cloths because when you wipe down a negative you can drag a piece of dirt across and it scratch it. I haven't had good luck with canned air. It just seems to blow dust around. Digital ICE doesn't work with B&W negatives unfortuntely...
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2008 16:18
|
|
|
Bunny Fiesta posted:I'm thinking about getting into photography -- I was planning on going digital until I looked at this thread. Now I'm in love with the contrasty black and white look that film gives, you bastards. I do have a few questions, though. Start with 35mm. Medium format is just as easy to develop but many of the cameras are more expensive and somewhat unwieldy. I think you should spend time with 35mm to see if you truly enjoy it. Buy something cheap like an older Olympus or Pentax to start with. Keep your investment to a minimum. I wouldn't even start developing film right away. If you want to start with B&W, buy some rolls of Ilford XP2 Super. It is B&W film that can be developed at a drug store. The investment in B&W can actually be fairly expensive. The chemicals and the equipment to develop is under $100, but you need to either buy an enlarger and have a darkroom to print or you need to buy a scanner tha works with film, otherwise you are going to get bored real quick.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2008 16:26
|
|
|
MrMeowMeow posted:I was in here a while ago complaining about my camera possibly having a light leak. Turns out I'm just a dork and I was winding the film the wrong way once it was finished. If you buy Velvia online in bulk and do mail processing it can be around $10 /roll.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2008 18:55
|
|
|
So, what kind of scanner do you guys use? I am finding the scans I am getting out of my Epson V500 on 35mm suck. I recently shot some Provia 400X (great film btw) and some Ektachrome and the scans I am getting are awful. The detail looks terrible and the colors look off as well. How much better would a Coolscan V be? Can anyone post comparisons of a flatbed vs a dedicated film scanner? I haven't been able to find any good comparisons.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2008 01:43
|
|
|
Luxmore posted:After trying to scan negatives with an Epson flatbed, I went ahead and spent the money on a Coolscan V, and the only thing I regret is not saving up for a Coolscan 9000. The scans from the V are infinitely superior in pretty much every way to the scans from my Epson 4490. Can you post a couple of examples? Some 100% crops would be cool if possible.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2008 07:32
|
|
|
Back_From_Termina posted:Sorry to keep coming back with problems, but I've got another one. For some reason I can't seem to get all of the fixer out of my negatives while washing anymore. Normally the Ilford method up to 30 inversions works fine, but the last 3 rolls I developed didn't work. I even went up to 80 inversions on all of them, and still my negatives are just a teensy bit purple. I don't think it's the fixer because I did a clip test and it's still clearing in a minute-and-a-half, so I don't know what the gently caress. Any ideas? I think some films have a slightly purplish look to them. The developer might have something to do with it. Others look fine. Tri-X in Diafine always looks a bit purple to me...that might be the worst offender. Acros comes out the clearest. What kind of fixer are you using?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2008 15:57
|
|
|
MrMeowMeow posted:Someone on here recommended Fuji 800 Pro Z as something nice to pick up, so I'm going to go get some tomorrow and I was wondering if 1600 color film exists, and if so, what kind should I grab? 1600 Superia exists. I have some in the freezer but I have never shot it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2008 03:22
|
|
|
Luxmore posted:Pretty hot stuff from Fuji & Cosina right here An awesome camera. It would make a nice compact travel MF camera...which is lacking in the market today.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2008 06:34
|
|
|
Back_From_Termina posted:I came across this tutorial on how to use instant coffee to develop black-and-white film, so I gave it a shot and thought I'd share the results. I bought the goods to do that (washing soda is REALLY hard to find) but I haven't gotten around to doing it yet. Maybe I will try it tomorrow.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2008 02:47
|
|
|
The washing soda I ended up finding was by Arm and Hammer: Super Washing Soda. Comes in a huge box. I can ship people a few oz of it they really want. PM me.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2008 06:06
|
|
|
I'm thinking about buying VueScan. Is it worthwhile? Right now I have an Epson V500 and the images I am getting out of it with the Epson software look like crap. I tried to scan some 120 Velvia and the colors straight out of the scanner look awful and they seem very unsharp. Does VueScan have film profiles that can automate a lot of this? I'd rather not have to mess with each image in photoshop to make it look like Velvia.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2008 15:54
|
|
|
MMD3 posted:I'd love a recommendation of a good high speed, contrasty film for concerts. I'm thinking of pulling out my old Elan 7e body and running some film through it again. For color I used to shoot Fuji NPZ 800 pulled to 640 to make sure my blacks were true and the colors were nice and rich. I can't remember what my favorite black and white was though... I believe I used T-Max and Ilford 3200 interchangeably. and looking back at prints I can't remember which yielded which prints. Have you considered Fuji Neopan 1600? That is a very contrasty film and I like the grain qualities. Easily my favorite high speed film.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2008 17:26
|
|
|
MMD3 posted:I've never tried it, looking at some results though on GIS I like it's characteristics. I'll probably have to pick up a roll or two each of this, the Ilford Delta 3200, and T-Max 3200 and try them all in the same setting at a show. You should be able to develop in your apartment just fine without a darkroom. I develop things all the time. I use a changing bag to get the film on to the reel and in to the tank. After that, there is no need for darkness. A local lab can probably do it just fine, though. I'm not sure what developer they use. I use DD-X for it, though.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2008 06:28
|
|
|
ryangs posted:What developer do you use with Efke? I always used D-76 1:1 (for everything) at school and have never experimented with anything else, but now that I need to buy my own chemicals, it's time. Rodinal responds well to low speed film like Efke. Efke has an "old school" look. I also find Rodinal really easy to use because you really don't have to worry about the temperature of the rodinal, just the temperature of the water, which is much easier to manage.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2008 06:31
|
|
|
Luxmore posted:The F4 gets such a bad rap and I have no idea why; I love the way it handles and the autofocus is just fine. I don't think the F4 is compatible with "G" lenses which is a great reason to buy an F100 or F5...but if you have no intention of using a newer lens, the F4 is a good camera.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2008 02:29
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:Pretty sure it works fine with G glass. Only in Program and Shutter Priority.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2008 04:07
|
|
|
I just got a few rolls of Ektar 100 from Freestyle. Has anyone else tried it yet?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2008 05:06
|
|
|
Well, I got around to trying a roll of Ektar 100 today. I drove up to Mt. Hamilton in San Jose where there is currently snow, which is a real novelty for the bay area. I thought it would be a nice place to test, with snow, blue skies, foliage, dark interiors, etc. I had it processed at Costco and the Noritsu machine hosed up the scans and the prints. I am thinking I will just use Costco for developing from now on and skip the prints. There are lines and marks running through the scans and the prints. They are just prints of the Noritsu scans which look like crap anyways. Anyways, back to the film. The grain is really tight. Even on the crap scans I can barely see any grain. It's a very saturated, contrasty film. Foliage really pops. It actually doesn't seem to have as much latitude as I am used to with color neg film but that's just my initial perception. It sort of looks like Ektachrome. All in all, I really like it. I will try to scan and post some actual examples. The picture themselves are crap unfortunately.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2008 02:55
|
|
|
Alright, here are a few samples from my Ektar 100 shoot. I shot the roll pretty quick so the images aren't anything special. I went back to Costco and made them rescan the pictures because the other ones were awful. Even these scans aren't that great and have some dust spots on them. Mt. Hamilton, San Jose, CA. Nikon F100, 14-24 f2.8 and 50 f1.8, Matrix Meter, Ektar 100. No post processing at all has been done on these images and no filters were used at all.    
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2008 07:33
|
|
|
pwn posted:I'm looking on Keh.com for a nice lil' used F4 and I see a lot of them are denoted "LEADER OUT MODIFIED." What does this mean and functionally what will it mean for me? Because there's this BGN F4e that is just singing out to me, but I just don't know what the implications of this leader out mod business are. Just curious, for what reasons are you going with an F4?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2009 05:35
|
|
|
I'm thinking about buying another medium format camera. Currently I have a Bronica ETRSi and a Yashica-Mat. The bronica is nice but the quality from the 645 negative is not that much of a leap from 35mm. The Yashica-Mat is nice is and in pristine condition but the ground glass is dim and I don't much care for the TLR experience, even though they are quite trendy right now. What I am looking at is a Pentax 67, a Fuji GSW690 (aka the "Texas Leica"), or possibly a Mamiya 7. The Fuji is the cheapest of the bunch and has the biggest negative at 6x9, but the thing is comically large and I don't think it will fit well in any camera bag that I own. I can work around those two issues though, and the price is right at around $700. The Pentax is also gigantic and heavy, but is an SLR, which I prefer. It's got interchangeable lenses, viewfinders, and a general reputation for quality. The price is around $500-600 as well depending on which lens I get. The Mamiya 7 is also an interesting choice but would cost me around $1500 with a lens and everything. It is smaller and lighter than the other choice. The downside is the price and I have heard that the build quality is crap. I am not ruling it out. Does anyone have any thoughts?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2009 22:02
|
|
|
dunno posted:I've heard plastic tanks might be trouble for stand/semi-stand development. True/False/Why? I haven't heard that, but I can tell you that metal tanks and reels are so much nicer. I have the slightly nicer metal reels that have little hooks in them that you slide the film on top of, instead of a clip. They are a bit more expensive but easier to use than even the best plastic reel.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2009 16:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 14:47 |
|
|
In case anyone is interested, I am selling a complete Bronica 645 setup. ETRSi body 120 back Polaroid Back 75mm Zenzanon 2.8 Speed Grip 2 boxes of fuji instant film Unmetered Prism All for $350 shipped and paypal'd. Thought I would throw it up here. It's a nice little setup but I bought a Pentax 67 so this is the odd man out.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2009 03:56
|
|