|
I would absolutely love it if Nikon came out with a digital version of the F3 but I doubt it will ever happen. Put in a 12 MP FX sensor, get rid of all the LCDs and have it controlled solely but dials and buttons. A manual shutter cock would be great. I would pay $2000 for one of those.
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2009 02:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 17:06 |
|
|
Rontalvos posted:To all you who are well versed in film varieties, I'd like some recommendations for 120 size slide film. I bought a medium format camera and it's still on the way, and I have a photo class that is forcing me to shoot slides. For general use I like Ektachrome, Provia, and Astia. Astia is pretty cheap so you may want to start with that. Velvia is very nice but is geared more towards landscape photography, though I have shot it for urban uses before and it was basically OK. In short I would go buy a roll of Astia and Ektachrome and play with it, and if you like landscapes, grab the Velvia. Provia is nice because you can get it in a 400 speed. I can't think of a single slide film that is available above ISO 400 besides Provia so if you need speed that is the one to get. Tri-X is a classic and a lot of people love it because it is easy to use, very pushable, can be developed in diafine easily, etc. It's a classic film. Personally my favorite 2 films are Acros 100 and Neopan 1600. I also like Ilford XP2 super which can be processed at any lab unlike standard B&W. B&W film is cheap so just experiment.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2009 17:31
|
|
|
hybr1d posted: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. Have you considered a Fuji 645? Doesn't get any more compact than that for medium format.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2009 04:23
|
|
|
Rontalvos posted:So I got a new toy in the mail today, but I'll have to wait till tomorrow to post pictures. Pentax 67? I have one and can feel the mirror vibration in my hand when I shoot it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2009 17:05
|
|
|
Kaluza-Klein posted:I just got a changing bag in the mail. I am a bit confused by it. It's light tight enough. I never had any issues with light leaks. Just don't take your arms out of the holes without putting the film in the tank. Occasionally I would get frustrated trying to load a roll on to a reel and would need to take a break (usually happened with crap plastic reels).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2009 00:05
|
|
|
mcosio posted:Where does everyone store their unexposed film? I have looked around and some people say in their fridge, others a room temperature closet or bedroom. In a ziploc bag in the freezer. Works great except for the fact that my freezer is full of film...
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2009 01:38
|
|
|
a Wizards dick posted:Spotting negatives is the shittiest chore ever... are there any photoshop tricks that can help get rid of like 65% of the smaller bits so I can focus on the larger, hard-to-remove pieces? Here's a nice (video) tutorial using the "dust and scratches" tool in photoshop as a brush that I think works reasonably well. http://www.vimeo.com/1017781?pg=embed&sec=1017781
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2009 02:09
|
|
|
Well, I acquired 2 rolls of Kodachrome 64 for my trip to Honolulu and the big island. Took 3 weeks to arrive from Freestyle and I had to buy the professional version. I plan to put it through a Minolta SRT101 and pretend it's 1968. I've also acquired the new 50mm Voigtlander Nokton f/1.1. I plan to put it on my MP and I will post a report about it in a couple of weeks when I get back.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2009 02:04
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:f 1.1? Christ. You lucky bastard. My lowest is f. 1.4 for the Canon t70 I have. Yeah, it's pretty cool. I'm in love with high speed lenses, especially rangefinder ones, because they are so much easier to focus in the dark . The Nokton f/1.1 is about $9000 cheaper than the 50mm noctilux f/0.95, and about $3500 cheaper than a used Noctilux. My next purchase may be a converted Canon f/0.95 TV lens. We will see.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2009 16:14
|
|
|
Fuji Neopan 1600 is my favorite "high speed" film. It has a constrasty "film noir" sort of look. It's great stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2009 03:08
|
|
|
Dude, you should enable the digital ICE on your scanner.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2009 18:15
|
|
|
Leyendecker posted:I have a family friend who's asked me to see if I can develop some negatives he just recovered from when he was a soldier in WWII. This is a really cool opportunity but I'm hesitant just because I don't want to gently caress up his negatives in any way. I haven't had a chance to actually see them yet but what would everyone's suggestion be to prep for this or should I not even be handling this and should I just send him to a professional? I'm fine developing and printing black and white negatives 35mm or 120mm or whatever but I'd not know where to find development times necessarily since I have no idea what kind of film I'm going to be looking at. I'll probably update once I get to meet with him. Personally I would probably just dump them in Diafine and hope for the best. It is quite possible to develop old negatives, I read about it regularly and there are some sites devoted to found film, but 60+ years is a stretch...
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2009 10:20
|
|
|
Just got finished bulk loading my first roll of Tri-X. First few rolls took forever but the last ones went fast. I was able to get about 20 rolls out of the 100ft. It's really the way to go, I think. You can get a used Watson 100 loader for $12 on eBay and 25 empty cartridges is about $15, and the arista bulk rolls are pretty cheap, too.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2009 01:38
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:What's your technique for loading film on the reels? I've done 3-4 practice rolls of crap film and it seems like it's easiest if you leave it in the cannister, snip the leader and get it started in the light, and then wind it all on straight out of the cannister. I find it a lot harder to pop the top off and then load it from the bare reel. The risk there is that you can scratch the film by moving it against the felt. I always pop off the top. You have to bow the film outward a little bit as you put it on the reel and move the reel not the film. Hold the reel in your left hand and the film in your right, slightly bowed, and then rotate the reel counterclockwise and it should go fine. Occasionally I stop and check to make sure the film is on the reel properly. I use a changing bag. I use these "tundra" reels that are metal (plastic reels are crap) and have two notches where you put the sprocket holes instead of the metal clips. They work great and I can load them faster than any other reel and they have no moving parts to break like a plastic reel does. They are about $20/pop though.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2009 03:07
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:What's the real advantage to bulk loading? At the risk of putting my foot in my mouth, I've heard that you generally save about $6 by loading a reel of 100 feet. Is there some advantage to mitigate the time and trouble and risk of loving up a canister of film? Couple of advantages...you can control the number of exposures on the roll, which can be handy, and this includes cramming more than 36 on the roll. Cost savings varies from very little to a lot, depending the film. Example: Efke 100 is $4 a roll at Freestyle. A 100ft reel is $42. Assuming you can get 20 rolls out of a 100ft (you can get more if you are careful), you are looking at almost $40 saved.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2009 07:29
|
|
|
Flea markets are awesome for getting stuff. I managed to buy an excellent condition Minolta Hi-Matic 7s (w/ working meter) and approximately 20 rolls of various color films (most expired, but who cares) for $20. The cost was so low I may use them as test rolls or to try out Redscaling. I also just scored a 150ft roll of Kodak Tech Pan film off of eBay today for about $75. Supposedly it has been frozen so it should be OK, but it's ISO 25 anyways so I am not that worried about it. The stuff is supposed to be legendary.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2009 01:19
|
|
|
Kaerf posted:Not sure if this is a metal vs. plastic thing, but I use Hewes steel reels and a 36 frame roll fits almost perfectly on it. If it doesn't, I know I've done something wrong. I use hewes steel reels as well and wouldn't have it any other way. They are easier to load than plastic. After using them I don't understand why people would continue to goof around with plastic reels.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2009 16:11
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:
There are numerous 55 f/3.5s sitting on KEH right now, some as low as $165.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2009 16:30
|
|
|
Bleh. On the top of scanning, My V500 seems to choke on Kodachrome. It scans, but it seems there are tons of artifacts. It almost looks like bad JPG compression, so I switched to TIFF, with no change. I'm using the Epson software.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2009 06:17
|
|
|
trueblue posted:I have the Canon 5600F, which is pretty much the 8800F without medium format scanning. Honestly I've been pretty happy with the results, I turn all the auto adjustments/dust removal/sharpening off and do the sharpening/curves in Photoshop. If I want a good quality image I just scan at 4800 dpi then resample down to between 6 and 12 megapixels. I'm happy to post a full-res sample if anyone would like to see. Good call, let me try that...
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2009 16:11
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Go for it... I wouldn't mind taking it but I don't want to hog all the Kodachrome. I'll do it. PM me.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2009 03:54
|
|
|
Just a head's up if anyone is interested. I just bought a V700 scanner so I am selling my V500. Works perfectly, has all the accessories. Shoot me a PM if you are interested and we can work something out.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2009 05:07
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:Lens dilemma. I have used a 35mm f/2 Zeiss and I currently have a 35mm f/1.2 Nokton. The Zeiss is pretty good, very sharp, small, but I wanted the speed of the Nokton. A used Zeiss will set you back about $600 and the Nokton is closer to a grand.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2009 01:39
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:Wouldn't mind either, but aiming for $300 or under, speed not being a great concern. From what I can tell, it limits me to Summicrons, Summarons, CV or some Canon gear... (and the russians of course) Russian stuff is such a terrible crapshoot. Where can you get a $300 summicron?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2009 04:05
|
|
|
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? 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 would go big or go home. Get a 6x6 or better yet, find yourself a nice Pentax 67 or some sort of 6x9 camera. I'd love a Mamiya 7 myself.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2009 01:33
|
|
|
hybr1d posted: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. It's larger for sure, but the equipment for 6x6 is not much bigger if it is bigger at all. It just seems like a waste, and I have had 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7 and a 6x9 camera. I'd take any of the last 3 over a 6x4.5. You can always get a 6x6 and crop. The bronica gear is nice, and the lenses are nice, but I think you can do better.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2009 04:37
|
|
|
nevermind, I basically wrote the exact same thing as Paul. That's what I get for not reading.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2009 01:06
|
|
|
oncearoundaltair posted:Fairly recently I was given a gift by my girlfriend's grandmother after she discovered I was so interested in photography. Apparently her late husband was a very keen amateur photographer, and for years now the equipment he used in his hobby has lain undisturbed in a box. So it was gifted to me, with the only condition attached being that I should make sure I use it. I opened the box and found this - Rangefinders are awesome. I love 'em. They are very easy to focus in low light provided you have something with contrast. How long has the Leica been sitting around? You should check all the shutter speeds to make sure they are at least somewhat accurate, and you should also try to check the rangefinder alignment and have it adjusted if necessary. Try focusing on something far away at infinity and see if the alignment is correct, and then try some closer up items to make sure it isn't way off.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2009 00:19
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:Shot my first rolls of Ilford 100 (for MF) and TMAX 100 (for 35mm). My first time shooting b&w out of a controlled environment, so I'm really excited for how they're gonna turn out. I also have a huge bag of like 40 rolls of tri-x 400 (for MF) sitting around, and just wanted to know if it was really possible to push tri-x 400 up to like 1600 and still have it look decent? I know b&w is more malleable in terms of that stuff, but is it THAT drastic? Yes you can push the poo poo out of it. Search flickr and you will find plenty of examples. Xtol is good for pushing Tri-X to 3200.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2009 01:13
|
|
|
johnasavoia posted:Just bought a 20 pack of Superia 400/36, a 10 pack of Kodak max 800/24 and an 8 pack of NPZ800/36, as well as an XA to go with my XA2. I hope you didn't pay much for that Kodak Max. It's probably the single worst film I have ever used.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2009 17:01
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Yeah, Freestyle kicks rear end. I didn't even realize they had a "Hot Deals!" section... I'm REALLY tempted by that 100' bulk roll of outdated (5/09) Fomapan 100 for $17.99. A 100 speed black and white film will show zero difference at the date range, especially when stored by Freestyle, and that essentially works out to $1/roll of 36 exposures. drat. I bought one of those bulk fomapan rolls. It's sitting in my freezer, not sure when I will get around to it, but yeah, it's a hell of a deal.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2009 02:07
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I've never tried Foma before, but apparently Fomapan 100 gives an Agfa APX100-like tonality, especially when used with Rodinal... nice and punchy. You should roll up a few rolls! I have a bulk roll of Tech Pan that I want to get to first...but it's on the list. I have loads of film I need to shoot.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2009 02:22
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:You should never pre-soak film with Diafine, as the first bath needs to be completely absorbed into the film. I'd disagree with you on the "longest lasting, most durable developer" piece. People still use 50+ year old bottles of Rodinal all the time.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2009 16:09
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Doesn't Rodinal age pretty fast once it's been opened, though? My own experience says "no", because I have been using the same bottle for 5 years with no ill effects. Here's a thread on photo.net to the same effect. http://photo.net/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/008kEQ It really is a fantastic developer. It's very easy to mix, and you only have to worry about the temperature of the water, and not the developer, since you use so little of it. It's very economical as well.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2009 23:34
|
|
|
caberham posted:When I ask the photo store people whether they develop velvia or kodachrome (only knowing a little bit about slides) I get weird looks and reactions from people saying "that stuff is slides, it's expensive man..." Besides developing difficulties, I can put those 35mm into any 35mm camera and shoot as normal right? I'm sorry, a Minolta 7s for $310? What currency is this in? I paid $10 for one at a flea market. EDIT: fixing the quote killabyte fucked around with this message at 04:27 on Sep 24, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2009 04:00
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:I was all "WTF I didn't say that!" and I realize that you meant to quote his post. I missed that part, $310 for a 7s is basically an outright scam unless it's some kind of obscure collectible version. Whoops, yeah, meant to quote the other post. Edit: and I see he is in Hong Kong from his profile so I am guessing $310 is about right. killabyte fucked around with this message at 04:28 on Sep 24, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2009 04:26
|
|
|
aol keyword party posted:
I'm planning on shooting it in 4x5 soon. What kind of filter were you using? A red filter or an infrared filter? Looks more like a red filter... FYI, Ilford SFX 400 really isn't infrared, it's just extended red sensitivity.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2009 06:06
|
|
|
I am pretty interested in seeing the results of the Polachrome. It's one of the weird technologies like disc film that I was always interesting in trying for the sake of saying I have done it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2009 23:19
|
|
|
HPL posted:If you think that's awesome, you'd pass out from excitement if you saw my freezer. The holy grail of my freezer is a 150ft roll of Kodak Tech Pan that I can't bring myself to bulk load. I also have 2 boxes of Velvia 50 4x5 Quickloads that I am dying to use.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2009 01:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 17:06 |
|
|
HPL posted:Just bought a Moskva-5 off of eBay. This should be interesting. Interesting is the right word. I used to have one. It's a nice, lightweight, relatively compact camera. As long as your expectations are sufficiently lowered it will be fine. Russian sellers claim everything is "Excellent+" even though it is obvious from the image that the camera looks like poo poo. Problems I had: 1. It's fragile. The bellows are 50+ years old and wear it. The bellows on mine intruded in the image a little bit. 2. Small pieces of it have a knack for falling off. Finding one that still has a self timer knob is a challenge. The knob on mine fell off. 3. The leather falls off the body and the camera gets rusty. 4. It's not very sharp until about f/11. It's pretty good after that. I ran one roll through mine and sold it. I haven't yet replaced it with anything.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2009 02:08
|
|