|
I just bought 2 rolls of 36 exp that expired in march for $12.50 a roll. I plan to shoot it in Yosemite.
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2010 16:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 15:05 |
|
|
DNova posted:I have a box full of expired superia 110 that I'd like to use. Trouble is, nobody seems to be processing 110 anymore. While there are a couple of places on the internet that still process and print 110, I'm wondering if I can process them with B&W chemicals. How are you going to develop it? Do you have a reel that can handle 110 film? Honestly, I think 110 is one of those formats that is just not worth the trouble. It's always sucked. You might be better off selling it on eBay to the Lomo people.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2010 01:22
|
|
|
DNova posted:I'm positive it's going to suck, but that's not really the point. So I need to get a reel for 110 film, is that the only thing I would need that a rental darkroom might not have? Most likely all you need is the reel and a tank it will fit in. You are better off selling it and buying some other film.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2010 02:14
|
|
|
Scored a Minolta X-570 at the flea market today for $15. The lens it came with had a little fungus and the light seals needed to be replaced but it works fine otherwise. Neat little camera that just screams "1980s".
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2010 05:15
|
|
|
Dr. Cogwerks posted:I routinely use 99-cent rolls of medium format color film that expired 10+ years ago. 2005 and partly refrigerated should be just fine, I'd think. One thing I will caution people on is using expired high speed film. I don't think I would trust 800+ speed film if it is more than a couple of years out of date. It is much more sensitive to cosmic rays (which eventually does in ALL film), so shooting it is likely to yield poor results.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2010 05:39
|
|
|
echobucket posted:I got this camera at the local Goodwill for $3. Everything seems to be in working order, it even had good batteries in it. It has a 50mm F/1.9 lens, and there's not too much dust showing up through the view finder. If you don't want to develop your own film but want to shoot B&W, you should consider starting with XP2 Super 400, which is a B&W film that can be developed by any walgreens. Developing B&W film is pretty easy and can be done very inexpensively...the cost of sending out a few rolls of film will pay for the equipment.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2010 05:40
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:I've heard that the quality of C41 black and whites is terrible compared to normal B&W film, but I have no experience with them. Terrible is a pretty strong word. I like them personally, they are very versatile, and the Ilford product has no orange mask and can be printed in a darkroom if you so like, and also works with ICE so they scan nice too.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2010 03:15
|
|
|
echobucket posted:Guilty. On my first roll of film I messed with the rewind and ended up screwing it up by winding the film back into the roll where I can't get to it. Unless there's some magic trick to pulling it back out that roll is toast. You can get a film leader retriever which can remove it, or you can try to (in the dark) roll it into another roll. Or, you can just take it and get it processed and get whatever images are there.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2010 03:10
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:I think there's actually still a tiny niche for them. The smallest flashbulb has a guide number of 150, the largest available had a GN of 550. They don't act like a point light source like an electronic flash - it acts like a diffuse light source the size of the reflector. I've used flash bulbs on a super speed graphic. They make a really satisfying sound when they go off. Buy yourself a crown or speed graphic with a graflite and put them to use...you will be a hit at parties.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2010 06:03
|
|
|
Sushi in Yiddish posted:I think I can top that. A friend of mine gave me a negative anti-dust brush in a very thick box. Those are staticmaster brushes, and it's not plutonium, but polonium, which is a completely different element. I have one, they are still sold and work pretty well.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2010 16:00
|
|
|
Stumbletron posted:Sorry if it's been asked before but I leave soon and still have ~2000 posts to go. Put it through, it will be fine. I used to be a stickler for hand checking but it is pretty much a waste of time. I wouldn't send it through the xray for 50 consecutive passes. Somewhere on Kodak's website there is a whitepaper about this that can put your mind at ease if you are really worried.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2010 06:01
|
|
|
Developer is really cheap...why chance it? Do you want to go out and spend time taking shots only to cheap out on something that may cost $1 or less? Use Rodinal, HC-110, Diafine, or Xtol. These are all cheap developers. a 5L batch of Xtol mixed 1:1 or 1:2 will last a long, long time. I've never actually finished a batch before I have tossed it due to age.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2010 16:00
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:So do I. But at, what, $8 for 5 liters of it, I'm not going to risk reusing it. Especially when all my tests are done with a 1:1 solution. I mix it at extremely high dilutions for processing 4x5 in a Combi-Plan tank to prevent uneven development, because the drat thing takes 30 seconds to fill and 30 seconds to drain, which is why it lasts so long. I pretty much find Xtol to be the best, most versatile developer out there, along with HC-110 being a close 2nd. I hate mixing up the xtol powders though, I always inhale a bunch of it when I pour it out of the bag.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2010 05:14
|
|
|
Zegnar posted:Something a little different... I found a film behind a warehouse, just rusted enough I was sure it would be totally fogged. The canister had 'marina' written on it in white out. I almost threw it away but I was so curious I couldn't resist developing it. If you fancy yourself as an eStalker you might consider searching Facebook for local people named Marina and see if you can find her. How old did the film look?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2010 05:12
|
|
|
I have 10 rolls of it. Fortunately they are only 24 exp rolls. I will be trying to shoot some of them off in Yosemite next week.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2010 16:01
|
|
|
Tshirt Ninja posted:Did you buy from jasminehd? I can't really tell if that listing is for real, the price seems too low and the bulk too high for me to not be suspicious. I bought that stuff too. The 24 exp doesnt bother me and it was cheap enough. Showed up reasonably quickly but I haven't tried to use it yet.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2010 18:07
|
|
|
Tshirt Ninja posted:So I've taken several shots on this roll in the K1000 but the exposure counter hasn't moved from 24. Did my film not catch on the spool or something? How do I tell? Does the counter on a Pentax count down from 24 to 1? That's kinda weird, most cameras count up from like -2.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2010 05:17
|
|
|
ZoCrowes posted:I just got one myself and I love it. Very sharp lens on that sucker and the light meter does a nice job for being as old as it is. You're going to run into some trouble with the battery but you can easily work around it. The viewfinder is big and bright and it's very easy to focus with. You're going to love it. It seems like there is something funky with the far right side of the 3rd image. Is that a window or a double exposure or something?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2010 04:47
|
|
|
HPL posted:Try washing with hot water. My Acros negatives come out super transparent and clear, no purple at all. Lots of films will result in purple water when washing, even 35mm film. It's the anti-halation layer. Tri-X is the worst offender, especially in 35mm. They always look purple to me.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2010 16:59
|
|
|
M5 is an interesting camera. Sorta reminds me (looks wise) of a Fed 5. I always get tempted to buy another Leica (I've owned an M3, an M6, and an MP) but every time I think about the propsect of shooting 35mm I think twice about it and don't pull the trigger. The M3 I sold because I couldn't deal with the double stroke wind and no wide angle, the M6 I sold because I bought a 300mm AF-S nikon lens, and the MP I sold because I couldn't bear the though of that expensive camera sitting in my bag never being used.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2010 00:09
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Bessa R2a/R3a I've actually owned an R3M. The drat rangefinder used to get misaligned all the time so I sold it, but the 50/2 heliar was a cool lens.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2010 04:36
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:I just picked up from the shop the first roll of film I've shot since I bought my DSLR. One of the ebay lenses I bought unexpectedly came with 2 rolls of Fuji Pro 160, and I'm pretty happy with how the first roll turned out. They expired September of 2009, and I'm poking around ebay looking for good deals on similar expired film. 1. The process is no different than the way C-41 is put on CD. The negatives are developed and the film is scanned. 2. Try Ektar 100, it's basically the newest tech. Ilford XP2 is a black and white C-41 as well.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2010 06:32
|
|
|
Tshirt Ninja posted:I've got a scratch running the length of a fairly important negative because I guess my squeegee had some crap on it or something. Is there anything I can do to fill it or am I screwed? Don't squeegee your film. Just use photo-flo and let it air dry. Touching the film unnecessarily is only asking for trouble, as you have found.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2010 05:27
|
|
|
Keeble in Palo Alto has a lot of 120 film. That's typically where I go if I can't wait for some delivery.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2010 00:47
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:Does anyone here by some remote chance have any Kodak Technidol developer? *waits for orange lime to show up* It pops up on eBay, but Photographer's Formulary TD-3 was also made for tech pan and is still available.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2010 06:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 15:05 |
|
|
Has anyone figured out how to scan Velvia? My Velvia scans look like crap. They are muddy and unsharp. Looks like I scanned it through vaseline. E100G on the other hand looks amazing. I love that film.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2010 23:44
|
|