The Film Thread: "for sale: packfilm back. never used."

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > The Film Thread: "for sale: packfilm back. never used."

«‹›5 »

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

I just got a Hasselblad recently and here are some of the early photos I shot on Tri-X 400

Convergence by alkanphel, on Flickr

Lost in Thought by alkanphel, on Flickr

Leaves, Picnic Terrace, Fort Canning by alkanphel, on Flickr

Granite Stairs & Alabaster Railings by alkanphel, on Flickr

Top Floor, Bras Brasah Complex by alkanphel, on Flickr

# ¿ Aug 23, 2011 01:11

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 06:17

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

I thought this might be appropriate here, my friends and I just did a photoshoot for another friend and we decided to go completely analog and do it all in film.

Weapons of Choice by alkanphel, on Flickr

# ¿ Aug 27, 2011 00:07

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

atomicthumbs posted:

Cross-postin' from SAD.

The Wall by atomicthumbs, on Flickr

looks better bigger

This is stitched from three shots on Ektar 100. I used my Mamiya 645 with the 150mm f/2.8 lens at f/22.

Ektar has really good resolution: this is a 100% crop of the family at the top of the hill on the right.

That's a pretty drat awesome panorama!

# ¿ Sep 20, 2011 02:56

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

Just bought a whole bunch of film with some friends. Now our fridges are really stocked full of film.

Only registered members can see post attachments!

# ¿ Sep 21, 2011 01:52

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

Has anyone tried developing Ilford FP4+ in HC-110? For my first time I tried using dilution B with 9 mins but it gave me really dense negatives.

# ¿ Oct 1, 2011 01:18

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

FasterThanLight posted:

I've had good luck with 15 minutes at dilution H, which is supposed to be double the time of B. Massive dev chart says 7-9 @ B, but it seems closer to 7 than 9 from my experiences.

Hmm I'll give dilution H a try and report back then.

# ¿ Oct 2, 2011 09:50

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

Crossposting from SAD, this was taken on Portra 400 but converted to b&w

Mirror World by alkanphel, on Flickr

# ¿ Oct 6, 2011 11:28

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

My updated entry for the photocontest; shot on the new Kodak Portra 400

Symmetry by alkanphel, on Flickr

# ¿ Oct 11, 2011 10:34

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

Something shot on expired Superia, "rescued" through a b&w conversion.

Upper Cross Street by alkanphel, on Flickr

# ¿ Oct 20, 2011 07:15

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

Does anyone know whats a good Ilford developer substitute for HC-110?

# ¿ Nov 1, 2011 01:56

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

nielsm posted:

Ilfotec HC.

Ah ok thanks, will try that out in place of HC-110.

# ¿ Nov 1, 2011 02:55

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

HPL posted:

Rangefinders used to be inconspicuous back in the 70's but I think nowadays they get more looks than anything else short of a Graflex. If anything, a digital point and shoot is probably the most inconspicuous in that people are so jaded about them now.

Not to mention how Leicas are more popular now in the public opinion as well. Some people just think any old rangefinder is a Leica.

# ¿ Nov 29, 2011 03:14

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

atomicthumbs posted:

How do you guys process your photos once you scan them? I'm trying to learn how to use Photoshop more effectively. Currently I'm just doing a curve layer, some dodging and burning sometimes, and very occasionally some contrast masking.

That sounds a lot like what I do, except sometimes I use a lot more curve layers (with lots of masking) then just one.

# ¿ Nov 30, 2011 07:28

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

Falco posted:

If I'm only shooting and wanting to develop black and white, does it matter which brand/type of developer I buy? Will the HC-110 work with all kinds of black and white film, or do you have to match up the develper to the film I want to develop?

HC-110 is probably the best developer to start with, before you start experimenting with the others like Rodinal or ID-11.

# ¿ Dec 1, 2011 01:34

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

Yay bought a Konica Hexar RF from a friend to shoot 35mm with. It's much heavier than I had expected!

Konica Hexar RF by alkanphel, on Flickr

# ¿ Dec 7, 2011 02:47

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

Paul MaudDib posted:

Not gonna lie, that looks pretty loving rad right there. I would get a 35mm f/1.2 for it. RFs can shoot slower than SLRs, 35mm gets you extra depth-of-field (and is a more useful focal length overall), and it looks like that thing has a nice big rangefinder base for accurate focusing.

e: Looked at the lens. 35mm f/1.4s are cool too

I'm actually lusting for the CV 35/1.2 as well but it's kinda out of my budget atm, nearly double of what I paid for the 35/1.4. Maybe someday...

# ¿ Dec 7, 2011 04:35

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

Martytoof posted:

Seriously, goddamn this looks amazing. I am jealous. How much did you fork out for this one, if you don't mind me asking?

About $700 USD.

# ¿ Dec 7, 2011 09:35

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

Shot Portra 400 at 3200 tonight, I hope my lab does push processing.

# ¿ Dec 15, 2011 16:55

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

That's interesting, let's see what happens when I get the negs back from the lab then.

# ¿ Dec 15, 2011 18:13

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

Couple of pages back I mentioned that I was going to shoot Portra 400 at 3200 and see how it turned out. Now I've finally finished uploading all the pics and you've probably seen them if you've been following SAD.

On the whole I'm quite amazed at the latitude of Portra 400, considering how all the shots were developed normally and then I pushed them 2.5-3 stops in LR3. Did not come out overly grainy as well.

So here's the link to my Flickr set: http://flic.kr/s/aHsjxDnaAZ

# ¿ Jan 1, 2012 01:18

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

TheLastManStanding posted:

Just got a bunch of film back

[b]645 1000s - 160VC

I love these 2 the most! How long were the exposures?

# ¿ Jan 4, 2012 05:05

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

Hopefully their film division spins off as a separate entity or gets bought over by Fuji or someone else.

# ¿ Jan 5, 2012 03:01

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

Spedman posted:

Yep, the film guys are actually making more cash year by year these days. I've heard an interview with one of the film bosses at the 2011 PDN, and he said that in 2011 the Kodak film devision made the entire 2010 equivalent revenue by the end of September. The years prior to 2011 they had seen modest growth, but 2011 was the first year they've seen a really strong growth in sales, so I'm gonna keep positive about all this.

Yeah that's why I can see the film division becoming a separate entity if they got a private investor or something to buy them out. Just that it probably won't be called Kodak film anymore.

# ¿ Jan 5, 2012 03:33

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

NihilismNow posted:

Kodak seems to hate making things that people want to buy but they love jumping into markets that they stand no chance in. I believe the new plan is to bet the company on inkjet printers. Yes a market that is already shrinking and dominated by companies that are much larger and richer.

I've never connected Kodak to inkjet printers and I don't think I've ever seen one either. They're just putting themselves on the slow burn again.

# ¿ Jan 6, 2012 01:31

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

ExecuDork posted:

It's all rolled back inside the spool, is there an easy way to get that leader out so I can try again?

You might want to get one of these: http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-AP-35mm-Film-Leader-Retriever-Extractor-Picker-/380340886781

But there seems to be a lot of DIY methods for getting the leader out as well, like this licking method: http://www.apug.org/forums/viewpost.php?p=787776

# ¿ Jan 9, 2012 05:35

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

Pompous Rhombus posted:

If you don't have one already, a graphics tablet (even something like a $50 Wacom Bamboo) makes spotting out dust/hairs lightyears less tedious.

Not only that but also when you're using the brush tool, it's so much better because it feels more natural and you can control the opacity and size on the more advanced tablets.

# ¿ Jan 16, 2012 15:40

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

the posted:

If I'm shooting at night, how do I know how to calculate the exposure time?

Basically I'm trying to master the intimate dance between ISO, f-stop, and the amount of light.

Best to use a meter at night, since you can't really use Sunny-16 anymore. When I'm using ISO 3200 with f/2.8, my average shutter speed tends to be about 1/125.

# ¿ Jan 19, 2012 07:49

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

the posted:

What's a good meter for a man on a broke-rear end budget?

You can probably check KEH for one of the Gossen or Sekonic lightmeters under $100. But your lightmeter should do fine as well, if it's in working condition and calibrated properly.

# ¿ Jan 20, 2012 02:30

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

I hope somehow the film division breaks off independently like Ilford and the rest of Kodak can go and die for all I care.

# ¿ Jan 20, 2012 23:52

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

Spedman posted:

I was just about to quote something like this, if you want expensive film fly south to Oz. I was looking for a single roll of 120 to play with one day while walking around the city in Melbourne, I had shot the roll I had with me, so I thought I'd try some Ilford SFX or FP4 and buy it from Michaels on Elizabeth St. They wanted $21 for a single roll.

Holy poo poo, now I know why my friend in OZ prefers to do mass orders from B&H.

# ¿ Jan 23, 2012 04:59

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

Light leaks?

# ¿ Jan 31, 2012 03:53

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

Good lens on that Yashica but I really didn't like the rangefinder patch in the viewfinder.

# ¿ Feb 3, 2012 07:12

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

Mannequin posted:

I know this is a couple pages back but thanks for doing this. I have always felt like Tri-X was too hard. I have always liked T-Max but have heard from others here and elsewhere that it's not really a desirable film. So maybe my tastes are off. I definitely like the look of HP5 better than the Tri-X. I have shot with HP5 but still felt it was a bit harsh. I also have a whole bunch of Tri-X in 35mm which I bought up one day not knowing how much I was going to dislike the contrast. Now I guess I should just use it up. Anyway, thanks for posting this, it was an interesting comparison.

Have you considered trying out Neopan 400?

dukeku posted:

Don't scratch your wet emulsions.

You need CS5 spot healing tool to fix that.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2012 01:49

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

the posted:

I've been looking at something like this as reference, but I guess it comes with experience that you can just look at an environment and know how to properly expose the shot?

I mainly use the sunny-16 rule outdoors and just compensate if I'm shooting a overly light or dark subject. I'm guessing your camera has no meter at all? If so you might want to get a lightmeter.

# ¿ Feb 15, 2012 03:29

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

the posted:

According to this it has a "6-segment evaluative (matrix) meter." I just have no idea what that means or how to use it.

Ah that's the default metering mode in most camera nowadays. If you're shooting a normal scene then the settings that the evaluative meter gives are generally okay. If you're not sure or you think the situation is tricky, you can use the semi-spot metering mode on that EOS650 with the AE Lock button.

In both cases, sometimes you might need to do exposure compensation if you're shooting very light subjects (snow) or dark subjects (black cat). To make things better, use a film with wide latitude like Portra 400.

# ¿ Feb 15, 2012 03:43

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

the posted:

I guess I don't know what you're saying by "the settings the evaluative meter gives." How do I find that out?

Oh that's a wrong choice of wording, what I meant is that if you're on Av mode (for example), whatever shutter value the camera gives is generally okay. It's more or less the same as using a digital camera.

# ¿ Feb 15, 2012 04:12

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

Bioshuffle posted:

If I take this to a photo lab and request a print big enough for framing, will they do all the corrections to get the best image possible?

I really doubt it, since the photo lab has no idea what you actually have in mind. Best to just send them your corrected images.

# ¿ Feb 16, 2012 02:33

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

Bioshuffle posted:

Is that what they really do? I was under the impression they'd do it the old school way, before they had scanners and such. Has the quality from digital printing caught up? I remember when digital prints looked like absolute junk but I guess things have changed a lot in the past years.

I don't think there's really any generic lab that does optical printing anymore, maybe you have to check with a pro lab like Richard Photo?

# ¿ Feb 17, 2012 01:02

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

Cross-posting from SAD, casual shots of my friends

Bojan, Golden Mile Food Centre by alkanphel, on Flickr

Norhana, Starbucks, Paragon by alkanphel, on Flickr

# ¿ Feb 21, 2012 00:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 06:17

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

QPZIL posted:

Or get another M-mount camera like a Kodak Hexar RF

Haha that's what I shot those 2 photos above on

Great camera with tons of conveniences like auto advance, solid metering, burst mode. Only problem is that there's always a chance the battery runs out or the electronics inside will someday fail.

# ¿ Feb 22, 2012 00:56

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > The Film Thread: "for sale: packfilm back. never used."

«‹›5 »