|
Krispy Kareem posted:Yeah, the shutter's whisper quiet. I had always heard rangefinders were great for that as well. It's because there's no mirror to move out of the way like on an SLR.
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2008 16:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 11:35 |
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:And in the case of TLRs and some rangefinders, because of the leaf shutter. The quietest camera I have is a Minolta Hi-Matic with a leaf shutter lens. Right, leaf shutters are in the lens instead of on the film plane. Most medium format cameras have leaf shutters (Mamiya, Hasselblad, etc.). The other advantage of leaf shutters is that they sync at any speed.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2008 23:21
|
|
|
friendship waffle posted:scanners with film inserts basically never work as well as proper film scanners. I believe a large part of this has to do with the focal plane of the scanner. I have the Better Scanning film holder that's adjustable. It makes a big difference. I don't really shoot much film anymore anyways but it's good enough for making decent sized prints, if I need anything super high quality I just have it drum scanned. I have an Epson 4990 and it works pretty well, although scanning 35mm with it is kind of a waste of time.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2008 18:07
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:What are the issues with 35mm scanning? Is the film just too small for good detail? Does it do 120 okay? It just doesn't do a good job, you don't get much detail out of them. I always got way better results doing it on a dedicated scanner (ie. Nikon Coolscan 5000). When I shoot film I shoot 120 or 4x5 which it does a pretty good job of. The Better Scanning thing makes a difference if your scans are already soft, all the scanners are slightly different so if you get one it may not be as bad as mine was. It made a pretty significant difference I thought, once you get it adjusted right. I pretty much scan on my flatbed only if I'm going to be making a print on my 13" wide Epson printer because it does more than a good enough job for that size. If I need larger prints I send it out to be drum scanned and then have someone else print it. Basically if you are scanning for the web or to make normal sized prints a decent flatbed is more than fine. If you want to print huge get a dedicated one or send it out.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2008 19:26
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:And here is the negative itself. Can anyone diagnose whether this was fixer related (I think I see a chunk on the negatives still), a light leak, or just expired film? It looks like the film wasn't loaded correctly when you developed it and it got stuck to itself or something else in the tank. That's not what light leaks look like, and expired film wouldn't do that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2008 05:00
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:Steel tank and steel reel. That's for sure what it is then... steel reels are a lot trickier to load than the plastic ones.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2008 18:57
|
|
|
I left 5 bricks of 120 film in my car for one maybe two days when it was ~100F in Savannah, GA. How hosed am I?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2008 03:24
|
|
|
Anyone want to recommend a cheap place to get 120 developed in the Bay Area?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2008 19:22
|
|
|
Be careful because if you go over 80 you can fog your film.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2008 01:47
|
|
|
killabyte posted: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. I'm in downtown Oakland near the lake. I ended up going to Looking Glass over in Berkeley and they did a good job, kind of pricey though ($6 a roll, where I was in GA previously it was $2.50). They did a good job though.  I don't guess anyone here has an extra Olympus XA (or XA-2) they want to get rid of? I bought one a while ago on Ebay but the meter was busted, and now it seems they are the new hip camera to have... prices have gone up a little too much for me to waste it on another crap shoot.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2008 19:25
|
|
|
I had some ISO 100 and 200 film get ruined going through an x-ray once at an airport, YMMV.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2008 22:44
|
|
|
killabyte posted: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 don't like antistatic cloths because when you wipe down a negative you can drag a piece of dirt across and it scratch it. Just use canned air and/or turn on ICE on your scanner. If they're really dirty you can always re-wash and Photoflo them.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2008 06:58
|
|
|
Yeah those cameras are awesome, nice score.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2008 00:24
|
|
|
35mm for something that is not critically important I just drop it off at a chain, those machines almost run themselves and as long as the employees are semi-competent it's not going to make much of a difference. 120 or anything that is for a project or job I take to a pro shop though. Scanning wise I do a mix of it myself (Epson 4990 Photo) and some sent out (drum scanned to 50-150MB). 35mm for fun, contact sheets, or 120 that I am going to be printing myself I just do it at home. Something for a job, large prints, or something that will end up as stock I send out.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2008 01:59
|
|
|
Just take the plastic piece out, you don't need to file it or anything.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2008 06:44
|
|
|
Why don't you flip the mask 90 degrees? Or the camera when you're shooting. I like 6x6 though you should just shoot that 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2008 06:48
|
|
|
Celluloid posted:I have a bit of a question: What is overly complicated about doing it in trays? Set up trays with your chemistry in a light proof room and just do it in the dark, that is how I always did it. Trays are cheap and after you do it once or twice you get used to doing it without being able to see.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2008 19:15
|
|
|
I use VueScan and it works perfectly for me, but I have custom profiles for my scanner.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2008 19:55
|
|
|
You can always replace stop with a water bath but it is slower. Stop is pretty cheap and you can dilute it with more water than the bottle says to, I would just get some. Going straight from Developer to Fix (or not leaving it in a water bath long enough) will just exhaust your fixer really fast.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2008 21:47
|
|
|
dunno posted:Is my belief that 6x6 is the one true MF aspect ratio irrational and flawed? Absolutely not, 6x4.5 and 6x7 are abominations before the lord. Those Mamiya's are great Reichstag posted:So, I've been learning to wet print in my school's darkroom for the past few weeks, and am finally getting to be decent at it. However, today I drymatted prints for the first time, and it will be the end of me. I cannot for the life of me get even sides, straight lines and keep the matte board clean. Why are you drymatting at all? I never understood the point. Mats are supposed to be disposable protectors for your prints, semi-permanently attached a print to one seems to defeat the purpose. Learn to cut window matts.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2008 22:43
|
|
|
Thought you guys would like this: http://www.richardnicholson.com/darkroom/
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2009 20:11
|
|
|
CanuckBassist posted:How does the dpi value of a scanner translate to the resolution of a scanned image? Negatives have to be back-lit dude, sticking a white piece of paper behind it is not going to do the trick. 1024 is a pretty tiny file. My (flatbed negative) scanner does 4800dpi for negatives, which for 6x6 translates to 10800x10800 at the maximum resolution (4800*2.25).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2009 20:55
|
|
|
hybr1d posted:This is awesome. As mentioned in the lighting thread, I think I will get off my rear end and run a project thread of converting my garage into a studio. Making it a darkroom wouldn't be too much of a stretch either, although it's way too hot for developing during the summer. Yeah you should do that, I am actually about to go hit up a hardware store and start getting my home studio a little more organized (I live in a studio apartment just barely big enough to shoot in). I saw an enlarger out on the curb the other day and almost took it, now I wish I had.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2009 00:08
|
|
|
fronkpies posted:How much editing does eveyone do on the film scans? A negative is just a starting point. You're barely "editing" them as it is, and really if you were doing this in a darkroom the exposure/contrast stuff is the bare minimum you would have to do in order to actually make a print anyways. Stuff generally looks like poo poo straight out of a scanner anyways, and a "straight" interpretation of a negative is rarely the most interesting or best way to make it an image. dorkasaurus_rex posted:Y'all need to get down with the 160s. I like 160NC and all, but there's just something about 160s. I still rock 160vc and 400NC/VC quite frequently, so I ain't hatin on Portra, but Fujifilm brings a lot to the table. Hell yeah that's my favorite color print film. I think I still have a few rolls of it in the freezer from when it was called Reala. brad industry fucked around with this message at 01:25 on Dec 20, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2009 01:22
|
|
|
I can't keep track because they've re-branded a few times. I think Reala became NPC, then it became 160C. I know they sell a consumer one now called "Superia Reala", the 160C is just the pro version.
brad industry fucked around with this message at 02:13 on Dec 20, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2009 02:11
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Oh poo poo, I've been wondering the same thing. I hunted two great camera stores for Reala and both were out. So 160S is Reala for sure? Did the emulsion change or what? I am pretty sure 160C is Reala, I think 160S is one of the newer emulsions (I actually haven't tried it). The main difference between the Fuji films is contrast, they all use the same 4-layer emulsion so the color is pretty similar.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2009 23:54
|
|
|
Snaily posted:I'm just debating how much film I can carry with me in the carry-on. 25 rolls is reasonable, right? Right? I've carried more than that before. You can request a hand-check (and they are required to do it if you ask) although they always loving bitch about it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2009 02:16
|
|
|
Molten Llama posted:TSA specifically says if you're pushing (or going through more than... 3? carry-on machines), have it hand-checked. I had some ISO 200 film fogged after going through 2 machines so I don't trust them anymore and always do a hand check. I dunno why I always get the cranky TSA people, but yeah they are required to do it if you ask in the US. I always throw in 1 roll of 1600 ISO just to have an excuse.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2009 19:22
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Looks to me like the film got bent there, or something was touching it during development. Yeah he bent the film before he developed it. I used to do that all the time with 120.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2009 20:47
|
|
|
FasterThanLight posted:This one (Beseler 45AF) was $150, which seems to be pretty average as far as asking prices go around here. I actually have a Rolleimat Universal as well, but it requires an impossible-to-find condenser for anything larger than 35mm. The Beseler will cover just about everything else, but its ridiculously huge. That's a pretty good deal. I'm building a darkroom in my new studio and it seems like everyone on craigslist wants $300-500 for a Beseler, which I think is kind of ridiculous at this point.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2009 19:41
|
|
|
I just hit the jackpot on craigslist. All this was free. Working enlager, 35mm and 75mm lenses, 4 easels, 5 trays, fancy safe light, 3 tanks with reels, poo poo load of chemistry, some film, a set of spotting pens that's never been opened, bunch of paper, tongs, grain focuser, and some misc. stuff. Fuuuuuuuuuck yeah. brad industry fucked around with this message at 22:29 on Dec 31, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2009 22:23
|
|
|
Any of you guys have an Argus L3 or other older selenium meter? The needle on mine still moves but won't go very to the left and just kind of hovers around the first 3 notches. I was thinking about replacing the selenium cell if possible, this one was my grandfather's and it's in perfect condition I'm pretty bummed it doesn't just work 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2010 00:24
|
|
|
I saw that but that would be expensive, plus going all the way to the UK. A friend referred me to this place in LA: Quality Light Metric 323-467-2265 Going to send it in for a quote and see what they say.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2010 18:26
|
|
|
If anyone has any Pentax M42 lenses they want to get rid of PM or email me. My friend just gave me an old Spotmatic since my 35mm is busted. It is pretty rad, pretty much exactly the same as my AE-1. Also, I am almost done building my darkroom I will post pics soon 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2010 07:40
|
|
|
I just found the best timer
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2010 02:41
|
|
|
notlodar posted:Before lightroom 3: You rule I never thought of doing it that way
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2010 21:16
|
|
|
Can anyone recommend a film / developer combo for getting really grainy B&W? I used to work for some dudes that I think did Delta 1600 and then would push it, but I'm not sure how or what they were developing it with.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2010 02:16
|
|
|
Dr. Cogwerks posted:Push process something that's already grainy, then try Rodinal at 1:25 dilution, or possibly even more concentrated... I've found some suggestions of trying Delta 3200 in Rodinal at 1:10 dilution in hotter water than usual. Don't go TOO concentrated or it'll actually melt the emulsion right off. Another trick would be to shake the gently caress out of the developing tank during processing, way more than usual. Abuse it. Hot water and too much shaking ought to get some burly grain. Cool that looks pretty good, I am going to do some tests next week and see what happens. Thanks dudes. ShotgunWillie posted:Are these good? I dunno it works, looks awesome, and was $1.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2010 20:34
|
|
|
Almost done building my darkroom, just need to hang the drywall and get more shelves. I'm looking for a 80mm lens / 6x6 holder for the Omega C700, another safe light, bladed easel, and grain focuser if anyone has things laying around they want to get rid of. Also if you live in the bay area and want that blue enlarger PM me (it works, needs to be cleaned)
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2010 19:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 11:35 |
|
|
Mannequin posted:What do you do about keeping partially used film in your cameras while they sit around in a hot apartment or house? I wouldn't worry about it, the only time I have ever had problems with film fogging because of heat was 100+ Georgia summers and leaving film in direct sun in a car. Even then, about half the time I did something stupid like that the film was fine. Once I left two bricks worth of slide film sitting in my car for a few days while I was moving in July and it was still good.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2011 06:02
|
|