|
Mightaswell posted:Should I just throw it in the trash? Actually, I'd rather just stick to shooting my Pentax MX to be honest (even though the AE-1 shutter sounds incredible!!), but I'm scared to even try and sell the AE-1 without a working 50mm attached too it Your MX is M42 mount right? I'll trade you a 50/1.4 and 135/2.8 for the AE-1 body.
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2011 19:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 09:47 |
|
|
The 50 is a Super Takumar, 135 is a Vivitar I inherited from someone. I've got a M42 2X teleconverter too. I have a Spotmatic with a busted meter and this poo poo is just collecting dust in my studio. I know the K mount was designed to be backwards compatible with M42 so they should work. Let me know because I have some FD lenses somewhere but no body to put them on  .edit: and if anyone wants this Spotmatic you can have it for the cost of shipping. Works fine but I think the meter may be gone (or maybe I'm just not using the right battery). brad industry fucked around with this message at 19:33 on Jun 2, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2011 19:31
|
|
|
I have a flatbed that is great for 120 but does not do a good enough job on 35mm. What's the cheapest dedicated scanner that will do at least 10mgpx scans?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2011 04:58
|
|
|
quote:Am I correct in saying that film size does not affect dynamic range? I'm having an Internet Argument with a guy. I think you are confusing dynamic range and contrast. Contrast is the difference between the maximum and minimum densities of the film, which is the same regardless of the format. If you photograph the exact same thing on 35mm and 4x5, the larger film has more information. More tonal information = more dynamic range. This is why prints made from 4x5 have "that look". If you make an HDR image you're not changing the contrast (if there's a 0 black point and a 255 white point you can't go beyond that), you're adding tonal information that increases the dynamic range.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2011 08:19
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:I thought dynamic range wasn't "the number of tones" or the smoothness, but the difference between lightest and darkest possible light recorded by the film (for instance, something with higher dynamic range could record detail in bright clouds and darker landscape, whereas with a digital camera you need to tonemap or whatever). You are thinking of contrast. Most print film has a contrast of 7 stops, meaning it takes 7 stops of light to get from clear film base (absolute black) and the highest concentration of silver possible (paper white). It's the difference between the lightest and darkest tone. When you make an HDR image you are not making the black blacker and the white whiter, your are filling in more information in between. You can't go blacker than 0 or whiter than 255. quote:But there aren't more of them. Yes there are, that's what all the extra film is for. brad industry fucked around with this message at 09:15 on Jun 4, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2011 09:12
|
|
|
gib posted:Things can get confusing when we have 3 things with dynamic range and/or contrast that we're talking about. Yeah exactly that is why this is confusing to talk about, your post is totally correct. The zone system is all about compressing (or expanding) the dynamic range of a scene onto the available contrast of your film. If you want to do the zone system properly you start by finding the characteristic curve of your film in your camera (which I've done, and is awesome).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2011 21:20
|
|
|
Film's not going to go away for a long time, but it will get more expensive.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2011 02:50
|
|
|
More in total. Agitation moves fresh chemistry in contact with the latent image on the film. The more you do this the denser the negative gets.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2011 21:57
|
|
|
The truth is all scans suck unless you do it yourself or pay a poo poo load of money. This is because making a good scan from a negative is time consuming and requires the person doing it to slightly give a gently caress.
brad industry fucked around with this message at 02:22 on Jun 7, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2011 01:21
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:Some people use Walmart for developing... I have not, and cannot speak to their quality. I believe I have read that negatives are often scratched so I don't know if I would go through them. They are, however, cheaper. Like $2. I use Walgreens a lot for things that are not mission critical and I think in like 6 years of doing this I've had one roll of film come back with a couple of frames slightly scratched. Pretty good for $2/roll and done in an hour. I take things I care about to Photoworks in SF which is like $6 I think.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2011 05:05
|
|
|
Spedman posted:I've heard on the Film Photography Podcast you can shoot Portra 400 at 3200, and develop at 800 (pushed one stop) and get great results, may have to try this soon. What is the reasoning behind this, because it sounds like you would just end up with thin negatives.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2011 20:14
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Well, yeah... but part of why I posted those two pictures was to show how well even super thin Portra 400 negatives scan. Definitely some ridiculous shadow detail. Yeah but all print film has really good exposure latitude. ISO isn't set in stone or anything, it's more like an average. The same film in different cameras will vary in where it falls on the curve. I guess I don't understand why you would want to do this (or at least I couldn't see any reason looking at that article). It's better to overexpose print film, and you shouldn't chemically push anything unless you have to.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2011 23:05
|
|
|
mysticp posted:How many people here actually darkroom print their own negatives? Do it, I'm almost done building my wet darkroom.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2011 17:11
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Please be safe and have proper ventilation, prints aren't worth chronic health problems. I know a dude who burned his lungs selenium toning prints in a darkroom with a broken ventilator. He was hospitalized 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2011 19:25
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:To be blunt, no, that isn't sufficient. It depends on the size of the bathroom and how many cubic feet of air the fan moves. Most fans will say it somewhere on them, so just look at that and you can approximate how quickly the air is being changed over.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2011 21:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 09:47 |
|
|
Elite Taco posted:
The Argus is totally a brick, but it was also the camera that popularized 35mm as a film format. I have my grandfather's somewhere but have never shot with it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2011 07:14
|
|
