|
Luxmore posted:Everybody go buy some Kodachrome. johnasavoia posted:Quick question about diafine, I've been reading up on it, and is it really the miracle developer that it seems to be? It almost sounds too good to be true.
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2008 18:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 13:42 |
|
|
MrMeowMeow posted:I was wondering, how do you guys organize your negatives and prints? I just have a couple of envelopes sitting in my closet right now, but there surely has to be a better way to arrange 'em. I use a binder with plastic negative-holder sheets. Be sure to get sheets that hold 7 strips of 6 frames each if you're dealing with 35mm. The first set I got only holds 7x5 and every 36 exposure roll (I usually get 38 out of them) was more than 1 page. I label the sheets with a number. Then I make an entry in a simple spreadsheet with fields like Roll Number Camera Film ISO Developing notes Approx date taken Description of what is on the roll etc. It makes it easier to find things down the road.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2008 19:11
|
|
|
Diafine lasts an extremely long time after it's been mixed. You should probably used deionized or distilled water just in case.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2008 19:02
|
|
|
I just shot a roll of Portra 400 NC at a wedding. Where should I get it developed and printed, and does the chemistry used (Kodak vs. Fuji) matter? Should I avoid the local drugstore (which uses Kodak)? Is there much of a difference between optical prints and digital ones for smaller prints? I'm mostly concerned with the colors.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2008 22:38
|
|
|
How is the one hour process different? I don't think it takes more than an hour to develop the film at a pro lab. A&I will charge $8 just to develop and they still feed it through an automated machine (with Fuji chemistry, I believe). Do you mean the prints will be bad, or the negatives themselves?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2008 23:19
|
|
|
Wow, those are some development horror stories. I guess I'll just take it to Bel-Air. I don't know what kind of machines they use, but at least they won't mess anything up. I did notice that CVS didn't cut my negatives carefully so a lot of the frames had the corners cut off.killabyte posted:I'm thinking about Buying a Bessa R3M w/ 50/2 lens. Any thoughts? I am interested in trying a rangefinder out. My requirements are that the camera have a light meter and be reasonably affordable. Are you getting the package with the Heliar? I've only heard good things about the Heliar and the one I handled for a bit seemed extremely well made. The collapsing feature on it is kind of useless, so I'd just keep it extended to avoid the risk of forgetting to extend it and having ruined shots. If you don't mind a thicker lens, the 50/1.5 is also really nice. As for the camera, I love my R3a and the R3m is very similar. If you're right-eyed you'll like the 1:1 viewfinder. I've tried to force myself to shoot right-eyed, but it doesn't work for me even though it is nice to have both eyes open. I'll probably sell the R3a in a couple weeks once I get the ZI, but it's been extremely accurate and reliable. The only problem is that the meter readout is very hard to see in bright light. Meters in RFs are nice if for no other reason than they let you know when you've left the lens cap on. gib fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Jun 10, 2008 |
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2008 20:58
|
|
|
Speaking of slide film, I just got that roll of Kodachrome back. I haven't looked at it too carefully yet, but the colors and detail are insane. I need to start metering a bit more carefully with that stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2008 19:00
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Buy another one, K1000s are not collectible. Keh.com has plenty of manual K-mount camera. Agreed. A friend's K1000 recently developed some shutter issues. I told him to get an MX. It's like an OM-1-sized K1000.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2008 17:55
|
|
|
hybr1d posted:What mail-in service do you guys use? I have some color rolls I'd like to try out on a new vendor. Also, came across this today: Apparently APX400 takes 0 minutes to develop in Rodinal 1+10... Try the Massive Dev Chart
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2008 19:43
|
|
|
Diafine lasts an insanely long time. Can someone tell me what the hell is going on in this photo?  and this one  Both are on Fujicolor 100 or Superia 100 on a Zeiss Ikon. This white thing shows up in a bunch of the shots on that roll, especially near the end. I was changing lenses a bit, but these may both have been shot with a 3rd-gen 50mm Summicron, which I guess isn't known for flare resistance. Although, I used the same lens for tons of shots on other rolls and on the digital with no flare problems. This doesn't look like regular flare to me anyway. The security guys at Heathrow refused to hand-check my film, and insisted that they had done "extensive testing" proving that their x-ray machines wouldn't damage film. The problem occurs in different places on each frame. What is this? Light leak? Improper development? Some crazy sort of flare? gib fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Sep 22, 2008 |
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2008 19:50
|
|
|
This is very true. It doesn't screw with your wallet TOO much if you sell the stuff you're not using anymore. It might feel hard to let go of something you think you might use down the road, but you can always just buy it again if you really need it. You might lose a tiny bit of money, but who cares.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2008 01:24
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:Argus (the yellow one) rangefinders are fun. Looks like a Yashica Lynx, though maybe not the 14. It will probably be in better shape than the Argus, but both should be pretty fun if they work.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2008 16:03
|
|
|
I just came across one of these enlargers. This thing any good?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2008 23:05
|
|
|
Satchmo posted:I picked up the seagull tlr for 20 bucks, but I'm afraid it may be broken. The shutter speed is unaffected by changing the little slider that controls it. dunno posted:Does anyone else use diafine largely out of laziness?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2008 23:50
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:Well, it's hard to explain, but it doesn't have a split image. It just has a very subtle thing in the center that gets less and less "fuzzy" as you focus more and more correctly. It's hard to explain but pretty much, if it's not focused correctly, the center circle will look like it's wiggling like it's made of worms, and if it's focused correctly it won't move around at all. Very subtle though, and I've never seen it on another camera. I think my friend's K-1000 is like this as well (micro-prisms). Apparently you can just get a split-prism screen ( http://photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/008XNS ). It could be that the screen just needs a shim because it's out of calibration. It seems like the camera is always front-focusing when it's off, although some of the shots have been perfect.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2008 23:55
|
|
|
Fragrag posted:
The Contina has a leaf shutter. It looks a little bit like an aperture, but the aperture is usually behind the shutter in these cameras. If you look in through the lens you'll just see the blades of the leaf shutter, which only move when you take a photo.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2008 23:43
|
|
|
I think HP5+ would be closer to Tri-X than Delta would. Go for the HP5.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2009 20:40
|
|
|
sinc posted:In my opinion the wide latitude is one of the major advantages of B&W negative, and you're pretty much throwing it away with 8 bit. It's much like whether you shoot RAW or JPEG with a digital camera, except even more significant. The range of values in a digital B+W file is always from pure black to pure white, and an 8bit file won't give you less range than a 16bit file. An 8bit file will have fewer steps within the range, but this doesn't make too big of a difference as long as you're not doing severe adjustments to the tones. Anyway I do agree with sync and others that you should keep it in 16bit if you can at least until you're done editing. It's true that a B+W negative has a huge tonal range, but your scanner's Dmax will be your limiting factor here no matter what kind of file you use. Check this out: http://photo.net/learn/drange/ gib fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Feb 6, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2009 00:28
|
|
|
longview posted:When I bought my Diafine I had to buy a gallon of D-76 to get over the minimum purchase price, is it worth mixing out and using with T-Max films or should I just stick with T-Max Dev and Diafine? I think T-max dev works better than D-76 for the T-max films and Diafine works better than D-76 if you want to shoot Tri-X at 1200-1600. Use the D76 for other stuff or for when you don't want the speed boost from the Diafine.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2009 20:17
|
|
|
Nedsmaster posted:I'm sure people know this, but as far as 35mm goes CVS is the cheapest. They do just the negatives for only $2.19. Will they do it without cutting the negatives? Last time I got film developed there they cut the negs diagonally across the borders which basically ruined 1/2 of all the shots (stips of 4).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2009 23:54
|
|
|
hybr1d posted:It's her- I was more interested in the camera. I feel like it's a trap of a question, but why so much for a Leica? Are they worth it? I'm interested in them if they're reliable, which I can only assume that workmanship is the driving factor for the newer models, since they don't use magical film. In a lesser forum, asking if Leicas are worth it would likely cause some sort of shitstorm. Short answer is no, they're not worth it (especially new). They are, however, very nice. None of their competitors are solid-feeling (or heavy) and they have a certain M body cachet. They are extremely reliable since most of them are all-mechanical and well-made, but they do need periodic expensive service. Leica do make some incredible lenses for their rangefinders, but the prices on those are again a bit silly and you can use them just as well on a Bessa/Ikon/Hexar (Japanese made cameras with the same lens mount). I'm only talking about the film models though. I haven't used an M8 or M8.2, so I can't speak to that, but they do cost WAY more than an R-D1 and have worse high-ISO performance. gib fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Mar 9, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2009 23:42
|
|
|
breathstealer posted:By "periodic expensive service" you're referring to about $100-200 every ten years so it's not that bad. If you don't need the features (metering, AE, wide framelines) of the competition, there is no reason not to get a used Leica. Really I think it makes more sense to get a BGN M2 or M3 and pair it with Canon and Voigtlander lenses. Pretty much the same optical quality, but the body quality is that much better. If you buy a camera used for $600 bucks, a $200 CLA is a big chunk of that. Agreed that a used M2/M3 is a way better deal than an $2k+ M7 or even a $1400 M6TTL, but meters and AE are pretty useful.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2009 18:17
|
|
|
Gnomad posted:An afternoon in the lab yielded this result. Sick! Do you mind posting a tutorial or something? I tried doing something similar w/ 4 AAs. The camera turned on it thought the power was low so the flash wouldn't work. They make rechargeable 2CR5 batteries, but apparently they suck and won't power an ST-E2 properly.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2009 19:03
|
|
|
So the fact that the DSLR batteries are 7.4v and the 2CR5's are 6v isn't a problem?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2009 22:21
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Leica-mount Nikons Did Nikon even make any LTM cameras? I'd suggest some sort of Olympus or Canon (or minolta, etc.) fixed-lens RF. An olympus XA, maybe?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2009 23:46
|
|
|
Being able to use tiny and sharp wide angle lenses with 0 distortion and no CA is also nice.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2009 02:57
|
|
|
HPL posted:Been thinking of getting an EOS 5 for casual concert shoots because it has a built-in AF assist lamp and seems to be decently rugged. I've found that shooting manual focus with my Pentax MX is very difficult in low light on moving subjects and I'm messing up a lot of otherwise decent shots because they're a little (or sometimes a lot) out of focus. Any thoughts? I have an A2 (US name for the EOS-5). I like it a lot. The 5-point AF isn't as fast as the modern 9-point systems in the DSLRs (XTi, 40D, 5D) but it does seem pretty accurate. The AF-assist is only partially blocked by bigger lenses like the 35L (with hood). It still works fine when only partially blocked. It's kind of a chunky camera, but it is light weight and pretty solid feeling despite having a plastic exterior. If they're available, you might want to get a different focusing screen just so you can check the AF before taking the shot.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2009 19:37
|
|
|
HPL posted:Speed isn't the concern so much as focusing at all, that's why I wanted something with a built-in AF assist that doesn't use the main flash bulb like the current SLRs do. I'd rather have something a little slower but that can actually lock on as opposed to a fast system that hunts and hunts. It's pretty quiet for an SLR but not even close to silent. It makes a kind of "clop" sound that is not very metallic or annoying. I've heard it's much quieter than an EOS-3, and it's quieter than a 5DII and XTi as well. If you want to use a DSLR (or a newer film body that supports EX flashes), I suggest the ST-E2. I use it for concert stuff. The ST-E2 might work with non-E-TTL bodies. I could try it out with my EOS-650 if you want. If it works on that for AF-assist it should work on any EOS body.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2009 22:17
|
|
|
HPL posted:One nice thing about black and white film is that even if you use a flash, it doesn't look as crappy as it does with colour because you don't get the awful colours that goes along with flash photography. It might not work in concert settings, but you can generally gel your flash to match the ambient so that you don't get the weird mix of color temps. Also, very nice shots... I particularly like this one.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2009 19:31
|
|
|
Stop bath doesn't really matter. You can reuse fixer and store it for a couple of weeks. I think the rule of thumb for how long to fix is at least double the time it takes for an exposed undeveloped piece of film (the film leader you cut off before developing for example) to turn clear.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2009 23:19
|
|
|
I've used K64 from 2005 in 2008. The colors still looked pretty good to me.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2009 18:45
|
|
|
Gnomad posted:I don't know if there is any place better than another. I saw them for roughly $10 to $16, depending on brand, cheapest place was Radio Shack Didn't someone recently post something similar to this but with a rechargeable battery from a Canon compact?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2009 18:44
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure that digital ICE works on slide film as well, but not Kodachrome.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2009 18:05
|
|
|
Be careful loading film in a bathroom. The tiniest amount of light from under the door or from a charger LED or something could screw with your film. I use a changing bag and it's pretty easy.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2009 00:05
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Awesome. Why would anyone consider a C330 portable? Aren't those things extremely heavy compared to YashicaMats or Rolleicords? Another option for affordable 6x6 in a small package would be an Iskra rangefinder. It's considerably heavier than my Rolleicord V but very compact.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2009 23:14
|
|
|
With the latitude of negative film, it's pretty hard to meter too badly anyway. The only other thing I don't like about my A2E is the lack of a dedicated DOF preview button. What were they thinking?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2009 01:55
|
|
|
I'm about to buy some B&W paper for a portrait project (of my Dad, an older guy with slightly tan skin). I'm leaning towards warm tone paper (Ilford multigrade RC) but I've never used toned paper before. I won't be using any special developers or toning the prints. I've found some examples on flickr, but I'd like to hear any other thoughts on paper choice for a project of this sort (glossy / matte, brand, etc.)
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2009 19:43
|
|
|
Changing bags are cheap.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2009 20:20
|
|
|
Take a look at Horizon cameras. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_(camera)
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2009 00:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 13:42 |
|
|
I recently switched to Patterson tanks and reels from crappier other brands of plastic tanks. The Patterson's are great. The reels don't get gummed up as quickly and the little twist agitator thing is great. They each came with 1 reel and I bought a 2nd reel for each one. The reels expand so that you can do 1 roll of medium format. You end up using a bit more chemistry than you would with a steel tank (20oz for 2 rolls vs 16oz for 2 rolls) but it's not a big deal. Plus it's easier to measure out chemicals for things that are 1+9 (2oz), 1+19 (1oz), or 1+7 (2.5oz). That would be my developer, stop bath, and hypo wash respectively.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2009 18:57
|
|