|
You can clean film after it's dry. The best approach is to avoid the spots in the first place. After you wash the film, dunk the reels in some photo-flo solution. It only takes a few drops of the stuff in a tank of water. If you don't have any photo-flo handy, you can use distilled water which is less likely to leave junk on your film.
|
#
¿
May 11, 2009 21:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 12:37 |
|
|
The really cool ones can also record exif-like information (shutter speed, aperture, etc.) IIRC, some put it between shots and others put it all on a frame at the end of the roll.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2009 01:17
|
|
|
If you use plastic reels like I do, make sure that your reels are as clean as possible and don't have any water spots on them. Using photoflo helps with this but I also sometimes just clean out the inside grooves with a toothbrush. Before loading, try to get your reels as dry as possible.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2009 23:11
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure that 135 adjustable plastic spools take 220, and 220 is about 2x as long as 120. So, yes, it should fit.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2009 01:36
|
|
|
The one time I tried 800z in tungsten light it was pretty drat horrible. If you use filters (80A), you'll lose 2 stops so you give up the speed advantage. Now I just stick to B&W in low light. Edit: It's 2 stops, not 1/2 a stop like I previously thought. gib fucked around with this message at 04:37 on Nov 17, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2010 18:14
|
|
|
Could you just make the 8x8 grid display a negative image so that it'll show up as a positive on regular paper? You could stick it inside of an MF camera and use a Polaroid back.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2010 07:41
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:Anyone used Rollei Digibase? It looks like an interesting cheap slide film. Apparently it's Agfachrome RSX II 200 emulsion on a different base. Someone on APUG has this to say about it: "It has very natural colors. Good neutral grey. A little bit less saturated. A bit more grain. If you want a different look, it is indeed an alternative." People there also say it's good for x-pro. http://www.apug.org/forums/forum40/64219-rollei-digibase-cr200-pro-slide-film.html I think I'm gonna try some. Edit: Why do you say it's a cheap slide film? At $7/roll of 120 it's considerably more expensive than Astia ($4.20) or Provia ($4.30). Edit again: I see that it's fairly cheap in 35mm and that there's sadly no more 35mm Astia. gib fucked around with this message at 08:56 on May 17, 2011 |
|
#
¿
May 17, 2011 08:43
|
|
|
brad industry posted:You are thinking of contrast. brad industry posted:Yes there are, that's what all the extra film is for. --- Dynamic range is the number of stops between brightest and darkest. Contrast is the steepness of the curve between the two. Things can get confusing when we have 3 things with dynamic range and/or contrast that we're talking about. 1) Scene / subject 2) Sensor or film 3) Output (print or file) A scene can have a very wide range of brightness values. Some examples are night scenes with some areas brightly lit or daylight scenes with some areas in deep shadows. We could say the scene has 10 stops between the darkest and lightest parts, or whatever. A sensor or film will have a dynamic range (brightest tones minus darkest tones in number of stops) and a characteristic curve (created by software with digital) that determines the contrast characteristics of the image. A print or file can't have any blacks less than 0 (or the darkest black your paper/printer will do) or whites more than 255 (or paper white). HDR images are supposed to replicate HDR scenes (scenes with DR exceeding the DR of the capture medium) in which normally some parts would be either blown out or shadows without detail. Paper has even less DR than film since the base can only be so white and the darkest blacks will still reflect some light. Trying to reproduce a scene with 10 stops of range on paper with 6 stops of range (for example) requires squishing down some tones somewhere. You can make 2 prints from the same negative both on the same paper with areas of paper white and darkest black and they could still have different contrast (curves). with both prints, dynamic range of the scene and film are the same (since we're using the same negative) and the DR of the paper is also the same (since we're covering the entire white-black range of the paper). Bigger film doesn't give you more dynamic range, but it gives you more space over which to record gradations in tones. Contrast and DR are related, but not the same thing. gib fucked around with this message at 16:39 on Jun 4, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2011 16:32
|
|
|
CarrotFlowers posted:I just got back a roll of Kodak Gold that I shot this weekend, and I have a question: there seems to be a wide array of contrasts/saturation on the same roll. For example, the two shots below. The one of my sister and her dog is super clear and the colours are quite vibrant, but the one of the treeline is very dull and looks washed out. Did I just underexpose it? Was it a developing issue? What can I watch out for next time to avoid this? Exposure issues could be part of it, but I think the lab scanners basically do an "auto-correct" on each jpeg they pump out as well. If you have dark silhouetted areas like those trees it could assume you underexposed and want to pull detail out of them so it will make your blacks look muddy. mysticp posted:Take notes on every shot you take. It seems like a pain, but that is how you can look back on shots and figure out how to improve them. This is very good advice. Some cameras can remember your settings for later downloading (EOS 1V) or imprint them on the edge of the film (Fuji GA645 series).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2011 07:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 12:37 |
|
|
Mannequin posted:I shot a roll of Ektar 100 and was really quite disappointed in the colors. Perhaps it was because I went to a cemetery to shoot the roll and the colors were not conducive, I don't know. It just looked bad. I will probably not buy Ektar again. I've noticed a lot of icky colors with Ektar. I used it to print RA-4 from though and it came out pretty nice. It needs a little tweaking to get the colors just right. The best thing about it is the lack of grain. It is the sharpest negative film I've ever seen. I think it was designed to replace slide film.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2011 20:13
|
|