|
If I pick up an AE-1 will my canon EF mount lenses work with them? I'm assuming there would be no AF drive right? For some reason I think shooting some Portra with the 85 1.2 would be pretty fun.
vxsarin fucked around with this message at 11:17 on Aug 30, 2014 |
#
¿
Aug 30, 2014 11:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 18:36 |
|
|
nielsm posted:No, you won't get to mount EF lenses on an FD-mount camera. There are two problems, first the FD mount has a shorter flange focal distance, meaning you would need a mount converter with optical elements, which would make it much more expensive and degrade picture quality, and second is that EF lenses are controlled electronically (in particular the aperture control is electronic) while FD lenses are controlled mechanically, so you wouldn't be able to control the aperture of the lens either. Awesome, thanks. I have a bunch of bodies and lenses that I inherited (film) so when I get back to the states in a week, it's cleaning them up and trying out film!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2014 11:28
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:FYI the register distance is higher on FD so you could have a glassless adapter. The aperture control problem remains. So something like an EOS3 work work with them?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2014 12:17
|
|
|
This seems super shady, but looks like a pretty good deal. What do you guys think? http://baltimore.craigslist.org/pho/4636283267.html
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:Buying that box would be like paying someone $150 for their trash. fair enough. It's kind of a mix and match of everything, so if I did use anything out of it, it'd be like 2 things...so yeah. Like I said above, I really just need to get myself an EOS-3 so I can use the glass I have. That'll be a start anyways.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
Tony Two Bapes posted:everyone should get an eos 3 yeah, I think that's the plan. I'm in Hanoi for another week, I bet I can find a good deal on one here.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
I'm picking up an EOS-3 that's in great condition for $225. Seems like a decent deal and from adorama, so I can trust it. Is it work picking up a kit to process the negatives, or should I dive into that later? Seems that B&W might be more of a process.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2014 10:03
|
|
|
deaders posted:Yeah get a developing tank with reels ($30 second-hand) some Rodinal R09 One Shot ($15) and fixer ($15?). The Rodinal and fixer will last for ages. Ok, that sounds ridiculously easy. I watched some lovely youtube video and they made it sound like it was a pain. 10-4 good buddies.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:If you stick with the same film you'll memorize the process after the 2nd or 3rd try. cool. I'll take my chances on my first roll.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
Primo Itch posted:Oh, it did happen by the end of the roll. Mistery solved them if it's any consolation, I actually like how it looks in this case
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2014 02:19
|
|
. Thanks guys.
|
Casu Marzu posted:Yeah, this. I actually really like how mistreated Portra looks, so all my rolls are just hanging out on a shelf by the window. I can still shoot like 2-3 stops underexposed and get some great shots. god drat, I can't wait to play with Porta film
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2014 03:19
|
|
|
I'm going to hold off buying a scanner (if I'm going to do it, I want to get a good one)....when you guys have a shop develop and scan your film, do you request it to be scanned in RAW? Seems to be the more expensive way to go, but obviously gives you some more flexibility.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2014 03:21
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:There's technically no such thing as a RAW scan. You just scan at 16-bit per channel and save it as a tif. VueScan has a RAW mode but all it does is put the tif in a dng container. The V400 or whatever? I guess it's obviously more rewarding going through the whole process yourself (and quicker).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Hahahaha no. Scanning film with a flatbed or drum takes loving ages. "Scanning" with a DSLR and a macro lens isn't so bad. That's what beer is for.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2014 15:47
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:If you are only gonna ever do 35mm, get a cheap dedicated scanner like a Minolta or Nikon. If you ever want to do med or large format then flat bed is the way to go. yeah, I think I'd probably end up going down the medium format road since that seems to be the natural progression. I'd rather just buy once instead of ended up with a bunch of poo poo I won't use. I don't mind the time with scanning. It's not like you have to stare at it while the scan is happening.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:If you're committed to film, just buy a V700. Even if you're just scanning 35mm it's appreciably better than a V500/V600. yeah, that's my thought with the whole "I don't want to buy twice".
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
That sprocket rocket is pretty neat.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
Sludge Tank posted:I'll see if I can get him to relay exactly what he told me in text and get back to you on it. I've always been really conscious of disposal. But he went into excruciating detail of it all. Anyway, i'll get back to you... If it was just you and him dumping it, it wouldn't matter.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2014 14:06
|
|
|
I inherited a bunch of cameras from my dad who passed away 15 years ago (they finally got sent to me). No idea if any of it is worth a poo poo, but I'm pretty excited to play with it. With the exception of the lens attached to the Exakta, everything is in great shape as far as I can tell.   Should I be excited about this cache of gear (besides the sentimental value)?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
Gargonovitch posted:Exaktas are weird as poo poo and and people either find that they're really cool to work with, or backwards and difficult, especially if it has the waistlevel viewfinder, which it looks like it does. Waistlevel finders are awesome and really change the way you compose, but they can be strange at first. Lots of awesome Zeiss and Meyer lenses that came in m42 mount came in the Exakta mount as well, and they're usually seem to be cheaper in Exakta, maybe because the mount is harder to adapt for modern cameras. Awesome! Can't wait to get started! The lens is super dusty, at least on the outside, so hopefully I can salvage it. The pentax is an SV. It has a fuckload of dust on the mirror, but otherwise seems in great shape. I'm guessing that won't affect the photos. It'll also be easy to clean up I suspect too. The exacta is strange. It has a viewfinder, but doesn't seem to have a mirror? Is it hosed? What exactly is a CLA? A cleaning? Any reputable places? vxsarin fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Oct 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
Gargonovitch posted:Cock the camera and see if the mirror lowers itself. Yup, it is there, but I can BARELY see through it. It's really dark. Guess it's probably in need of a serious scrubbing. Top of the camera pops up and you can see the viewfinder and the mirror. vxsarin fucked around with this message at 21:23 on Oct 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
nm posted:Clean, lube, adjust. Thanks, I shot him an email. and yes, these guys seem pretty gummed up.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:I can't tell what's mounted on the Exakta but my suspicion is that that and the 28mm are probably the nicest lenses there. Yes, it is the 28mm. I plan on getting it all professionally cleaned, hopefully from a recommendation. I'm not touching it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
Gargonovitch posted:especially if it has the waistlevel viewfinder, which it looks like it does. Waistlevel finders are awesome and really change the way you compose, but they can be strange at first. Looks like I'm missing the waistlevel viewfinder. It's just the normal one. I'm guessing I could probably buy one? I'm thinking it'd be worth it. Also, bonus! I have the original manual for the Exaktor (copywrite 1951...so can I assume is was made in east germany then?). There was also film in the camera, but unfortunately (I opened it) and it didn't seem to have anything shot on it anyways. vxsarin fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Oct 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
Gargonovitch posted:Maybe give Oleg Khalyavin an email. After WWII, Exaktas were produced in Soviet East Germany, and Oleg Khalyavin fixes most of those cameras. If he can't do it, I bet he would know who could. His website is https://www.okvintagecamera.com Thanks for the recommendation! He got back to me and is going to do it for $120.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 13:49
|
|
|
So I got a quote for $120 from the pentax dude. I'm actually happy with that since it's about 1/2 of what I expected. Can't wait to get rocking on this. Next is sending the other body to moscow.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
Pretty happy with getting that Pentax repaired for only $100. Was expecting it to cost more.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
So I haven't seen much talk about those Plustek OpticFilm scanners. Obviously they only work with 35mm, but they seem to do it as well if not much better than normal scanners. The downside being that it will only work with 35mm. Anyone have any good/bad experiences? The Pentax comes back soon, so I want to get my poo poo together for it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
At the risk of sounding stupid as gently caress, has anyone played with a Nishika N8000? They look pretty fun. Especially for some halloween photos. I've been reading that it recommends film rated for 200 outdoors and 1600 indoors, since I think the shutter is locked at 1/60. So maybe Superia 200/1600. mod edit: i edited your post for you so you didn't run afoul of one of our fine dorkroom rules. 18. In this day and age, the term 'hipster' is not representative of any specific cultural group, manner of dress, or style of photography. As such, using it as a blanket term is really stupid and you really shouldn't do it. Somebody fucked around with this message at 22:49 on Oct 23, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
Geektox posted:Yeah, I have the n9000 and it recommends 1600 with flash for indoors and 200 for outdoors. The n9000 has a switch that flips between "sun" and "cloud" so I think it has two apertures. Awesome thanks! Can't wait to burn some Out of curiosity, do you have any images you've taken with it up here?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
Miike posted:I've shot quite a few rolls with the N9000. They used to be in the toycamera thread before that got archived. I've got a bunch of them on my blog posted here. I almost always shoot with a small flash for some fill in and either 200 and 400 film. Awesome, thanks!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
hi liter posted:Well that seems like a pretty strong consensus. Thanks. hence the title of the thread
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
Mrenda posted:It could be because my city is built with a lot of stone. Sure there are shop fronts, but any of the grander and more interesting buildings are made of stone (and that's even negative thinking about the more commercial store fronts, where people have done amazing things on this forum with those commercial, everyday buildings.) I am very much limited to my city. I don't have the confidence (nor the lighting equipment) to do portraits. I don't have the confidence to force myself into a gig situation and photograph them. I could never be hosed going shooting a team I don't care about on a wet and windy Saturday morning after I've been drinking. Ultimately, the city is accessible and that's where I go. re: confidence Force yourself to be uncomfortable and fail. I'm sure you were uncomfortable when you first picked up that film camera.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2014 03:16
|
|
|
So I shot a roll of tri-x 400 and portra 400 (because it's a requirement here). I'm now ready to do some development. I've been spending far too long online trying to make sense of what chemicals I need for both bw and color. As far as the actually PROCESS, it seems ridiculously simple and stupid proof. That means I can do it. It seems like the C-41 process uses quite a few chemicals? The BW seems to be straight forward. My main confusion is with the developer. All the videos I watch, people are using liquid developers. Are they buying them pre-mixed or are they mixing it themselves? A packet makes like 5 liters, and I don't really need that much at once. So basically, what chemicals are you guys using these days?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Easiest option: a one-shot developer. You start with a bottle of "concentrate", you mix up "working solution" when you need it, then you pour it down the drain afterwords. Awesome, that's what was confusing me. The one-shot stuff. Sounds like the way to go, at least to start. Thanks!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Or until you get into large format. I don't even know a local place that does 4x5 anymore, and back when they did it used to be $2.50 per sheet for C-41 process. If you go on vacation and come back with a box full of C-41 4x5, I think it'd make sense to buy one of those Tetanal kits. I actually do have a local lab that does medium format but they seem quite expensive. http://techlabphoto.com/ EDIT: nevermind, I think their price list is just confusing...I think develop only is much cheaper. I'm going to go check them out today. vxsarin fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Oct 25, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Yeah, getting stuff scanned is usually pretty expensive if you want someone with experience to be doing it. If you go to Walmart or something and get minilab dev+scans the scans will still cost just as much as the development, and also the quality will be atrocious. I've got a scanner, so I'd just need processing.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
Just stopped by that local lab and the prices are ~$7.50 for color and $9 for black and white. It was about a 50 cent increase on both for 120. Doesn't seem terrible. The also can turn them around same day if you get them in early.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
Ok, so I gave it a go and it looks more vibrant. I just used 8th-snype's awesome tutorial on the first page for the first time. Just levels and setting the grey point. Seems to have come out a bit more vibrant, but it's still overexposed. I used the imperfection on the pumpkin for the grey point. I'm not sure it's dead on, but it looks decent. I touched absolutely nothing but the levels and grey point. I think it looks like an improvement. 
vxsarin fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Oct 26, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 18:36 |
|
|
BANME.sh posted:All my of scans come out looking like this, no matter what camera or film I use. Should I adjust my scanner maybe? It's not the film, camera or scanner. It's overexposed coming out of the camera.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2014 19:42
|
|