|
It might be worth adding some comments on the 620 format as well. There are lots of neat folders and other cameras floating around that still can produce great results and cost next-to-nothing, but require 620 format film. 620 is basically the same as 120 except on a slightly different spool. Some 620 cameras can be made to accept a 120 spool, but others (like my Kodak folder) can't handle it. Possible solutions/workarounds: Buy 620 film (a few places sell it, but selection is verrry limited) Cut down the lip on the 120 spool (might still not work in several cameras since the head of the spool is not only wider but also slightly thicker) Respool 120 onto 620 spools. This is what I do. 620 spools can be found easily enough, often there'll be one left inside the camera you bought.  Link to instructions:http://www.brownie-camera.com/respool/respool.shtml With 120 being readily available (probably for quite some time to come) you have plenty of choices here! What I would recommend for the more limited option cameras (I have a couple of folders with a fixed shutter speed and very limited aperture adjustments) would be a film that gets along with Diafine developer. PlusX for sunny days and TriX for everything else should work fine; you can get away with rather significant differences in exposure if you soup these films in Diafine. It's what I do when I take the Holga out, and I have yet to get an unusable negative. edit: and drat it, Leica rangefinders aren't hard to load... Clayton Bigsby fucked around with this message at 16:15 on Jun 1, 2008 |
#
¿
Jun 1, 2008 16:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 07:47 |
|
|
johnasavoia posted:No but they do take longer than a swingback does, and its a pain to have to cut your leaders ahead of time. With some practice it takes next to no time to cut the leaders and then roll back into the spool. Honestly! (Though it is a pain if you have to buy a roll and don't have scissors handy...) My Diafine experiences are almost exclusively in medium format, but in that aspect, yes, it really is that good. I shoot PlusX and TriX most of the time, and from rated speed to a couple stops faster it always does a wonderful job. The best part is that because of the way it develops it's virtually impossible to blow out highlights. I get gorgeous negs shooting at rated speed and both shadows and highlights have tons of detail in them. Not to mention the developer cost me $15 and will probably last years. Now, this is all said based on scanning the negs. I haven't wet printed a Diafine neg yet, so no clue how it'd look there. They are pretty flat which makes them great for scanning, but not sure how well they'd print 'traditonally'.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2008 17:58
|
|
|
MrMeowMeow posted:I have a couple of questions about slide film since I've never used it: It Depends(tm). If you're shooting 35mm and want good results you're best off using a dedicated film scanner. Most have slide holders included (if you get them mounted). For medium format and large format a decent flatbed (Epson 4990 for instance) should be enough. You CAN get wet prints from slides (google Cibachrome/Ilfochrome), though these days you'd do well to just scan and print them digitally.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2008 19:44
|
|
|
blambert posted:
That's when you put the film into your tank, slap the lid on, then open the bag and put 'em in. Not that I'd know.  Re: developing, I am a HUGE fan of photoflo. A bottle will last you a lifetime. Also, if you develop in a bathroom that has a shower, running hot water in the shower for a few will help remove dust from the air so you can hang your precious negs to dry.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2008 01:11
|
|
|
Syph3r posted:I'm interested in exploring black and while film photography more seriously, but am a little overwhelmed by the variety of stocks available. Could somebody overview a few of the popular stocks? What is a versatile starting point for a beginner? I'm assuming that by stock you mean emulsion. If you just want to get your feet wet, sort of, there's no harm in playing with the available C41 (color process) black and white films. There's XP2 (Ilford) and whatever the current Kodak one is (BW400CN?) as well as a Fuji that may or may not be available where you live. These are not 'true' black and white films but will let you get a feel for it while getting development and printing done at a normal cheap minilab. Now, if you want real black/white, it's hard to beat TriX for versatility. It handles a wide range of speeds with ease, and has a very classic (and classy) black and white film look to it. Again, I will pimp Diafine because it's just so easy to get superb results with, and it makes life a lot easier when you don't need to fuss with temps and times while starting out development. TriX and PlusX together with HP5 and FP4 from Ilford are great films for getting that old school black and white look, while Tmax and Delta (in my opinion) are a little cleaner and cold looking. Hard to explain and entirely subjective, but these t-grain style emulsions while no doubt excellent just lack a certain feel to them.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2008 02:11
|
|
|
Luxmore posted:I've always found field cameras easier to come to grips with than a huge monorail. You can pick up Speed Graphic 4x5 cameras fairly inexpensively these days, and the later ones have a pretty fair range of movements. The Super Graphics have really nice movements for what's really a press camera; the earlier (Crown and Speed) are a little more limited. The real issue though is the lens! Most of these come with a lens that just BARELY covers 4x5 and adding movements in is just too much. Make sure you're prepared to get a lens casting a wider circle if you plan to use movements with these guys. FWIW, I paid $148 or so for a nice condition Crown Graphic with lens and all recently. Light leaks, if the bellows are rubberized there's this patching goop you can get at fabric stores that's flexible (check the LF forums for the name/brand) and can patch up most things permanently.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2008 11:06
|
|
|
UserNotFound posted:Has anyone here ever use Diafine w/ Tri-X 400? Why do I see conflicting reports about whether or not it will expose the TX400 to EI1600 with the "standard" proccess? I understand some people choose to set their camera to 1100 or something they feel gets the exposure they're looking for, but others seem to insist that they shoot at 400 and the Diafine doesn't overexpose it... I shoot it at 400 and it does well for me. (That's with a good, accurate meter too; the one in my GA645.) However, I get decent negs from just guesstimating exposure on my meter-less cameras as well; I certainly don't expect (or get) zone system like results but it's hard to get a BAD neg too... What I would recommend, and it won't cost you more than a roll of film. Go find a low contrast, a medium contrast, and a high contrast scene. Shoot each one at EI 400, 800, 1600. Go pick some other scenes that you will commonly shoot (portraits, landscape, still life, yada). Shoot each at 400, 800, 1600. You can get fancier and use 400, 500, 640, 800, 1000, 1250, 1600 if you want to spend more film but I really don't think it's necessary for most... Develop in Diafine and pick out the best looking results for each type of scene. You might find that a certain scene does best at 800 while another looks nicer at 400. It'll only cost you a roll of film and teach you everything you'll need to know about Diafine and that film. Don't be afraid to overexpose either if you want to explore a bit, who knows, you might find that something like EI 200 and flat lighting works magic for you! The same concept applies to 'roughing out' other films/developers, though when you're using more traditional developers I'd recommend shooting a few rolls the same way and then dev each at different times or temps to see how the entire picture looks. With Diafine being a 'develop to completion' solution time and temp are (more or less) irrelevant as long as there's sufficient of them to complete the development process. PS: I f-in HATE plastic reels for 120, but they work great for 35mm. Freestyle has pretty cheap metal tank/reel setups.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2008 22:40
|
|
|
hybr1d posted:What's a good rangefinder between the FED's and the Leicas? Although the Leicas are beautiful, optic-clockwork-jewelry beauties, I'd like something cheaper if I can get it without sacrificing too much in quality. Kievs--assuming you get a good one, and this goes for all the Soviet gear--are really nice. They're Contax knock-offs, and when you get a good one they are GOOD. I have a 4m from 1984 that is bulletproof and kicks out excellent results. The wide base rangefinder is nice to have too! I would give Yuri at Fedka a call/email, he will sell you nice quality USSR gear and is happy to take anything back without arguing if you're not pleased with it. Or you can buy my Leica III if you want old school.  (Selling either that one or a IIf, still debating which...)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2008 12:18
|
|
|
brad industry posted:It's because there's no mirror to move out of the way like on an SLR. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2008 22:31
|
|
|
brad industry posted: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. The disadvantage would be that they usually have a rather low top shutter speed. There are plenty of focal plane shutter medium format cameras though, just wanted to clarify that so nobody gets the impression that medium format = leaf shutter. Some of the Hassys have it, the Mamiya 645 series (of which there are a crapton), Pentax 645, Contax 645 etc, Pentax 67 etc... Also, while the leaf shutter itself is quiet there's still the racket from the mirror to deal with on the SLRs. Bottom line, if you want quiet and vibration free shutter in MF, go TLR or rangefinder or use mirror lockup on an SLR with leaf shutter.
Clayton Bigsby fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Jun 3, 2008 |
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2008 23:32
|
|
|
You can probably keep and use Diafine for years. After a long-ish time it can get sludgy but you can filter the liquid to clean it up.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2008 00:52
|
|
|
Snaily posted:Great. I'll mix that up when it gets here instead of the bag of D76 I had as a first choice, then. This thread. A few of us were tossing ideas around for an analog camera gear thread, but I don't see why that stuff can't just be in here... Luxmore had a pretty nice overview of different types of cameras, and I can certainly put together some recommendations at various price points if that's the sort of stuff you're looking for.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2008 13:07
|
|
|
dahkren posted:Someone in the camera equipment megathread suggested I ask my question in here. Didn't see this thread the other day or I would've! I'm not a big Canon/Nikon guy but I am sure some people can recommend specific models. I'd still campaign for spending the time finding an OM-1; they really are lovely to work with and will last a long, long time if they are in decent shape. One thing to keep in mind is that they were made for mercury batteries so will require either an adapter or those Wein zinc-air batteries. I'll toss another suggestion in though: Minolta SRT-101. They are all manual, match-needle metering, and well built. Minolta glass is cheap and plentiful. I scored one with a 50mm lens from a guy on photo.net for something like $30. (Same deal with batteries there, unfortunately.) Or just get a K1000 -- they aren't bad at all, though I personally don't like the feel of them. You might.
Clayton Bigsby fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Jun 7, 2008 |
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2008 17:12
|
|
|
OK, here's the Cliff's notes version of my VERY subjective and VERY opinionated selection of medium format cameras. So don't bother telling me I picked the 'wrong' ones or that X is 'better'; post up your own choices and share the knowledge instead. Where can I get the film developed? Here lies a potential problem for many budding medium format guys. The film comes in 120 and 220 format (giving you anywhere from a few frames on panoramics with 120 to 30+ on 6x4.5 cameras with 220). However, with so many pros going digital a lot of labs have shut down (three around me went tits up in one year) or stopped processing medium format. If you want to shoot slides/chromes/E6, developing at home can be a royal pain in the rear end, a little costly, and not something most people will want to do (it CAN be done but isn't generally worth it). These I would recommend either dropping off at a local lab or sending off to a place like Dwayne's in Kansas which will develop (and optionally scan at a decent res) anything you want (incidentally, it's also the last lab to process Kodachrome). For C41/color negatives it's the same deal. Don't want to mess with it at home, just send it out or find a local lab that does good work if you're fortunate enough to have one! For traditional black and white, it's a different game. Here I would argue that unless you absolutely CANNOT do it yourself for some reason (deathly allergic to the chemicals, wife would pitch a fit if the kitchen smelled like fixer, etc), you are much better off DIYing this. The chemicals are inexpensive, the little gear you need won't set you back by much, and then you can develop the rolls yourself for dirt cheap. Also, it allows you to experiment with various developers and techniques while most labs will just process it one way in one developer. If you really cannot do it at home, consider the C41 black and white films which are processed like color negs. I'd prefer those if I'm going to send it out, honestly -- they allow for a little more slop and generally labs have their C41 process nailed and the volume is likely to be higher than traditional B&W. OK, I'm fine with that. What's the cheapest camera I can get that's worth a poo poo? First off, please re-read the disclaimer about this being entirely subjective. I am not a professional camera dealer or expert, just somebody who enjoys it greatly as a hobby. Now, that said, if you are looking for decent image quality, usability and a good price, most of the time you'll find yourself best served by a TLR (twin lens reflex) camera. Generally you can find something decent for under $100 and with some research and careful shopping maybe half that. I like the Yashicas a lot; for a list of the models and features please check out this guy's FAQ: http://www.williamsphotographic.com/yashica.html I would personally look for a 124/124G if you're willing to spend a little extra, or for a D with the Yashinon lens. The Yashikor once aren't bad at all, but IMO the Yashinon is worth the extra effort. If you get a model without a light meter make sure to budget for one; or do what I do when I go all-manual and just estimate exposure. I would push for going with a light meter though so that you have one less variable to deal with if things don't turn out right. What are the different major types of medium format cameras? The big three are twin lens reflex (TLR), rangefinder, (RF) and single lens reflex (SLR). TLRs are generally light and inexpensive (several exceptions exist!), and most models do not have interchangeable lenses. Most shoot square (6x6cm) format negatives, which can take some getting used to although some people end up loving it. They are not really good for action work, and due to parallax issues (the lens you're looking through is a couple of inches above the lens taking the picture) closeup work can be a pain unless you get some special gear like the Mamiya Paramender. Most of them have a fixed waist level viewfinder (again, there are exceptions) you look down into to compose the image. The image will be reversed left-right which can be a little confusing at first but something you will get used to pretty quickly. Most have a popup magnifier you can use to fine-tune focusing. Rangefinders are typically relatively light and compact. They are available in a whole pile of formats (6x4.5 and upwards). Focusing is done by means of a rangefinder mechanism that gives you a (usually yellow) square patch with a 'double image' in the middle of the viewfinder; you pick what you want to be in focus and turn the focusing mechanism until this double image lines up with the other one. They can be a little tricky when you are dealing with low contrast scenes and/or ones with no well defined edges. They also suffer to a certain extent from parallax issues as the viewfinder is a few inches away from the lens. Many have parallax correction in the viewfinder however which takes care of the problem as long as you don't get right up on your subject. Most have fixed lenses but some have interchangeable ones. SLRs are the most versatile of the bunch. Many models allow you to change not just the lens, but the viewfinder and even the back. Why change the back, you ask? You could for instance keep one back with high speed film and one with low speed; or one with color and one with black and white. That way you don't need to lug two bodies or finish up a roll if you want to shoot something different. Viewfinders, you'll often find waist level finders and prism finders both with and without metering capabilities. Some SLRs will have fixed viewfinders and backs, usually these are the more compact and suitable for handholding ones. So recommend me a good TLR, RF and SLR then. TLR: look above, don't need to look further than the Yashicas. If you for some reason want a TLR with interchangeable lenses, the Mamiya C-series qualifies, though to be honest they are big and heavy and if I am going to put up with big and heavy I will carry a drat RB67 and get more versatility. RF: My favorite is the Fuji GA645/GA645i. It is an autofocus camera (still classified as a rangefinder) with a very good built in meter. You can treat it like a giant point and shoot (it even has a Program mode) and get lovely 6x4.5 negs out of it. The 60mm f/4 lens is insanely sharp. The downside: it's not cheap. Figure on $400 or so for a good example, but worth every drat penny. If you're looking for something even nicer take a look at the Mamiya 6 and 7 cameras. They are expensive but lovely. I don't like cheap rangefinders; perhaps somebody can post a few of those that they dig in case you do want a RF for cheap. SLR: Mamiya all the way if you want good bang for the buck. If you are willing to drag around something big and heavy the RB67 is an unbelievable bargain these days; $200-250 if you shop around for a full setup in decent shape. They are BIG but you get a selection of great lenses, a rotating back (thus the 'RB') and huge 6x7 negatives. It also uses bellows for focusing which allows you to get up close and personal with standard lenses. Everything about this camera is pro and solid, and even my original RB67 from the early 70s is still going strong with heaven knows how many exposures. The lenses have leaf shutters in them so if you pre-fire the mirror you have virtually no vibration at all. That said, Mamiya did come up with a nifty mirror braking mechanism which significantly reduces that in the first place. There's a couple of metering viewfinders available but most RB67s come with a plain waste level one; budget for a meter. Want something lighter and smaller? Mamiya 645E. It has a fixed metering prism and a fixed back, but with the optional-but-necessary rapid winder grip it's a superbly handling and easy to use 6x4.5 camera. Figure on $300 or so for a good one. It handles like an oversized 35mm with the grip, and the optics on the stock 80/2.8 lens are superb. If you want something to carry with you a lot, get this or a rangefinder. What about Holgas? Holgas are nifty, but it'd be stupid to get one for your first medium format rig. They are extremely limited in functionality and the image quality is poor. There's nothing at all wrong with using one to go 'artsy' (hell, I do sometimes), but I think it is important to learn how use a camera properly (exposure, focus etc) first. Let's worry about the blurry underexposed art shots later. How about all those folding cameras I see for $10 at yard sales? Generally, there's nothing at all wrong with using one, especially the nicer models that have a wide range of shutter speeds and apertures. However, they often have scale focusing (meaning you estimate the distance to subject) and usually need a little love to work smoothly. Nothing is more frustrating than having to fight your gear when you're first starting out. They have their place and time but for a budding medium format photographer they are not the best choice. ...ok, I have to take a break here. I hope some of this info was useful, and I'll see about fleshing it out a bit more later -- if anybody has a specific topic they wonder about please let me know!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2008 18:33
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:I'm trying out a BlackCat exposure meter now. Along those lines, you might want to give this a read: http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2008 23:07
|
|
|
dahkren posted:Thanks for the advice guys, I'll keep searching for an OM-1 since that seems to be the most suggested. Could anyone suggest some starting lenses if I can only get a body off ebay? 50/1.8 and 28/3.5 (Zuiko) should be inexpensive and are great lenses. Try to get the hood if you get the 28, it does make a difference.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2008 03:50
|
|
|
gib posted:Meters in RFs are nice if for no other reason than they let you know when you've left the lens cap on. That's assuming it's TTL metering, which ain't always the case. killabyte posted:Someone will have to explain to me these rangefinder metering comments I see around? I'd never buy an SLR without a meter so I don't quite understand why I would want a rangefinder without one. Rangefinders have been around for quite a while, and thus there are many models out there that are still perfectly usable but lack modern amenities like metering. I don't see a good reason why you wouldn't use a meter if it's there and working, though! Clayton Bigsby fucked around with this message at 03:27 on Jun 11, 2008 |
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2008 03:24
|
|
|
Luxmore posted:So I'm gonna be hangin' with Tom Abrahamsson on Friday, anybody need some softreleases or anything? I could use a free Barnackwinder for those high speed shoots Would you mind asking him what Swedish paper he worked for? I saw somewhere that he worked for one a long time ago and have been curious as to which since.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2008 04:46
|
|
|
Nice D! If you exercise the shutter a bit it wouldn't surprise me if the 1/2 and 1 sec speed get a little smoother.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2008 00:58
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Diafine. It will reduce the fog on the film, I have seen 70 year old negs come out printable with that stuff. Diafine will also solve world hunger, give you a back rub, make coffee and walk your dog. Or drat near.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2008 00:57
|
|
|
Give Vuescan a go. I've used it for years and years, it's relatively cheap and makes for great scans.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2008 01:45
|
|
|
killabyte posted:You really can't develop them in Diafine without overdeveloping, especially the Tri-X. Tri-X in Diafine is rated at between 1200-1600. Developing it in Diafine is going to lead to a 3 stop overdevelop. That's complete and utter poo poo and I suspect you have never used Diafine or any similar developer (or you'd find out like everyone else that Tri-X is nowhere near the rated 1600 but rather closer to 1k if you care at all about shadows). Because of the two step solution and lack of real agitation, the developer will wear out in the highlights before overdeveloping. I generally shoot Tri-X and Plus-X at box speed and have not once 'overdeveloped' a neg. They come out gorgeous, and because of the way Diafine works you are unlikely to ever gently caress up exposure or development too badly. Sounds like magic? Probably is, but as long as I get great negs I am not going to argue with it. edit: PS, 1600 is two stops away from 400, not 3. Clayton Bigsby fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Jul 13, 2008 |
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2008 20:02
|
|
|
8th-samurai: thanks for that link, it's nice to know I am not the only one who likes Diafine with films at box speed. I really think using Diafine is the best you can do short of shooting zone system style which is a PITA with roll film... By the way, though I shoot TriX et al at box speed, it's nice to know I can underexpose a couple of stops and still get usable results if needed. Good to have when you hand hold and need a faster shutter speed than your lens and film might normally allow. I have some Efke 100 4x5 film I plan to try with Diafine soon, should be fun.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2008 14:51
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:I'd like to get started in basic black-and-white photography, and was wondering if anyone could offer advice on a good, fairly cheap starter camera? I've made a few digital films so I'm familiar with the very basics of composition and exposure, but I really know nothing about developing or film itself, and would like recommendation for a basic camera. I posted a very opinionated medum format camera guide earlier in the thread, but if you are looking for 35mm... Figure out if you want an SLR or rangefinder type camera. You can find both types cheap (or expensive). Cheap and good SLR would be something like a Pentax K1000, Minolta SRT101, Olympus OM1.. they can be had for less than a hundred bucks in good shape with a standard lens. Cheap and good rangefinder: a decent copy of a Fed, Zorki or Kiev would be everything you need. Some won't have light meters and you'll have to guess or buy a separate noe. But if you are going to develop on your own I would really push towards medium format. It will be hardly any more money, the film is MUCH larger and can be scanned well on a flatbed (35mm you will want a film scanner for), and you can get results 35mm cameras can only dream of.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2008 19:31
|
|
|
Yes, you CAN use Diafine to develop paper. However, while a compensating effect is a plus for film since you want a good 'raw' image to work with the same for paper might not turn out so great. I've seen prints developed in Diafine and they do tend to be a little on the flat/muddy side. Give it a whirl though! I'd start with something like 30-60 secs in each bath since paper will be more absorbent than film.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2008 00:54
|
|
|
Sounds like your fixer is hosed. Get some hypo tester or just make another batch.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2008 01:46
|
|
|
Looks like this ffordes place has quite a few Yashica 124Gs for 99 pounds. If you like 6x6 and TLRs this isn't a bad deal. They also have an RB67 kit for 299, though that does seem a bit high compared to US prices. Check out the Bronica SQ series too for 6x6 if you're really wanting square format, they tend to not be too costly and decent.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2008 23:19
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:How are the Russian FED rangefinders? I'm thinking of buying a Bessa R3A down the road, but wanted to try out something cheaper to see how I like using a rangefinder with interchangeable lenses first. I realize the Bessa is a much nicer camera (as are the lenses, although most of the Russian lenses should work on it), but I want to test the waters with something cheap before I put down that kind of cash. I'm looking more at size/convenience of use than optical quality par excellance. The Feds and Zorkis can be really nice if you get a good one. Don't discount the screwmount Leicas though as they can be affordable these days (figure $200 for a pretty decent one) and can be resold for about what you paid if you don't like it or want to get something newer. The Jupiter lenses are great. The 12 is a lot of fun (but might not work well on the Bessas because of its massive rear element), and the 8 is a good solid performer.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2008 23:59
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Which model screwmount Leica are you talking about? Also, do you mean by decent that they had a recent CLA or is at least somewhat likely to keep working for a while? For instance, I got a III with two lenses for $175 and spent $70 on a CLA for it. And by decent, yes, generally something that has been CLA'd at least in the past few years and has a decent rangefinder on it. quote:What do you mean by dud? Ebay does suck, but I've noticed a number of sellers from Ukraine who seem to sell nothing but old Russian camera gear and have good feedback. Somebody like Oleg (I can't recall his ebay seller ID off the top of my head) will generally hook you up with nice quality gear. Here in the US you can always contact Yuri at fedka.com -- he has a good rep and you can rely on getting a decent setup from him. It won't be as cheap as the ebay bargains, but it won't cost a fortune either.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2008 00:56
|
|
|
Bunny Fiesta posted:Thanks for the advice, it all sounds great. I poked around on KEH and found an Olympus OM-1 for $126 and a 50mm f1.8 Zuiko lens for $27, both EX condition. Seems like the makings of an inexpensive (and exciting) introduction to film. The OM1 is great, but be aware that you need to either use zinc-air batteries or an adapter to get the proper voltage for the meter. I would recommend also looking at Pentax Spotmatics. Great cameras and the M42 Super Tak lenses are outstanding.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2008 23:06
|
|
|
Jahoodie posted:^^ There is a dude on my local craigslist that has been trying to sell old 1960s cameras for $1000s that you can get from ebay for under $25, with tag lines like "Don't lowball me, I am a professional photographer and know the worth of this set up." Even better is when he tries to sell his 256mb SD cards for $50 each. If you have a local pro store you can possibly find out-of-date 120 for cheap. The place near me puts out most of their 'outdated' film for a buck a roll, even though it's been refrigerated and is just fine. Other than that, try the usual suspects: B&H, Adorama, Freestyle. As for craigslist... we should have a thread where we just post the camera 'deals' that pop up. Some of the stuff is downright hilarious. There's a guy selling his 'professional' Minolta setup for $399 (probably worth $150 on a good day) and posts it every two weeks like clockwork. For a year. The funny thing is that most of the really good deals I've gotten from craigslist have been from ACTUAL pro photographers who are just looking to sell their stuff to somebody who'll find good use for it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2008 02:17
|
|
|
STA posted:
The C330s (the entire C-series for that matter) are AWESOME. Just heavy as gently caress to lug around compared to say a 124G, but you get killer glass and interchangeable lenses. Congrats!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2008 00:04
|
|
|
Haggins posted:I think I'm gonna shoot a roll or two of film next week. Where should I get my film developed and scanned? Am I better off sending it in somewhere or going to a pro shop in town? Or should I just go to Walgreens? I prefer to save money but not at the expense of quality. Pro shops are usually reliable, Wal-Mart or Walgreens is hit or miss. There's one guy working at Walgreens here that loves photography and takes good care of your stuff; at the same store this cranky woman works that I caught literally dragging film across the floor ("It won't hurt it"). Only way to find out is to waste a few rolls at various local joints and feel them out, or pay the premium for the 'pro' stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2008 01:41
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Can't you just file out the 6 X 4.5 mask? Yes you can. Just make sure to smooth out the edges.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2008 23:15
|
|
|
I need to get some 120 C41 souped and scanned (I have a scanner but would prefer to have some 'decent' ones done with development). Before sending it off to Dwayne's I just wanted to see if anybody had any other suggestions for mail order development -- Dwayne's is pretty good in my experience but I'm always open to other ideas.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2008 15:45
|
|
|
Jahoodie posted:So after some googling around, I have an idea that might be crazy. I'd be doing very very low volume amount of film, and have 1 gallon dry mix bags of developer. Would it keep if I mixed it up and put the solution in sealed bottles (I'm a home brewer, so I have a bottle capper and blanks) purged with a heavy gas like butane? Then I could open up a few ounces of stock at a time, and be cheap/thrifty. Just read the datasheets for the developer to figure out the shelf life once mixed. Or use Diafine, it'll probably outlast film.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2008 00:25
|
|
|
Luxmore posted:Buy a new lens. Or any other related gadget. I've shot a ton recently since getting some lighting gear. Yes, gear can inspire. edit: lenses don't HAVE to be expensive. If you can use M42 on your camera via an adapter there's a loving ton of stuff there for not a lot of money. Clayton Bigsby fucked around with this message at 01:31 on Sep 25, 2008 |
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2008 00:26
|
|
|
MrMeowMeow posted:I had to look up what SSC meant, but is Super Spectra Coating really that great? OK, I just have to ask.. why do you consider aperture priority "training wheels"? Almost all of the people I see touting "manual mode" just fiddle with shutter speed and aperture until the camera tells them the exposure is correct. Just how is that any different whatsoever from controlling either of the parameters and letting the camera pick the other based on metering? In fact, even if you are saying "ok, this looks like I ought to go +1EV" you can do that just fine in Av or Tv mode through exposure compensation. Not picking on you at all, just a general question. Unless I'm using my studio strobes I spend 95% in the Pentax TAv mode (which is a mode where you control shutter and aperture and the camera picks ISO based on metering; obviously not an option for film cameras) and the remaining 5% in Av mode. I just don't see the point in going all manual mode when all I'll be doing is the same exact thing except making it more of a hassle. Anyone? edit: if I really want to go "all manual" I'll pick up my Leica and go eyeball the metering, which can be fun and challenging. But screwing around with manual mode on a camera that has metering, why?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2008 01:15
|
|
|
Back_From_Termina posted:Because sometimes meters lie. Sunsets just for a quick example. Re-read what I wrote. If you know that a meter will lie under a certain scenario, you can compensate just fine with exposure compensation in the 'auto' modes.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2008 01:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 07:47 |
|
|
Back_From_Termina posted:Yeah, but I think most cameras will only let you go +/- 5EV, what if you need more than that? Sure, go manual by all means. Nothing against it, but I fail to see the value of touting manual as "serious photography" when most of the time you're just manually doing what the camera was about to do for you. And honestly, I can't remember the last time I needed more than +/- 2EV compensation.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2008 01:43
|
|