|
i just got started with a Canon t70 and some cheap lenses, and some portra 160, 200, 400 and 800 i dunno poo poo about film but any advice on getting the most mileage out of my specific camera would be appreciated!!
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2008 23:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 17:48 |
|
|
Anyone got any tips on good portrait film/lens for a Pentax 6x7? Of the 1989 make I believe. I'm having some trouble exposing faces correctly with a 67mm: Is the focus off? Am I not shooting fast enough (1/60th)? Was it scanned poorly? (I get it scanned at the same place I get it developed but they're really professional so it seems unlikely) Help a filmbrother out
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2008 18:16
|
|
|
Luxmore posted:The exposure seems fine, but your focus isn't quite on, and the scan might be a bit magenta-ey (but that depends what kind of film you're shooting with) It was Fujifilm 400 iirc Here's another shot that I was like 90% sure was correctly focused on his face when I shot it:  I think I just learned a trick to focusing correctly in my photo class so maybe that'll help? These pictures were some of the first I ever took with this camera so that's likely too. I don't know, I'd like to believe the fault is on me and that my focusing apparatus isn't off and I need to get my camera recalibrated or something. My vision isn't perfect but it's not exactly horrible either so who knows? The place I got it from doesn't test their used cameras as well as their competitors and the version of Pentax 6x7 (1989 I think) I have is known to be a bit dark in the viewfinder compared to the more recent version so who knows. P.S. Does anyone know a good place in or near NY to get 35mm Kodachrome developed?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2008 19:18
|
|
|
Large Hardon Collider posted:what is it? 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.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2008 17:40
|
|
|
Hey guys. Remember how I had that gorgeous 6x7 I was in love with? Bad news. The little tabs you'd use to unwind and extract the film broke. I still have them, but I don't think it'd very easy to re-attach them. I think I might just be buying an entirely new Pentax 6x7, since this one is falling apart, but the real problem is that there's a spool of film stuck in there I really want to get developed b I simply can't get it out without the spools in place!! Any sorts of information on repairing it or getting the film out (120) would be greatly appreciated!!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2008 20:12
|
|
|
Frinkahedron posted:I borrowed an AE-1 from a friend to see if I wanted to start playing with film again. Turns out I got bit by the film bug hard, so I'm looking to get an AE-1 of my own. Is ebay generally a good place for photo equipment this old? I'm worried that I'll get one and have light leaks or something when I get it. Get the T70 instead if you can find it. Basically the same camera just with more nifty tech stuff (like autoexposure etc)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2008 17:25
|
|
|
Luxmore posted:The Voigtlander rangefinders are pretty sweet. They're not built to the same standard as a Leica, but they're very good quality machines, and the lenses are great. I promised myself I wouldn't baby my R3M, and it's been nothing but reliable in the years I've owned it (samples here). What's so gross about it?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2008 23:22
|
|
|
Luxmore posted:The grey-paint-over-beige-plastic construction ensures that it will get uglier with wear, and the controls are needlessly obtuse since they hadn't quite figured out how to build a pushbutton interface yet. Oh. I thought you meant the pictures it produced were ugly. Yeah, it's not much to look at next to a Leica body or whatever, but it's a pretty decent 35mm camera for the price and I'm used to the controls by now.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2008 14:01
|
|
|
Where and how can I get Kodachrome developed?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2009 23:32
|
|
|
Jahoodie posted:Even better is making friends with people from the actual former Soviet states. Guess what kinds of grandma cameras are in the back of the closet, to be given away for free? Do they have cameras that automatically edit out political dissidents from photographs yet?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2009 19:36
|
|
|
Does a relatively cheap panoramic film camera exist, or are they all upwards of $4,000?
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2009 00:02
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:I got my first couple of LF exposures back today and let me tell you I'm just pleased that I didn't fog my film or put 'em in backwards when I was loading the film holder. I'm really very very pleased with how they came out actually and I got to say that I love this camera. Was it a pain to set it up/focus correctly etc etc?
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2009 01:50
|
|
|
pwn posted:I recently obtained a roll of Kodachrome from a friend-of-a-friend. I am unsure of its age, probably at least a few years old. The man wasn't and isn't a photographer, but he does sculptures and paintings. He seemed surprised that the film was in his fridge. He says it was from when he needed to shoot photos of his art projects in school. I can't find any expiration date on the film, and it would seem it has lived in the fridge for much of its time since he bought it. What kind of colour shifts, if any, should I expect? Is there any way (markings, era-specific nomenclature) to determine its age and whether it might be past the point of usability? I'm currently storing it with my Velvia in the freezer. Good luck getting that developed, haha! I still have an undeveloped roll of that sitting in my drawer right now.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2009 06:47
|
|
|
first roll of b&w ever!!! tri-x 400 (on a pentax 6x7):  
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2009 00:29
|
|
|
Mello Clello posted:These are wonderful. Blacks look a bit washed out but most likely that's my lovely laptop's fault. I've been looking at finding a medium format SLR for a while, the Pentax 67 is a bit of a heavy motherfucker y/n? You bet it is, and I wouldn't have it any other way. Besides, 6x7 is waaay better than square format. Square is for squares!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2009 02:24
|
|
|
does anyone have a good technique for scanning Polaroids? Thankfully, I have my own scanner. But having to redraw the scanning parameters in Picasa over and over again is really annoying. I'd rather just set the length/width in some sort of type-in box beforehand so it can be exact.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2009 01:36
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:What about some Portra 400NC? pfft. more like VC. NC's for squares!!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2009 21:44
|
|
|
dunno posted:Or people who like natural skin tones and a lower contrast negative... i don't want to get into an internet argument about which film is better but i have gotten some lovely skin tones out of 160vc at least... on medium format AND 35mm for that matter
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2009 10:20
|
|
|
HPL posted:So I've been messing around with Freestyle's Legacy Pro 100 and it is definitely Fuji Acros 100. It's awesome for just about everything that ISO 100 type of light will allow. If you bulk load film, it's great because you can't buy bulk Acros 100 so this is a way to get around that. Can someone educate me on bulk-loading film? Having to change film every 10 shots (or to a lesser extent on 35mm, 36 shots) is getting quite tiresome.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2009 19:18
|
|
|
guidoanselmi posted:http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE55L3CZ20090622?feedType=RSS&feedName=technologyNews big surprise there. only one place in the entire country develops that stuff. i have an undeveloped roll sitting in my film drawer right now because it'd be such a shlep to send it out there.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2009 21:43
|
|
|
killabyte posted:Well, I acquired 2 rolls of Kodachrome 64 for my trip to Honolulu and the big island. Took 3 weeks to arrive from Freestyle and I had to buy the professional version. I plan to put it through a Minolta SRT101 and pretend it's 1968. f 1.1? Christ. You lucky bastard. My lowest is f. 1.4 for the Canon t70 I have.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2009 01:18
|
|
|
Holy poo poo I am IN LOVE with 160 UC. Look at these fuckin' colors: 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2009 03:55
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:(this is a discussion of the film/its rendering, not your shot) I think it worked well for the event/what I was going for. Then again, I really really like crazy colors, so I freely admit bias.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2009 20:23
|
|
|
The Affair posted:Is there a medium format SLR modular style camera that you fellas would recommend? Something that's cheap and dependable, and could start me off in that side of medium format, like my thirty dollar Ikoflex TLR did, instead of what a more popular model would have costed? I have to chime in that a Yashica TLR is probably your best bet. I use a Pentax 6x7 and it's expensive as gently caress to get started with a useable setup on one of those, and that doesn't have a removable back (but you can use polaroid backs with it, I think). A friend of mine got a Yashica TLR for like $500 on e-bay and it looks great and the pictures look even better. It has a meter but it's not that great, but the 6x7 metering prism is kind of crappy anyways and a modern, newfangled light meter, while expensive (mine cost around $250) will almost always be more accurate.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2009 20:59
|
|
|
I want to get into large format. Probably 4x5. What's a nice, reliable, approachable 4x5 camera to pick up? And what should I know about 4x5 in general before getting into it?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2009 19:28
|
|
|
The winding gear in my Canon t70 (which winds up rolls automatically) broke, and my normal repair place says it's too old to fix. Does anyone have any idea of where I might send it out to that could fix it, or anything I could do to fix it? The rest of the camera works perfectly fine, but I have a special attachment to this particular Canon T70 and would be ecstatic to be able to use it again.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2009 21:16
|
|
|
My Pentax 6x7 is heavy as poo poo and if you drop it, it WILL break, every time, guaranteed. It's not an easy camera to carry around.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2009 07:18
|
|
|
pwn posted:Oh my god, Kodachrome. Argh. Now I'm gonna have to get that one roll I have sitting in my film drawer developed by them finally...
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2009 00:26
|
|
v. I had been considering not ordering any more Kodachrome; but now, I'm definitely gonna get a few more rolls for this summer and next. I'll post up some when they're scanned.
|
 this loving lens. the 55m 3.5 it's eluded me for so long. it was the first lens i got with my pentax 6x7 and then some MOTHERFUCKER stole it on the subway. it was the nicest lens i ever had too. and today, i was holding it in my hands, a good quality 3.5 for like 300 bucks. and my loving card got declined. nooooooo. I NEED THIS LENS BACK SO BADLY. it's the moby dick of lenses, for me.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2009 07:39
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Can I have your stuff when you destroy yourself trying to find this lens? Nah, but I don't see why you'd want it. None my equipment is particularly expensive. While admittedly, I did get a fantastic deal on my Pentax 6x7 (body, prism, 105mm 2.4, 75mm 4.5 for $1500 AND 40 rolls of tri-x 400 for free), you could get it for about the price of a 5d mk2. I shoot 35mm on a Canon t70, and mainly use a 50mm 1.8, the t70+50mm 1.8 should not cost you more than $160 pretty much anywhere. I use a cheapass Phoenix wideangle zoom (19-35mm 3.5 I think) that I got for 30 bucks, and I got some other Canon telephoto zoom for free when I initially got the camera. All of the mounts are FD, all the lenses are fantastically sharp, and in terms of longevity, I've dropped my t70 and 50mm literally hundreds of times, sometimes in the rain or snow and it keeps on trucking perfectly. That camera is pretty much indestructable.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2009 11:18
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:I think after a little over a year of use, my Diafine has finally hit its stride, just loving the tones I've gotten over the past few rolls. Unfortunately, I'm running real low on on solution A, so I gotta replenish soon. Pardon me, but is that a stick coming out of that dog's butt?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2009 08:46
|
|
|
I have an SX-70 and love it, but really want to get into more "proper" Polaroid shooting. I assisted on a shoot once where we shot 4x5 polaroids of all the models and they were incredible. Is it possible/practical to use Polaroid backs on larger cameras, like 8x10 and 16x20, and if not, are there any standalone Polaroid cameras that are slightly more "upscale" than the SX-70?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2009 17:46
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Oh, I think you mentioned this in IRC but I forgot to respond. Reala 100 is the poo poo. Very balanced colors, very accurate reproduction, very sharp. Think Velvia in print form without the crazy saturation, or something like that. It is crazy cheap for 120 film, roughly $3.19 from BH/Adorama. If I could get about $100 of it with free shipping I would be all over that. Got any shots from it to post as examples? I'm in the market for 100-speed film with more "natural, true-to-life" colors lately.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2009 22:35
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Haha, yeah... apparently Reala is both 160S and Velvia 50 at the same time. Why don't they just make 100S? Sigh...
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2009 18:52
|
|
|
Shot my first rolls of Ilford 100 (for MF) and TMAX 100 (for 35mm). My first time shooting b&w out of a controlled environment, so I'm really excited for how they're gonna turn out. I also have a huge bag of like 40 rolls of tri-x 400 (for MF) sitting around, and just wanted to know if it was really possible to push tri-x 400 up to like 1600 and still have it look decent? I know b&w is more malleable in terms of that stuff, but is it THAT drastic?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2009 00:42
|
|
|
this seems like an appropriate place to share this link: http://tokyocamerastyle.com i've been drooling for 45 minutes already
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2009 07:26
|
|
|
Mickey Eye posted:Polaroid SX-70 or similar I believe. My mum used to have one of those back in the day, great fun. I'd take that in a jiffy if I thought I'd be able to get film for it. I have it. It's pretty nifty. Good luck finding SX-70 film though.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2009 16:02
|
|
|
Radbot posted:
This is my exact 35mm setup right now. This entire setup + that 50mm 1.8 that's on it will cost you about $160 at most, and that it was one hell of a great 50mm.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2009 22:40
|
|
|
Hey guys. I've been exploring more seriously the world of Polaroid photography and I was wondering: what camera should I get in order to shoot film like t-55, t-665, 20x24 polacolor, t-52, t-58 etc etc? I just got a big book of Polaroid photography and some of the stuff in there just blew me away, but it was on all these weird cameras and films I've never heard of.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2009 19:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 17:48 |
|
|
dunno posted:How are you planning to get ahold of those polaroid films? E-bay? You know Fuji makes FP-100C/B in 4x5 as well... I'd like to shoot on an Automatic 100 if that's feasible.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2009 05:24
|
|