|
brad industry posted:That's for sure what it is then... steel reels are a lot trickier to load than the plastic ones. My first time doing B&W 120 was also my first time loading onto a steel reel, and I had a similar result to Krispy Kareem. The night lab tech at my college dark room had no idea how to load a steel reel, and I found help in youtube of all places: http://youtube.com/watch?v=5VsdeNBm_50 Is ebay the best place to get cheap 120 film? I'm just messing around with old cameras, nothing critical. Also, is home E6 processing amazingly toxic? I did some slides back in HS and it was kinda fun, even if a bit anal what with water baths and temperature watching. I mentioned it once in the darkroom, and I could feel the oozing snobbery lasers from the lab managers when they said that's a horrible idea.
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2008 15:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 18:57 |
|
|
MrMeowMeow posted:Any idea on what could have caused that and what I could do to prevent/fix it? Is it the same bands, in the same spot, on all your pictures? (Looks like it might be from those two). Might be a light leak in your camera.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2008 04:09
|
|
|
MrMeowMeow posted:Yeah, it's on the same spot on all the pictures. But the strange thing is that out of the 2 rolls i've gotten developed and printed, the striping only occurred on the 2nd set of prints. Where are you getting prints? It might just be crappy drugstore developing then.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2008 21:45
|
|
|
^^ 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. Speaking of ebay, I was cruising for some old 120 film to kick around with for fun. Most auctions seem to end up going for retail or more, even for outdated film out of the foil packs. Is it just the lomo kids not wanting/knowing they could get fresh from the fridge for less? Where is a good place for cheap color print 120 film?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2008 01:43
|
|
|
Camera store closing sale... couldn't resit and if I had more cash I would have more poo poo (Velvia from fridge $3 a roll). Less than $70 pictured. I was thinking of ordering Lucky 100SHD 120 film off ebay, and using the dektol to develop. I miss the zen of film so much, I just want some cheap stuff to kick around in my cheap TRL. Anyone have experience with it? For 10 rolls for $20 on ebay from China I think I'll give it a whirl regardless.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2008 20:02
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2008 00:13
|
|
|
I haven't had a roll of film commercially developed in like 6 years. I recently sent off a roll of kodak's C-41 process black and white film, and just blech. The prints I got were comparable to the instant print kiosk at Walmart- lovely contrasts, fuzzy line definition with halos, and limited fine detail. It looks like they used the 1500x1000 jpegs I got on CD (that keeps prompting me to install software) to print out my stuff. I thought that consumer Kodak drop off labs had at least some standards, unless they are all like this. I got better prints/photo cd's back in 2000.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2008 08:59
|
|
|
pwn posted:poo poo, I just shot a roll of C-41 B&W today and dropped it off at Walgreens. I asked them what resolution they scan the negatives at and they said "something like... one thousand by like... eight hundred?" Beats me. I've had the film developed at a local pro lab that does their own before, it was really nice. He purposefully prints the Kodak C-41 B&W cooler toned because he says it brings out the character much better... it was great quality. I guess I'll have to go there rather than trust Kodak labs with my Kodak moments now.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2008 05:46
|
|
|
You might also be asking too much out of Walgreens, pwn. Different labs have different standards/outputs, and do-on-site places can be significantly different depending on the knowledge of the person running the souping machine and its upkeep.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2008 17:56
|
|
|
No. The mechanics in an SLR are the mirror and the shutter. The mirror reflects the light from the lens up to the viewfinder, and slaps out of the way when you take a picture. The shutter is still there to cover the film/sensor from exposure, and only opens for the fraction of a second it takes to expose the picture.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2008 00:26
|
|
|
Luxmore posted:And then you get into stuff like Hasselblads where there's a leaf shutter in the lens that's open and then closes and then opens and then closes again and the light baffle flips open with the mirror and bwooahhh. And then you get electronic digital shutters/combo of focal plane shutters and digital (ie, D70 highspeed flash sync hack), but why confuse the kid? 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2008 15:09
|
|
|
Fragrag posted:What I actually meant, the shutter is constantly open in an SLR, otherwise you wouldn't be able to see anything. Here is an image from how stuff works:  For an SLR, light travels in through the lens, and hits a mirror. The light is reflected up to a prism, which bends the light so you're looking at the picture rightside up and not backwards. The mirror is in front of the shutter, and flips out of the way as to not block the light when you take a picture. The shutter is behind the mirror, and flips open for the fraction of a second it takes to expose the film. The shutter being open/closed has no effect on seeing through the veiwfinder, only the mirror. If your shutter was open all the time, light would be constantly hitting the film and you wouldn't be able to record any images, you'd just get a roll of blank.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2008 18:04
|
|
|
friendship waffle posted:Native support for all RAW formats on Mac OS X. Preview, everything. No additional software or install required. There is an official Microsoft one, but you need an officially registered copy of windows last time I checked. The way it handles RAW and color profiling make me pretty sure my next box will be a MAC.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2008 02:07
|
|
|
In my little experience in the matter, Tmax 120 has like a chemical something or other that turns the prewash a strong purple, and I forget the what/reason besides the advice just to wash it really well.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2008 21:56
|
|
|
Xanin posted:Can anyone recommend a cheapish film SLR for someone who has never used film before? I'm getting a Holga next week to play around with as it's cheap, but if I get into film I might buy a film SLR. Look up lens compatibility; only the 50 and 105 are suitable for film, and the 105 would need a more modern camera b/c its aperture is set digitally. As an aside, all Nikons are F-mounts since the 50s or 60s or something, but not all are safe to mount on all cameras.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2008 18:48
|
|
|
If cost is a matter for you, getting true B&W done commercially can be really expensive. Getting the C41 black and white done is alot cheaper and more common. I drop it off at a slightly more expensive local camera store that does their Kodak C41 BW with a cooler tint to them and they come out really ace.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2008 21:24
|
|
|
I had a similar experience with dropping a roll off at a BJ's Wholesale; crappy low-rez scans and they seemed to have made the prints from the scans. On a related note I'm saddened because the only place that does in-house processing anymore around me is a pro-lab that's high quality but really expensive.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2008 04:57
|
|
|
Mostly because regular scanners are designed to scan paper, not transparencies. I've seen okay results with a gehetto rig that tapped the negs to the glass, then made a paper box over it to reflect the scanner light back through the negatives.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2008 20:14
|
|
|
HPL posted:The Lomographic Society store seems to have Yashica Electro 35 GSNs available for $250. Not cheap, but they've been inspected and all that so it wouldn't be a big crapshoot like eBay. Thoughts? When you can go on ebay and buy 8 or 9 for that price, I'd say it's worth the crap shoot. I've been stalking for one lately, and there are often buy it now auctions for $75-100 from dudes who checked it out, replaced the seals, and guarantee it works fine if you're really worried. Also gently caress, I'll have to find another cheap rangefinder to get b/c the lomo people are claiming it as hipster territory. Jahoodie fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Jan 14, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2009 02:41
|
|
|
pseudonordic posted:People on photo.net swear up and down that you can drop K64 off at Wal-Mart who then sends it to Dwayne's. It's apparently cheaper and takes slightly longer than sending to Dwayne's yourself. No experience with K64, but photo.net people also claimed cheap prices and good quality on having WalMart send out 120 color and 120 E6. My 2 local stores say they do no such thing, and don't even have an option for 120 in their pricing book for stuff they send out. Not saying some somewhere don't do it because WalMart has so many locations, but I'd call ahead.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2009 22:08
|
|
|
I load my own B&W. It's really not that hard or fussy, and if you shoot at volume it's worth it; some people just load a whole spool of film to canisters at once, and that only takes a few minutes. You can also do smaller rolls so you can switch between film stocks faster. I bought the metal and plastic cartridges at first, but the plastic ones work much better for me. Downside I guess would be committing to one kind of film for awhile, which can be good and bad.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2009 00:21
|
|
|
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?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2009 15:57
|
|
|
Gnomad posted:Making prints from a scanner just about negates the need to have prints made, so processing C41 is starting to look more practical all the time. The process is pretty simple, presoak, develop, bleach, fix, or blix, stabiliser, hang and dry. But that temp and time is very critical. How do you find out if a place uses a machine that makes a scan or wetprints? Because the few rolls of C41 I've taken in the last year (drop off booth development/CVS) have printed like garbage and like they were from over sharpened jpeg's
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2009 02:50
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:You could, you know, ask them. There is CVS where I got a blank stare, then I tried dropping off in at some of those Kodak booths. If it was film I cared about there is a real lab in town, but forget $12 to develop a roll of c41 with proof sized prints when I just want to play with junk film. Edit: It was $12 for 120 with proofs, $15 for 35mm roll of 36 Jahoodie fucked around with this message at 04:19 on May 8, 2009 |
|
#
¿
May 8, 2009 04:12
|
|
|
While we are on Electros, I just got a GS. The shutter lock doesn't seem to work and just spins and spins, and the shutter doesn't really have a half press stop to check the meter. Is this normal/a common issue?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2009 04:09
|
|
|
Wow, this is the first time I've ever heard of not just popping the canister with a bottle opener. Any reason not to?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2009 01:59
|
|
|
Gnomad posted:The artifacts in the OOF area are likely the wierd bokeh from the CC lens-it has a 2 bladed arperture. As for the dynamic range, it's a problem that has bedeviled me for ages. I do my processing, save as a maximum quality jpeg (for web stuff anyway)and usually I'm satisfied with the results-then upload and *bleh* things tend to flatten out. You save as a big jpeg, it looks fine, then you upload it and it looks flattened out (maybe less range or vibrancy)? Maybe it is a save for web or colorspace issue.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2009 06:22
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:I went to Walmart and the lady there was having none of my 120 mumbo jumbo. I think I need to go back when someone else is behind the counter. I haven't re-done it yet, but the same thing happened to me. Then I realized there are separate envelopes and drop box for the film that mails directly to fuji, and I guess the trick is just mail it out and let the non-walmart lab figure it out.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2009 04:28
|
|
|
notlodar posted:new setup, "scanned" 120 slides in about an hour and a half. would have been faster (and will be faster) with uncut rolls of film. The best part is that you can adjust exposure and bracket underexposed/overexposed slides if needed. Thanks for working this out. I made up a rig to copy some medium format today, worked great. Couldn't get the film to stay flat, but I'm playing around with low-fi anyway so I just ran with it.   
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2009 05:41
|
|
|
I want to get deep blacks and contrasty images. I am using Sprint Developer at school, and generally Kodak 400TX as the film. I'm not wet printing, I'm scanning/using a copy stand. Do I push, pull, over develop... no idea really, just getting into film. Someone suggested I try and expose at 320ISO and develop for 400ISO to increase contrast.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2009 20:49
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:Really? I haven't been in a Wal-Mart in years, I had no idea they still had photo labs. Will they send out 120 film too? The key to this is to not talk to anyone. They have their in-house services, and then there is a "mail out" service, which takes a week or two and goes to a fuji lab. Just put the 120 in and send it out, it will get processed and sent back. If you ask the walmart people about it, 90% of the time they will have no idea (there is no slot for this in their pricing book if you ask them to look).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2009 17:41
|
|
|
caberham posted:Ugh I have trouble loading film into the sprocket and when I develop them sometimes I get a complete black picture (was it because the films stuck to each other?) What kind of reels are you using? If you haven't, sacrifice a roll of film (or use a poorly developed uncut one)and practice loading it 15 times in the light. Don't stop after the first few. You should be able to start getting a feel for if it is in the tracks correctly or skipping it. Edit: No, the film is not supposed to touch itself. This prevents the chemicals from reaching it, leading to blank un-developed frames.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2010 16:38
|
|
|
On that note, I've never looked into Target. Do they have something similar to Walmart, where their mail out service goes straight to a Fuji lab and is cheap?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2010 05:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 18:57 |
|
|
I'm having a hard time finding a cheapie developer for C-41, after having not done any for several years. Is there a current prefered mail service? I'm not picky about developing, but I can't find a cheap drug store type place that still develops and returns the negatives. I'm in the NYC area, but searches for labs there turn up pro-stuff at a much higher price point. I'm cool with not great processing for a cheap price, as I'm not looking for super precision when I personally work with film. Is Dwayne's Photo still a go-to for mail away? Went back a few pages, sorry if I missed a recent discussion.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2017 16:28
|
|