|
I bought my first ever camera today (bigger is better right?) and a roll of Kodak film. I haven't figured out where to plug the film in yet (like a little slot for a tube or something??) but for now it's an awful lot of fun looking through the little TV in the back. 
|
#
¿
May 5, 2009 22:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 16:36 |
|
|
Lambster Bisque posted:Trolling the film thread really is low There is a fine line between trolling and a joke.  I bought that camera though and in place of an actual darkroom for loading the film holder I used a blanket and a furnace room hopefully I didn't just waste $30 on film by not being careful. That is a secret tip for the photography elite. Twenties Superstar fucked around with this message at 12:04 on May 6, 2009 |
|
#
¿
May 6, 2009 12:01
|
|
|
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. Anyway, I don't have a 4x5 film scanner (I have a friend who does that I will make use of though) so here's a scan from the contact sheet:  and a crop that I think is real cool:  Film's Ilford HP5 Plus I tilted the back plane (I don't know what to call it) for to get cool "Art Tilt-Shift FX" but like a dumb newbie I didn't check with the lens stopped down so at f32 the effect kind of disappeared. I actually like how it turned out anyway. Next I will buy some nice slow film and do portraits
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2009 00:49
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:Was it a pain to set it up/focus correctly etc etc? Not really a pain, it's kind of fun. It just takes time. Focusing is not so difficult because, even though there is no focusing screen, the ground glass is big enough that you can tell pretty easily if something is out of focus, it can be pretty hard to see with the lens stopped down though but careful focus is less of an issue at f/32. If you are familiar with taking photos using manual controls and a light meter setting that sort of stuff up shouldn't be an issue. If I wanted to I could probably have it go from off tripod to taking a photo in five minutes but I figure that there is really no reason to be hasty. As far as camera movements go I'm still a beginner to LF so I still don't have a good handle on what sort of effects I can get with tilting the lens and film plane and things but I'm picking it up. Really the only thing is that, once you have the film loaded, you don't have access to the ground glass anymore and it's all a matter of remembering where you're focused and waiting for the perfect moment which, of course, isn't an issue if you're doing pre-planned portraits, or landscapes, or architectural photography, or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2009 02:35
|
|
|
Did a (relatively) low resolution scan of a 4x5 at a buddies place and fiddled with the raw for a bit. I see why people like lightroom and stuff so much I GUESS.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2009 22:22
|
|
|
Film measured in millimeters is a waste of time anyway so the point is kind of moot.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2009 03:36
|
|
|
HPL posted:I just wish there were more places that did colour 120 film around here. Are there any places in Vancouver other than G. King Photo that do 120? More specifically, any that are further out from the city core? Uh, yeah man there are tonnes. How far away from the city core do you mean? I guess since you mentioned G. King specifically you probably mean South/East Vancouver or the suburbs, in which case I can't help you. In fact, I don't know why I wrote this post. I'm from Vancouver. Vancouver.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2009 07:43
|
|
|
The Lab is more expensive than G. King or your ABC's but they do really good quality professional service and will basically do anything you ask. London Drugs is your best bet for convenience but it is marginally more expensive (a matter of cents) and will take about a week to get your film back and the print and scan quality (if you are concerned with that) can be hit or miss especially with slide. edit: On the other hand London Drugs will make a towel with your photo on it if you ask them to.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2009 21:02
|
|
|
I bought an Epson Perfection 2450 off Craigslist for eighty bucks and, with Vuescan, is basically as good a film scanner as any.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2009 06:42
|
|
|
HPL posted:Yeah, that's a pretty cool way of acknowledging the people who are pretty much the sole reason your company is still operating. Well aside from selling consumer film to the large amount of artists, students, and professional photographers who do still use film for some applications they probably make a fair chunk of their profit from industrial/military imaging and aerial surveillance.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2009 01:37
|
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:I just realized that unused/garbage film strips make for an excellent bookmark! I use an old bus transfer but good idea !
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2009 07:57
|
|
|
Radbot posted:It seriously won't make a difference. Besides, a pro lab can't do a 1/3rd stop push anyways.  Yes they can, what would make you think that?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2009 06:33
|
|
|
notlodar posted:The lab I use does 1/8, so they can't actually do 1/3 That's unfortunate. quote:Oh, sorry. I guess my local lab will only do full stop pushes, and I wrongly extrapolated. There's no real necessity as far as proper exposure goes generally but pushing/pulling C-41 has various effects on the final negative that, when predicted for, can be desirable. For example, I like the granularity and colour shift that you get from pulling Superia 400 to 360.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2009 07:08
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:I'd like to shoot on an Automatic 100 if that's feasible. From the googling I just did you can use that camera with FP-100 but you will have to monkey around with camera settings to get the camera to meter for the proper film speed.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2009 17:54
|
|
|
If you guys were really artists you wouldn't have any food in your fridge anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2009 18:28
|
|
|
Nice bourgeois film brands.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2009 19:15
|
|
|
As far as rare film goes Kodachrome is not really all that rare...
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2009 08:29
|
|
|
fronkpies posted:Well developed my first roll... and it worked perfectly. For the future you might consider purchasing a changing bag, which is basically a light proof sack with armholes, so you don't have to lightproof your bedroom every time you want to develop film.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2009 23:13
|
|
|
HPL posted:Or just buy Tri-X or HP5 and use it for everything since it's about as flexible as film gets. Delta 3200 is crap. You pay a lot of money for worse results than HP5 pushed to 3200. You say this a lot as if noone should ever want to take a photo that looks different from one taken with TX or HP5. Delta 3200 is more expensive than HP5, given, but saying that it gives worse results is really kind of subjective dude. edit: and also results vary widely based on the processing too Twenties Superstar fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Nov 18, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2009 20:19
|
|
|
You actually said: "Delta 3200 is crap. You pay a lot of money for worse results than HP5 pushed to 3200."
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2009 01:23
|
|
|
I usually just tape the exposed leader to the ceiling of my shower using painters tape. There is not much floating dust in the bathroom because of the moisture.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2009 22:16
|
|
|
unleash the unicorn posted:I really love the 4x5 large format Kodachrome gallery over at Shorpy.com. But when I asked myself the question what I loved so much about the pictures, I found it was mostly three things: It could be a lot of things, most likely it is a result of low resolution/poor scanning. To recreate I would duplicate the layer and apply a gaussian blur then fiddle with blending modes and opacity, though I don't really see the appeal.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2010 19:43
|
|
|
spritely posted:invaluable infos that aren't 'written' anywhere... Do you have any examples of this?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2010 07:30
|
|
|
It's basically the same thing as with black and white, just developing for longer/shorter times. You will get a speed boost obviously but also probably, depending on how far you push, really weird colour shifts. e: And more grainyness!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2010 02:50
|
|
|
There is a reason why they have put a "scan a picture" button on pretty much every consumer scanner released in the last ten years
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2010 18:56
|
|
|
It looks like he's using a computer monitor as a light
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2010 19:28
|
|
|
spatial resolution would be a function of a films granularity and the developer/process used. probably the finest grain you could go would be something like kodak tech pan with the appropriate developer. looking back i would imagine ancient film stock wasnt all that sharp as i suspect they would have improved with technology (maybe plates were sharp as hell? i dont know but i doubt it). with things like tech pan mostly retired at this point perhaps we are over the hump of extremely fine grained film stock and we'll just have to settle for tmax 100 for the rest of time
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
Huxley posted:Is that a problem that can be mostly fixed with the better holders or is it more a limitation of the scanner itself? often times you can just get better film holders (eg http://www.betterscanning.com/ )
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
Good luck on your quest for hypothetical perfect exposure
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2022 02:40
|
|
|
No way in hell are they only making 500 for that price
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2022 22:32
|
|
|
Megabound posted:A reminder that if you shoot film you should visit a darkroom Nice
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2023 21:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 16:36 |
|
|
Lest we forget the photographer's most unethical trick: the crop
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2023 07:08
|
|