|
The thing about film is its not just based on film size, though that has a lot to do with it, tri-x for example is a rather low resolution film, compare this to EFKE 50 or any other slow speed high resolution film, and theres a big difference in "megapixel equivilancy" From my own experience scanning 35 and 120 film on a flatbed scanner made for film, I get roughly 6-8mp from low resolution films like tri-x or neopan 1600 in 35mm, and closer to 12-14mp from the same film at 645 or 6x6(120 film) There is also the case that in digital files, unless you use an uprezzing program, at some point the file is just going to be pixelated when blown up a certain amount, with film this doesnt happen, you can enlarge and enlarge, and you will see the grain and there won't be any more fine detail, but you still get smooth transitions, which can add to the feeling of more resolution I suppose. Using a high resolution film in 4x5 or larger sizes is still the ultimate resolution champ, easily scanning to the equivilant of 1000s of megapixels.
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2008 15:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 12:41 |
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:edit: and drat it, Leica rangefinders aren't hard to load... No but they do take longer than a swingback does, and its a pain to have to cut your leaders ahead of time. Quick question about diafine, I've been reading up on it, and is it really the miracle developer that it seems to be? It almost sounds too good to be true.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2008 17:43
|
|
|
I've been endlessly scouring keh, craigslist, local ads, and anywhere else to find a cheap 8x10 camera, I love shooting large format paper negatives, and I'm looking for a bigger negative than my Crown Graflex. Is there any table for giving a general field of view comparison for focal lengths across formats? Like 80mm on 645 is similar to 50 on 35 is similar to 28 on APS-C, etc?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2008 05:15
|
|
|
hybr1d posted:What's the process for dealing with light leaks on a large format's bellows? Also, here's a picture because I keep asking questions If you plan to enlarge or scan negatives, 4x5 is a much much better choice, all the advantages of extra resolution/small DOF/movements, but in a much smaller and generally cheaper package, 4x5 is more common so better luck finding good deals on cameras/lenses/film/accesories, however if you find a great deal on an 8x10, let me know, and if you find another great deal, jump on it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2008 05:30
|
|
|
Chiming in to say how great KEH is, they rate everything a step lower than it really is, at the very least, I've bought a couple BGN rated lenses that could have been new for all I knew.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2008 05:43
|
|
|
MrMeowMeow posted:Aw man, really? I was hoping to get this roll of tmax developed at like London Drugs or something, 'cause I haven't ponied up the money to develop my stuff at home yet. Those plastic negative holders in a shoe box under my bed, well not so much a shoebox, but these cheap 'archival boxes' I picked up at a yardsale.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2008 03:53
|
|
|
To be honest, if you shoot black and white negative film and develop yourself, you can be off as much as 2 or 3 stops and still get a decently usable negative, something like tri-x or similar is very forgiving, I consider myself decent at metering without a meter, but I wouldn't really try it with anything but black and white.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2008 04:10
|
|
|
Luxmore posted:So I'm gonna be hangin' with Tom Abrahamsson on Friday, anybody need some softreleases or anything? Yeah, and throw in a m3 or something too please? I'll pay full price for the soft release, hell even a rapidwinder too.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2008 04:37
|
|
|
Luxmore posted:So I'm gonna be hangin' with Tom Abrahamsson on Friday, anybody need some softreleases or anything? Ok why the gently caress are these winders so drat expensive, I would pay even 100 for a winder for my IIIf, but thats outrageous.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2008 07:40
|
|
|
UserNotFound posted:A quick flickr search interests me to this film, what is your experience with it? I would be interested in a few rolls if a beginner like me could develop it. One of my favorite films for street photography, works great at 800, 1000, and 1600, decent tonality and sharpness for such a fast film, extremely grainy and I love it.  Heres an example of it, this was shot in a dark basement with a single bare bulb, I guessed exposure at 1/4th at f3.8 at box speed, and it was probably a full stop underexposed there was still plenty of detail in the negative though. 8th-samurai posted:I'm thinking of getting some Efke 25 in 120. To shoot long exposures on my Yashica 635 in daylight. I've shot a roll of it in 35, but haven't had it developed yet, but looking around flickr I'm very excited to see what its like.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2008 04:08
|
|
|
hybr1d posted:Yeah, I just remembered the bulk loader right after ordering a bunch of rolls of Tri-X. How does everyone store their beauties? By no means do I have anything that I'd want to show off to others, but I do enjoy looking at the cameras when they're not in use. Does anyone have the same lust for their older gear, and how do they handle it? I have everything in a big sliding drawer under my bed, which is right next to my desk, I often find myself opening it up and playing with various cameras when I should be doing something else, if I had more space I would love to display them somewhere nicer, as it is I have... 29 cameras, dozens of lenses, a few flashes, filters, accesories, parts from broken lenses/cameras and more film than I'll reasonably shoot anytime soon, all in a jumbled mess beside me. As far as lust for old gear, I'll admit it, if I see a banged up spotmatic at a thrift store or yardsale, I must have it, old cameras are absolutely beautiful.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2008 04:05
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:I've got 10 rolls of Fuji Superia I'd like to use on my upcoming trip. I've got an Elan II body that could take it (as well as a 50mm f/1.8 and 21mm f/2.0 for low light shooting), but the XA's highest ISO setting is only 800. Would I still get decent results if I overexposed it by a stop and told the lab I'd exposed it at 800? I know it's a waste of good high-speed film, but I've seen precious little ISO 800 film around. I only paid about a dollar a roll for it anyways. Not familiar with the XA, but theres not exposure compensation that you could use to fool the meter into exposing correctly? Otherwise I would say the Elan II and 21/2 would be the ultimate combo with some 1600 film.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2008 16:57
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Unfortunately not... it has a +1.5 stop compensation lever for backlit subjects, but that's the wrong way. I'm hoping to take one to a camera tech someday and have him recalibrate the meter -2EV, to give me a more modern ISO 100-3200 range (plus have ISO 32 or whatever accessible with that backlight compensator). Having ISO 3200 plus the 35mm f/2.8 Zuiko lens in my pocket would be awesome. Doing some quick reading on Superia, looks like you could expose it at 800 and develop normally and still get decent results, even better if you could find a lab that would pull process it for you. If you gotta have the small camera, go for it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2008 18:05
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Great, thanks! 1600 print film doesn't require any special equipment or chemicals, right? (so I can just take it anywhere?) Is it c41? I would try and find a decent place, go to a camera store and have them do it or use wherever they ship to, dont trust a CVS with anything but the film CVS sells.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2008 06:30
|
|
Going back to that market on Monday, hopefully nobody bought it.
|
hybr1d posted:I think scanners are like any other camera gear- go with what you can barely afford Wanna scan 4x5 negs? Just shoot paper negatives and scan them like any other piece of paper, plus its cheap and fun to shoot at ISO 3
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2008 04:49
|
|
|
hybr1d posted:I'm not familiar with paper negatives- do you have a recommendation on a place to start? Get in a room with a dim safelight and cut some printing paper down to 4x5, load it in your negative holders and meter for ISO 3 or so, develop as you would a print, by inspection. Super easy and you can get 200 frames for dirt cheap. Depending on the paper you use, paper negatives can have poor tonality/dynamic range, but it can be so much fun, 20 minute exposures in the mid day sun are fun.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2008 15:47
|
|
|
This might be a longshot, but I'm seriously thinking about picking up some diafine and finally doing home dev, BUT I like to shoot 4x5 paper negatives, any chance I could develop those in diafine? I've always used dektol at my schools lab in the past, I would really rather not have two different developers, and I don't plan on ever wet printing at home.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2008 06:41
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Yeah, you could develop those in Diafine, though I'm not sure why you would want to. Diafine is ideal for roll film because you don't have consistency between exposures. On sheet film you can develop each frame exactly how you want... I want to because I plan on shooting a lot of roll film, but also some paper negatives, and I dont want two developers.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2008 16:11
|
|
|
On the subject of Delta 3200, might be interesting to some, http://photo-utopia.blogspot.com/2008/07/pushing-envelope.html
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2008 17:37
|
|
|
longview posted:How many MPs can I expect from a 35mm negative on that scanner, and would they be good enough for 13x18 cm or larger prints? I have a Canonscan 8600F and I get about 6-8mp out of tri-x, obviously more out of higher resolution film, I tend to not scan anything higher than 10mp though, If I need a big print someday I'll just rescan.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2008 04:21
|
|
|
I actually just bought 10 rolls of Aristacolor 400, looking at some shots on flickr it looks awesome, grainy as hell, and only a 1.80 a roll!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2008 05:28
|
|
|
Friend with a friend at Hunts just got me a 20pack of Fuji Press 400 for 30 bucks... hot rear end poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2008 03:32
|
|
|
MrMeowMeow posted:Trying to win auctions on eBay makes me want to shoot myself in the foot. I was trying to get a canon 28mm f2.8 lens on the cheap, but kept getting outbid by a few cents at the last second and on another auction I hit the bid button a second late and it had all ended by that time. I also tried to find the canon lens in stores in Vancouver but I only found people selling them for $100, and a sketchy pawn shop selling a 28mm lens for $35 but it was of very questionable quality. Frustration got the best of me and I settled on using the 'Buy Now' button on an auction for a RMC Tokina 28mm f/2.8 for about $40. Change the technical way in which I'm shooting, normally I go for moderate apertures and easily hand-holdable shutter speeds, but sometimes I'll shoot everything wide open, or shoot at nothing faster than 1/30th, or purposefully defocus the lens and shoot at f22 to compensate, or shoot a different focal length than I normally do.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2008 05:05
|
|
|
breathstealer posted:That wouldn't be the camera, that's either your eyes or just the sunny 16 rule being inaccurate (like it's supposed to be). Without any sort of autoexposure, it can't decide to overexpose. The aperture or shutter speeds can be off from stated values, either due to error in the original camera or wear/tear over time.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2008 16:03
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:Help a filmbrother out The 6x7 has such a huge shutter/mirror that it induces camera shake easily, even on a heavy duty tripod, always try and go for the fastest shutter speed possible, regardless of how steady you might be, also the DOF on 6x7 is paper thin, so even though the image may appear correctly focused on the ground glass, even slight focus error will show in the negative, I'm assuming the 6x7 has a split image prism, use that, but dont focus and recompose because you're gonna be shifting your DOF.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2008 21:53
|
|
|
Fragrag posted:That clears things up a bit. Is it any different with DSLRs? Because when I preview the aperture, I can see the shutter closed, which means it's in front of the mirror. Or am I starting to confuse stuff? Yes the aperture is in the lens, so you can see the affect of opening/closing it through the viewfinder.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2008 23:02
|
|
|
everyone but the first post on this page is a dumbass.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2008 23:03
|
|
|
On the advice of a local street photography guru I shot some 400 speed color film at 250(developed at box speed by CVS) and holy poo poo, dynamic range for days, even in the contrastiest of shots, shadows are open and I can pull detail out of every single highlight, every single shot has near infinite highlight detail, I know film is miles ahead of digital in this regard, but this is beyond anything I had seen. Film was Fuji Press 400, but I'm sure it would work for anything.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2008 05:37
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:That sounds cool, do you have any scanned that you could share? How come you don't lose the highlights to overexposure? Film takes overexposure much much better than digital does, at the expense of shadows not being as malleable as digital can be sometimes, so by giving it all that extra light, you get well exposed shadows, and more than enough highlight information. Heres one straight from the scan, only inverted, taken around 2pm with the strongest contrastiest light we got that day.  and here is with -2.5EV in lightroom  From the whole roll I shot like this, not a single shot didn't have all the highlights intact.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2008 16:52
|
|
|
Celluloid posted:Lemme ask all of you a question: I would like to see a Lomography class attempt to teach people precisely why those cameras give the "look" associated with lomography, and give people more of an understanding of the technical nature of photography beyond the happy accident mentality of lomography.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2008 03:48
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:There's nothing to teach, it's about being sloppy and calling it art. But you could go in an entirely different direction than this, I despise the cult of lomography, but you can still use those cameras to great results, provided you dont just do what you described.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2008 04:02
|
|
|
Becks posted:Am I the only one who think that out of focus background (bokeh if you will) looks better on film for some reason? Film, as compared to APS-c digital sensors, will have smaller DOF at similar fields of view, so it generally looks as though more of the frame is out of focus, or more out of focus, but aside from that I hadn't really noticed a difference. Though I suspect if you asked that question of Flickr everyone would agree with you.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2008 17:12
|
|
|
hybr1d posted:Can someone recommend someone that can do mail-in LF drum scans (or someone in the SoCal area that does walk-ins)? If you want realllly long exposures and REALLLLY cheap film, just cut down photographic printing paper, its roughly ISO 3, can be cut, loaded, and even developed under a safelight(develop like you would a print) and is so ridiculously cheap compared to buying actual 4x5 film you really can't not shoot some, especially if you have some paper already. As far as scanning goes, 4x5 has so much resolution you can practically just use a decent flatbed scanner, unless you absolutely must print billboard sizes.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2009 03:46
|
|
|
hybr1d posted:Thanks for the suggestions- I will stick to contact sheets except when I want something printed huge. Looking at some of the colors in large format photos taken, I think I am going to shoot some color next. Because 4x5 is such a large format, diffraction is waaaayyyy less of a problem than it is on 35mm or other small formats. For instance, whereas with your average 35mm lens, the optimal aperture is f8 or so, it will often be f22 or f32 on a large format lens. Unless you were talking about motion blur, in which case no, so long as the camera and the subject are still, you will get sharp results.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2009 17:25
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:how can i shoot lf really cheaply? what is the cheapest 8x10 i can possibly get? Cheapest LF would be a pinhole camera, either made yourself or http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/151567-REG/Santa_Barbara_SWA2B_4_x_5_Pinhole.html or something similar. Or, for more control, a speed or crown graphic will get you a decent 4x5 press camera often with at least a lens, if not film holders. 8x10 is going to be expensive no matter what, if you're lucky you can find a beat up ancient 8x10 with no lens and no film holders for 300-400 on ebay.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2009 06:35
|
|
|
w_hat posted:I want to see some pictures of the rangefinders/MF/LF stuff you guys have. My Crown Graphic 4x5, sadly mine does not have the graphlex back, so I'm limited to just standard film holders, no readyloads or 6x9 backs :/ has a 127/4.5 Ektar lens which barely covers the format.  A 4x5 folder, I assume, since its literally a box with bellows on in that is roughly 4x5, not even close to light tight, the back especially, I have shot with this, though with a coat over the entire thing to block light.  Roleicord 75/3.5, I dont use this nearly as much as I wish I did, I'll be back in the darkroom in a few weeks though so that WILL change.  My Zorki 4, a russian Leica IIIf(I think...) copy, with 50/3.5 collapsible lens.  6x9 120 folder, focus is stuck at ~10feet sadly, I have other 6x7 folders but they are 620 film(and 6x9 is soooo much nicer) I've still shot a few rolls of street with this, ~10 feet ends up being fine in that case.  Pentax 645, first version, with 75/2.8, HUGE camera, HUGE beautiful viewfinder, HUGE LOUD KU-LUNK mirror, I have the 220 back, but you can use 120 film in it no problem.  I have a few more 35mm rangefinders, mostly fixed lens, and a couple 620 folders, as well as some brownies and what not, but this is the nicest stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2009 17:31
|
|
|
My local camera store had a ME super with the rewind handle missing (rewind still works, just a pain) and offered it to me for 25, I asked if I could swipe the handle from my k1000(one of two, and I use neither) and he offered me a trade, k1000 for ME Super, threw in a roll of Delta100 too. I've always wanted an M series Pentax, this isn't the MX or LX I've dreamed of, but its drat tiny and a joy to shoot with.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2009 04:59
|
|
|
w_hat posted:How do you like these two, especially Zorki, and do you think the price difference between the Rolleiflex's and the cords is worth it? The zorki has such a tiny viewfinder that its really a pain to use, ideally I would like to pick up the CV 12 or 15 and just scale focus, and use the external viewfinders. Otherwise its a terrific little pocket sized camera (through leica-style film loading loving sucks). I've never used a 'flex, so I can't comment, but theres really not much more I could ask for out of a TLR, shutter speeds go up to a respectable 500th, though one stop faster would be nice to really use this thing wide open in daylight, I don't know if the viewing lens' are any better on the 'flexes but a brighter screen would be nice, but theres really nothing major I would change.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2009 17:45
|
|
|
breathstealer posted:That's a Zorki 1 of some description (can't tell the letter designation from the picture), and it was a Leica II copy (IIIs have slow speeds). Just being picky im a fuckshit!!!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2009 08:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 12:41 |
|
|
Spent 8 hours in the darkroom today, first time in over a year, and it all came flooding back. Developed and printed contact sheets for 9 rolls of film, a ton of different types which was a pain. Havent made any enlargments yet but hot drat it felt good, also 35mm Efke 25 negatives are so loving beautiful, its like shooting medium format film or something jesus its like the resolution does not end.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2009 05:49
|
|