The Film Thread: "for sale: packfilm back. never used."

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > The Film Thread: "for sale: packfilm back. never used."

«‹›4 »

bobmarleysghost: Mar 7, 2006

penneydude posted:

I made a REALLY ghetto film "scanner" based on the ideas in this thread, except I made a crappy lightbox out of some cardboard, paper, and a halogen desk lamp...

And instead of a fancy DSLR (no money), I'm using a Canon SD1000 in "macro" mode.

Lame equipment aside, however, I was absolutely blown away by the quality I got out of this thing. I was expecting lovely barely usable pictures, if they were even usable at all, that I could maybe post online at like 640x480 just to get an idea of what the picture was supposed to look like, but I might actually end up getting some cheap prints of these and hanging them up somewhere (not very big ones, obviously).

And a 100% crop:

Some people might disagree, but I think for a cardboard box, printer paper, a desk lamp, and an old point-and-shoot, the results are pretty incredible. Granted, there is a little bit of grain introduced by the less-than-stellar camera, and the colors are somewhat muted, but I actually like the effect on some of my pictures, and I think the fade out thing that happens toward the edges plus the edge of the film being visible adds to the effect.

When I invert my colour film it just turns blue . How did you invert yours?

# ¿ Sep 5, 2009 06:20

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 11:14

bobmarleysghost: Mar 7, 2006

I just realized that unused/garbage film strips make for an excellent bookmark!

# ¿ Sep 15, 2009 05:49

bobmarleysghost: Mar 7, 2006

What can I expect from a roll of Fuji Provia 400F slide film that expired back in 2004?

# ¿ Oct 12, 2009 17:52

bobmarleysghost: Mar 7, 2006

Blindeye posted:

Hey all, I noticed on craigslist someone has an A-1, AE-1, and an AL-1 up for grabs at low cost, anyone here ever used these/have thoughts on them?

Thanks.

A lot of people will recommend the AE-1, it's a very good general body.

# ¿ Nov 15, 2010 04:37

bobmarleysghost: Mar 7, 2006

F1 here. Canon that is :smug:

# ¿ Oct 24, 2011 00:08

bobmarleysghost: Mar 7, 2006

So my usual way of scanning my film is renting a macro lens and shooting all my film. Now I found out that this place in the city offers two scanning stations, one for 35$/hr and one for 25$/hr. http://www.torontoimageworks.com/rentals.html
My question is this, can I scan 3 rolls of 120 and 4 rolls of 135 in 2 hours?

I ask because, if I can accomplish that, then instead of spending 60$ to rent a macro, I can spend 50-70$ to scan my film properly. I've never scanned film so I'm not sure how long it takes.

# ¿ Oct 25, 2011 02:29

bobmarleysghost: Mar 7, 2006

Reichstag posted:

Scanning film on the Imacon for $35/hr isn't bad, provided you don't have to spend most of that time figuring out how to use it. You should ask them about scan-times for your preferred output resolution, but my gut instinct says it will be pretty close to or above 2 hours to scan 3 rolls of 120 at high-res.

That makes sense, I'll drop by and ask them. I have never used that kind of scanner but I did read the manual :S

Pompous Rhombus posted:

I think a flatbed like the Epson V500 would likely pay for itself really quickly in your situation, and you could splash out for time on the Imacon when you get two hours worth of really good stuff to scan. You probably don't need every single frame at max resolution/quality.

That's also the thing, I don't need crazy high quality scans, just something large enough to edit and then post online.

I think a v500 runs for around 150$ which is not bad at all.

# ¿ Oct 25, 2011 11:14

bobmarleysghost: Mar 7, 2006

So a month or so ago I bought some expired film from the photography fair in Toronto for $5, thinking that I just scored a few rolls for cheap (they go for $1/roll for 35mm).

I found out that it's a few hundred feet of uncut film (~~Provia~~ Portra 400 NC). So my question is where do I start tackling this? Any resources/tutorials? Is it even worth it for the price I paid?

bobmarleysghost fucked around with this message at 02:54 on Nov 17, 2011

# ¿ Nov 17, 2011 02:03

bobmarleysghost: Mar 7, 2006

Beastruction posted:

Tokyo camera style just posted an intro to bulk loading today.

Aweeesome!

Reichstag posted:

It's probably Portra if it says 400NC, Provia is a slide film in 100f and 400x designations.

Yes! My mistake, I was thinking about getting some Fuji film when I wrote that haha

# ¿ Nov 17, 2011 02:54

bobmarleysghost: Mar 7, 2006

I wonder how long until C41 is declared dead by all the major film makers (kodak and Fuji?)

# ¿ Mar 2, 2012 04:04

bobmarleysghost: Mar 7, 2006

I usually take the battery out of the body (SQ) at the end of the shooting day. Or when I'm not using the camera.

# ¿ Jun 21, 2012 00:01

bobmarleysghost: Mar 7, 2006

Or this:
http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Olympus_mju_II

# ¿ Jun 25, 2012 00:03

bobmarleysghost: Mar 7, 2006

So I have Portra 160VC (120), expired in 2005. What can I expect in terms of colour shifts - plenty or not so much? I heard that the colours become muted, which I like.

I have no idea what conditions it was stored it, but I can assume they were moderate, the guy sells a lot of expired film.

bobmarleysghost fucked around with this message at 03:52 on Jun 28, 2012

# ¿ Jun 28, 2012 03:45

bobmarleysghost: Mar 7, 2006

That's awesome news! Thanks to both of you.
Moonduck, did you rate the film at 120 (or slower than 160) like VomitOnLino suggested?

I did see some people on flickr rating it at 125. I'll do 50/50 on the first roll, just to see how it goes since I have 4 more to use up.

# ¿ Jun 28, 2012 05:09

bobmarleysghost: Mar 7, 2006

Awesome, time to go picture taking.

# ¿ Jun 28, 2012 17:22

bobmarleysghost: Mar 7, 2006

So here is the first scan from the expired Portra 160VC.
Not bad at all for a 9 year old film! (I said it expired in 2005 but it's actually 2003).

Shot it at 160, like it's no biggie.

# ¿ Jul 7, 2012 00:13

bobmarleysghost: Mar 7, 2006

8th-samurai posted:

Epson software is okay. The difference between that and Silverfast or Vuescan is like night and day though.

I'm all for VueScan. Tried Silverfast but found it to be poo poo.

# ¿ Aug 22, 2012 02:46

bobmarleysghost: Mar 7, 2006

wrong thread oops.

# ¿ Sep 9, 2012 15:51

bobmarleysghost: Mar 7, 2006

That transition is from the light hitting the building. It belongs there.

# ¿ Sep 14, 2012 17:46

bobmarleysghost: Mar 7, 2006

Thanks to KEH by BGN branded film back was exactly that - a bargain for what I got. Same with the MF kit I got last year. KEH is great for buyers, so-so for sellers.

# ¿ Sep 20, 2012 02:02

bobmarleysghost: Mar 7, 2006

Wow some people on APUG are reaaaally anal about using a scanner to, well, scan photos.

quote:

APUG is for discussion of analogue photography and processes. Scanning is a digital process and has no place on APUG. If people want to discuss scanning there are millions of digital sites they can go to. There is only one APUG.

quote:

quote:
Just out of curiosity, why is scanning being discussed on APUG?

I was wondering the same thing Andy. Ten pages of scanning discussion....this crap make me want to vomit.

# ¿ Oct 12, 2012 15:11

bobmarleysghost: Mar 7, 2006

Exactly. If I was registered I'd troll them by asking how come they're using a DIGITAL forum to talk about analog photography - it's blasphemy! Go talk in person about it and stop having fun!

# ¿ Oct 12, 2012 15:48

bobmarleysghost: Mar 7, 2006

My loot from this morning's fair:

All of them are expired, oldest is from 2002 and the freshest one is from 2010 (the Tri-X I think)

5x Tri-X Pan 320 --> no idea what to expect
4x Fuji Reala 100 --> looking forward to shooting this
5x Fuji Velvia 50
1x Fuji Velvia 100
2x Ilford Delta 3200 --> 3200 sounds awesome!

All for $45 CAD

# ¿ Oct 14, 2012 22:21

bobmarleysghost: Mar 7, 2006

nielsm posted:

Will likely have insane base fog if it hasn't been stored properly. If it's more than 2-3 years out of date I'd suggest shooting it at 1000 or 1600 and develop it 1 or 2 stops above that, depending on age.

I have no idea how it was stored, but I doubt it it was "proper". I'll test with one roll, see how it turns out! I'll shoot half a stop under and half normal speed, I'm just curious. It expired in 2002.

ExecuDork posted:

Reala is good stuff, I quite like it myself. Also I hate you for getting that haul for that price.

Yea I searched on Flickr for Reala tags, looks good! I'm sure there must be some kind of fair thing where people sell expired film.

This is to compensate for me getting a roll of Fuji Pro 400H for $11 CAD :smith:

# ¿ Oct 15, 2012 02:30

bobmarleysghost: Mar 7, 2006

Spedman posted:

Fomapan 400 shoved to 3200 (I under-developed a touch, water was a bit cold):

What kind of bar was it, russian?

# ¿ Oct 20, 2012 22:23

bobmarleysghost: Mar 7, 2006

Spedman posted:

I just looked it up, it's called The Crimean, not far from my house and full of soviet Bulgarian propaganda, I should go in there sometime.

I knew it! I'm bulgarian, but I never see BG bars anywhere except BG. Go in the bar, get their attention, and at the top of your lungs yell "Da vi eba maikata!!".

Make sure you have your running shoes on.

# ¿ Oct 20, 2012 22:35

bobmarleysghost: Mar 7, 2006

Spedman posted:

The best google translate can give me, is to "do your mother"...

Hahah, close - it's a very vulgar way of saying "I'll gently caress your mothers!"

Zenostein posted:

Assume that's 'mat' and therefore something you should not say.

Slavic swearing: a) rarely translates well and b) is usually not a good thing to say to someone.

A) and B) are both correct! You get a point.

Martytoof posted:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Kodak-PORTR...=item43b1c9f565

# ¿ Oct 22, 2012 02:56

bobmarleysghost: Mar 7, 2006

I'm thinking of getting into the rangefinder side of things, such as Contax G2 or Konica Hexar RF. But holy gently caress they're either hard to come by, or the only ones available are LN+ and cost $1500.

# ¿ Oct 31, 2012 00:33

bobmarleysghost: Mar 7, 2006

Did you get that mercury battery?

# ¿ Oct 31, 2012 01:13

bobmarleysghost: Mar 7, 2006

Paul MaudDib posted:

How fancy do you want? A Lynx 5000E or 14E or a Konica Auto S2 will do fine as a normal lens and the Olympus XA packs a good 35mm f/2.8 wide angle into something you can throw in your coat pocket (at the cost of having a terrible viewfinder if you don't just scale focus it, which is easy to do given the lens). If you're OK with scale focus there's also the Rollei 35S and the Nikonos-V (35mm f/2.5 and the ever-unpopular 80mm f/4). The Nikonos and Rollei are the most expensive of the lot at something like $150.

I do like the Rollei 35! I'll look around for one. I'd say no to the XA, I have a P&S Stylus Epic that I want to replace with an auto focus rangefinder, but those are more expensive obviously.

Mest0r posted:

If you really just want to dabble in rangefinders and want to get in really cheap, a 70's compact, fixed-lens, rangefinder would probably fit the bill pretty well. Take a look at this webpage for a good summary list:

http://www.cameraquest.com/com35s.htm

I really liked the Canonet even though I had some issues with it; the lens was really fast at f/1.7, the viewfinder was probably the best out of the 70s RFs that I was able to try out (mostly Yashica ones) and the camera was compact as hell. I personally still use a Olympus 35rc sometimes when I get in the mood for shooting an RF camera.

Or you could just buy a bunch of M-mount stuff and be done with it.

That's a great site! So many options!

# ¿ Oct 31, 2012 04:56

bobmarleysghost: Mar 7, 2006

Zombietoof posted:

Zorki 6 that I bought from fedka.com -- it's really fun to use, looks pretty nice, is relatively quiet. It won't last forever since it has a cloth shutter (and indeed Fedka replaced my first Zorki 6 when the shutter literally tore 5 minutes after it arrived in the mail), but for the time being I'm having a lot of fun with it.

I saw your post and it clicked! I have a Zorki 4 with Jupiter 50/2 that I completely forgot I had! I just dug it up and it seems to be clicking and whirring. Awesome.

# ¿ Nov 1, 2012 03:36

bobmarleysghost: Mar 7, 2006

Those lines look pretty straight, so using the healing brush in PS, click once JUST above the photo while being in the centre of the line like so:

code:

 o
----------------------
 |    |  |          |
 |    |  |          |
 |    |  |          |
 |    |  |          |
 |    |  |          |

And then hold SHIFT and click on the same line, but this time at the bottom of the photo. Do this for each line.

It might take a long time, but the result will be great.

bobmarleysghost fucked around with this message at 06:53 on Nov 20, 2012

# ¿ Nov 20, 2012 06:50

bobmarleysghost: Mar 7, 2006

Yea I agree that it could be the lab. I shoot expired film all the time and I have no clue how it is stored, probably questionably. But it all comes out okay, for 5+ year old film.

Did you ask how many rolls were ruined or did you assume it was all 93? What if it was that one roll/batch only?

# ¿ Dec 2, 2012 01:02

bobmarleysghost: Mar 7, 2006

Mr. Despair posted:

Actually the quantum fluctuations in the metal will discombobulate the outer electron shells during the thermal transition causing your film to be buffered against the negative de-excitation caused by the thermal cascade from beyond the insulatory boundary.

Mhmm, oh yea yeah yeah. I know some of these words. Esp discombobulate, yes, yeees.

# ¿ Dec 3, 2012 04:57

bobmarleysghost: Mar 7, 2006

Hey Mannequin, did you go solo on your night shots or did you team up with somebody else?

# ¿ Dec 24, 2012 17:52

bobmarleysghost: Mar 7, 2006

A reversed cheap-o 50mm1.8 is best for this.

# ¿ Jan 3, 2013 22:40

bobmarleysghost: Mar 7, 2006

maxmars posted:

I had great luck with a FED-2 sporting a collapsible 50mm lens. I have it with me right now, it's sweet.

How much are those lenses? I have a Zorki and I wouldn't mind 'converting' it to a compact-ish camera.

I have problem with this high contrast, tree heavy scene. No matter how much I colour correct, it always looks ugly to me. Here is the photo:

I just ended up turning it black and white, it looks much better that way I think, but I still want to know how to properly colour correct snow scenes. I've seen a lot of film shots of a snowy meadow with trees and poo poo and they make it look great.

Here is the bw version.

# ¿ Jan 10, 2013 17:50

bobmarleysghost: Mar 7, 2006

Spedman posted:

I've had nothing but trouble trying to get snow right, it always looks off-white and never what I remember the colour of it too be. This is the most happiest I've been with a snow shot, but you'll notice the sky looks a bit weird:

So I other words, I hear ya but I can't really help.

e: Next to yours it looks really warm, and now I'm less happy with it

I actually like the snow in your photo, but once you said it's warm, I noticed it too. Barely.

dukeku posted:

Make a mask on the off-color areas and handle them individually.

And this is what I'll try to fix my problem.

MrBlandAverage posted:

I use curves and the eyedropper to figure out what parts of the curve need to be corrected how.

Good tip, trying it now.

# ¿ Jan 10, 2013 23:31

bobmarleysghost: Mar 7, 2006

Genderfluid posted:

It's kinda time intensive but making masks of differently lit areas is basically all you can do. Sometimes i cheat a little and for an area that's grey i'll just desaturate rather than try to find the precise color fix

Hah, I've done the gray masking too

maxmars posted:

Uh, I wouldn't know. I got my Industar-10 together with the (fully serviced) camera for 100 Euros.
Stopped down to f5,6 they're competent lenses.

Cool, I'll look around

# ¿ Jan 11, 2013 01:45

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 11:14

bobmarleysghost: Mar 7, 2006

Nothing fancy, just some big rear end rolls of film

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2013/01/125_years_of_national_geograph.html#photo2

# ¿ Jan 11, 2013 17:34

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > The Film Thread: "for sale: packfilm back. never used."

«‹›4 »