|
McMadCow posted:And yes, I believe you can make contact prints with paper negs. I used paper in a pinhole camera and made contact prints with it, I was dubious that it would work, but I guess enough light gets through the paper to expose the other paper. Exposure times weren't even very long.
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2013 06:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 03:53 |
|
|
ExecuDork posted:I like it, but it's got to be the weirdest photo I've ever seen by virtue of that texture. Part of the fun of alt processes is paper textures.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2013 22:14
|
|
|
Primo Itch posted:Replying to an old post, but where the hell do you delevop for $1? Around here I can't find anything under U$4. Judging by the quoted post, Brazil.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2013 20:39
|
|
|
Wouldn't color paper not have an even color response because it's made to work with color negatives that have that orange base? Anyway, the colors may not be right, but you're getting cool results.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2013 15:47
|
|
|
Cross posting from macro thread, but I got bellows for my Bronica SQ   52mm Nikon lens cap for scale.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2013 17:25
|
|
|
Mega Itch posted:Hey I'm thinking about testing out macro/close-ups on my SQ-A. Are those bellows a cheap Chinese knock-off or are they original, if it's the former, where can I find 'em? Also, could extension rings get me closer? I've seen them on eBay going for acceptable prices. No, they're the Bronica made bellows. Extension rings will definitely work, as far as I know the only ones made for the SQ came in 18mm and 36mm. One 36mm ring with the 80mm lens gets to about .5 magnification. Here is a handy chart for the extension tubes that has exposure factor and everything. I never did find out if you could stack multiple extension tubes on the SQ, but I would imagine that you can.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2013 15:43
|
|
|
joelcamefalling posted:Started using EpsonScan. It's basic, but solved those problems. Manually dragging level endpoints twice for every frame is annoying and means color consistency is... not - but its better than giving Silverfast $140. I'm a weirdo that likes EpsonScan, it gets the color great most of the time and when it doesn't it's usually because the sky is blown out and EpsonScan tries to make it not blown out so I just drag the whites thingy over and it looks good again (good enough for me anyway). I'm beginning to shoot more color film so maybe I'll end up using something more advanced, but EpsonScan is great for me. I already have Vuescan because EpsonScan didn't work on whatever version of OSX I had when I bought my scanner and it's ok. I downloaded a demo for Silverfast and I didn't like it either though.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2013 03:30
|
|
|
I've got stuff like that with my Yashica D and I've wondered if it's because of all the chrome around the lens maybe? Rolleis would also have this problem.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2013 03:11
|
|
|
Have any of you guys ever used a pinhole camera from Lensless Camera Company? I've made pinholes in the past, but these can take standard film folders which would be nice. The 4x5 one is like $60 on B&H so I'm thinking about just grabbing one, but they make them up to 11x14. How do you process film larger than 4x5? In a tray in the darkroom or do they make really big tanks for 11x14 ones?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2013 05:53
|
|
|
tsc posted:So I have a line on a Mamiya 330C with a 80mm 2.8 for $200. It's being sold by a local photographer and it seems to be in pretty good condition. I've been looking for an affordable 6x6 setup, but I'm not too sure if this is one of those deals that's too good to be true. Does anyone have any experience with these? The ad says that it only gets 11 shots instead of 12, which upon researching turns out to be a pretty common issue that can be fixed pretty easily at home. The only bad thing I've heard about the Mamiya TLRs is that they're bigger and heavier than a typical TLR, but you do get interchangeable lenses so it's not for nothing. For what it's worth KEH sells bodies for more than $200, so if you get a lens with and are confident that you can repair that problem then it seems like a good deal.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2013 04:49
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Bronica's 6x6 SLR's aren't a bad system either, although IDK if anyone in the Dorkroom shoots with one. I do and I really like mine, very easy to use handheld. It's still pretty heavy once you load it in a bag with a few backs and lenses, but that's probably any medium format system.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2013 19:10
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Hasselblad supremacy, it won't fire with a darkslide in. Same with a Bronica SQ, but it will let you shoot with the darkslide pulled out just a little so you just end up with a 1/2 inch stripe of exposure in each frame 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2013 05:48
|
|
|
VomitOnLino posted:One neat trick that I found helps at least with the eyestrain part: The newest version of Lightroom has something like this, if you select the heal brush and look at the bottom of the window right above the film strip there is a check box that will highlight dust spots and detail areas.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2013 15:32
|
|
|
I figure since film, chemistry and paper is all Ilford does we'll at least have black and white film until they literally can't stay in business anymore.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2013 15:11
|
|
|
So I bought a Sinar Norma because I don't already spend enough money on this hobby. This is my first foray into large format and have a small issue. When I try to do big rises or shifts the bellows just won't let me, I can only get about 25mm focusing on things in my house (so this will get worse when I take it outside and focus at things further away). My lens is a Fujinon 135mm f/5.6, so wide normal. I did some reading and I think I'll need to get a bag bellows to get good movements out of any wide (or wide-ish in this case) lenses? Is this less of a problem for cameras with a smaller front standard? Also, my tripod head isn't going to cut it for the long term, doesn't anyone have a suggestion for a decent head?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2013 07:04
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Given that you said 135mm is "wide normal" I'm going to go ahead and assum3 you mean a 4x5 Sinar Norma, not the 8x10. Yes, 4x5. If I remove the bellows I can move both front and rear standards the entire height of the bars the standards are attached too (and shift all the way to the left and right), but when I attach the bellows and focus on something 10 feet away or so I physically cannot move either standard more than 20-25mm from where I started (and if I move one as far as I can up I can't move the other down at all). I'll take a photo when I get home from work to show you what I'm working with. I did some research before I bought it and didn't think 135mm would be wide enough to severely limit what I could do. People seemed high on the Fuji's coverage area and this link says it has 228mm of coverage (or is that area and not diameter?) which seems decent. 4x5 film is 127mm on the long end so there should be plenty of room for movement there right?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2013 21:12
|
|
|
The only digital camera I have is my phone  This is the most rise I can do:  The bellows just look like their binding up:  Am I expecting too much?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2013 23:45
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Needing a recessed lensboard for a 135mm lens seems a little ridiculous... what if you pull the bound-up parts away from the standards while moving the standards? I tried and didn't get much more. Recessed lens boards seem kind of expensive for what they are. I found some bag bellows for a decent price and bought them. I figure I'll probably end up with a 90mm lens at some point and it will be worth having.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2013 15:36
|
|
|
I looked at Chamonix, but they're a lot money to lay out when I'm not even sure I'll like large format and I couldn't find a used one anywhere. I work out of my car mostly anyway so it's not liking I'm climbing a mountain with it and a cheap monorail will give me good exposure ( ) to large format. I can already tell lugging this thing around is going to be a pain so I'll probably end up buying a Chamonix or some other field camera later if I like it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
So after trying to take the Norma out, I just don't want to mess with a camera this cumbersome and I'm going to return it and buy a field camera that can at least fold up and fit in a bag. I was looking at the Chamonix website, and they have a new model (045F1) that adds base and asymmetrical tilts of the rear standard, is that worth the $120 difference in price?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2013 17:06
|
|
|
So I just send an email to this yahoo.com address posted on chamonixviewcamera.com to place an order for a camera? Seems kind of shady.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2013 01:20
|
|
|
VomitOnLino posted:Also the shutter and shutter release feels kind of cheap-ish on my GW690 II, not plasticy-ick-its-horrible cheap, but not up to the standards of my TLRs or 67. I like the feel of the button on my GW690ii, the shutter sound is pretty bad though. My only complaint is the focus ring is too tight.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2013 06:23
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:A lot of the best places are run by old farts who barely even know how to computer. You hire them for their decades of skill, not their slick Web 2.0 presence. I was more worried about it actually being Chamonix's website than I was about how flashy his web programming skills are, but it's good to know I was in the right place. I emailed him, they are sold out of the 45n-2 cameras and he said they wouldn't have more for 3 months. They have 45F1s though, so I guess I'm going to get that asynchronous tilt.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2013 19:28
|
|
|
So on Chamonix's website it says the 4x5 cameras use Linhof lens boards, do they mean Linhof Tech or Linhof Kardan? They look a little different and thus I assume they are different or maybe it doesn't matter?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2013 22:01
|
|
|
Thanks guys, I just bought a "miscellaneous" brand board from keh for $7.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2013 01:48
|
|
|
They tried to deliver my Chamonix this morning, but I was asleep and I can't pick it up from the post office until Monday 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2013 22:28
|
|
|
That's the creepiest place ever.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2013 07:21
|
|
|
So dark cloths are pretty expensive. Is there anything a $60 dark cloth brings that a towel or blanket doesn't? Also, this Chamonix is pretty awesome, much more suitable than the Norma for what I want to do.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2013 16:51
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:It'd be more like $1800 if I'd stuck to the Chamonix, one lens, and the v700. That's about what I've spent recently getting my setup going.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2013 16:11
|
|
|
ZippySLC posted:I'm reasonably sure I don't want to go LF. You're wallet is not safe 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2013 16:36
|
|
|
So, I took the Chamonix out today and absolutely loved using it. I think these photos would have been better in color, but color sheet film is expensive and I figure I'd gently caress it up and I didn't want to wait until I had a big enough back log to make using my Tetenal kit worth using. I did scratch a couple negatives loading or unloading them and now I really understand why some people use a changing tent rather than a changing bag, poo poo's pretty cramped in there when dealing with sheet film. Next time I'll probably just do it in my makeshift darkroom so I can spread out a little on the table I have in there. So I have the new image view thing on flickr and evidently there is no way to link an image anymore (only Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Email, or Pinterest) and I don't think I can get the old image view back. So here are links to the two photos I got today that I liked if you want to see them. http://www.flickr.com/photos/j_hunter/10233998786/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/j_hunter/10234099413/ edit: How do you guys dry sheet film? I've been using this type of clip on a shirt hanger for roll film which worked fine since there is a lot of lead out and lead in on the rolls and I don't have to worry about it loving up the actual image, but the rebates on sheet film are very thin and I worried about how well it's holding. eggsovereasy fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Oct 12, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2013 23:30
|
|
|
Pablo Bluth posted:When you view the image, there's the arrow-out-of-a-box icon. Open up that, select 'Grab the HTML/BBCode', Select the desired size and the bbcode radio button, and there's your link. They changed the image view screen for some people (slowly rolling out the new version) and this is what I get now:  dedian posted:There's all kinds of stuff missing on the new image view (or I'm dumb and can't find stuff) - you can opt out though. Click Help & Feedback, and then Opt out... This worked to get back the old view though, thanks.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2013 17:20
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:What did you get if you clicked on the [...] inside the popup? Those three grey buttons with Wordpress, Blogger, and Livejournal logos.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2013 18:08
|
|
|
ZippySLC posted:Well, it's not the "good" Mamiya 6. It's the one from the 1940s: A "for parts" Mamiya 6 folder sold on eBay recently for $122, it's worth something.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2013 15:44
|
|
|
This site has a lot of good information about folders, if someone else is interested.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2013 22:26
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:There isn't an f/4.5 large format Super Angulon 90mm, though there is an f/5.6. If the f/5.6 is only a couple hundred more, either you're getting an amazing deal on the f/5.6 or you got ripped off on the f/8. On keh the f/5.6 is about 150 more than an f/8. I've been looking at 90mm lenses and the Nikkor SW and the Rodenstock Grandagon both seem like winners to me. They have large image circles, with the Nikon being a little larger, but the Grandagon gets a bit more light for focusing since it's f/6.8. Am I right in assuming that I can't go wrong with either lens?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2013 04:53
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Now I get 162.6mm If you exclude the areas covered by the film holder it's a bit smaller, but I guess if you do that for 4x5 you need to do it for the medium formats as well. ExecuDork posted:43.3 / 162.6 = 0.266, or a 4x5 negative is about 3.76 times larger than a 35mm negative. If you look at surface area it's 15x larger
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2013 06:32
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:Waist level viewfinder and S lenses, is that cool? The PS lenses are newer and, as such, are generally a little better. However, a lot of people get the S 50mm since it has the same filter size as nearly every other lens in the SQ system (67mm), while the PS 50mm is larger. An SQ WLF can go for over $100 on it's own, so it's nice that it comes with one.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2013 18:31
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:I finally got my MOD54 about six weeks after ordering and it doesn't have the dummy sheets with it. Are these meant to come as standard and are they important? It'd be nice to have them but I'm pretty sick of dealing with the lovely customer service from this third party supplier. Mine didn't come with any dummy sheets. I just sacrificed a sheet of real film to practice with.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2013 19:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 03:53 |
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:That loving tree. 65mm on 4x5 is pretty wide. This is nice, how much movement can you get with a 65mm lens? On the topic of the Mod54 reel... I've found that if I do actual inversions it's likely a sheet pops out of it's little section, so I just use the twirly stick thing that came with the Paterson tank. Am I being to vigorous with my agitation or am I supposed to be using the spinner with it?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2013 07:32
|
|
