|
Awkward Davies posted:So my girlfriends father just gave me a roll of Kodachrome 64, and a couple rolls of Ektachrome (100 and 200 speed). The Kodachrome expired 1988 but it's been in a fridge. What are the chances it's still shootable, and can you even get it developed anywhere? It's probably still shootable, but the only way to develop it is as black-and-white. Resurrecting Kodachrome is one of these mad delusions that comes along every so often, but it's really only viable with the kind of industrial-scale chemical purity and process control that Kodak provided. Academically speaking, it's possible to reconstruct the process, but good luck: one guy in Australia has done it, and from his account it was like trying to reconstruct formulas from scraps of Necronomicon scattered into the four winds.
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 18:28 |
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:So my girlfriends father just gave me a roll of Kodachrome 64, and a couple rolls of Ektachrome (100 and 200 speed). The Kodachrome expired 1988 but it's been in a fridge. What are the chances it's still shootable, and can you even get it developed anywhere? There's a dude on etsy that will develop it for like $50 https://www.etsy.com/shop/PiratelogyStudios
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
Yond Cassius posted:It's probably still shootable, but the only way to develop it is as black-and-white. Resurrecting Kodachrome is one of these mad delusions that comes along every so often, but it's really only viable with the kind of industrial-scale chemical purity and process control that Kodak provided. Academically speaking, it's possible to reconstruct the process, but good luck: one guy in Australia has done it, and from his account it was like trying to reconstruct formulas from scraps of Necronomicon scattered into the four winds.  oh well, guess I'll give it back to him to stick back in his film fridge. At least I can do the Ektachrome.8th-snype posted:There's a dude on etsy that will develop it for like $50 Wait this can't actually work right
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
nvm
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:Wait this can't actually work right "This process is in the VERY early stages, no guarantee is made as to color accuracy, stability, or production of images. Images MAY have color casts or other unexpected results due to the experimental nature of this process." His sample images look OK, but expect Lomo-level results and maybe you'll be pleasantly surprised.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
I'm gonna rush out and give the dude my kodachrome but I am keeping an eye on it just incase he get's it right at some point. I have 2 rolls of K64 and one of K25 in my freezer that arrived too late from ebay to get dewayned back in the day.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
quote:Goodbye to Kodachrome....
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:There's a dude on etsy that will develop it for like $50 Im seriously tempted to try this, even if its mediocre at best i would have died knowing i shot at least one roll of Kodachrome.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
Some shots from the 67 xposted from landscape thread. Portra 6x7 (3 of 6) by Trevor Zuliani, on Flickr Portra 6x7 (4 of 6) by Trevor Zuliani, on Flickr
VelociBacon fucked around with this message at 05:39 on Aug 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 05:31
|
|
|
Ezekiel_980 posted:Im seriously tempted to try this, even if its mediocre at best i would have died knowing i shot at least one roll of Kodachrome. I shot a bunch in the early '00s it was trash but then again so was I.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:I shot a bunch in the early '00s it was trash but then again so was I. Not a lot has changed I see
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 06:21
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:Not a lot has changed I see Im worse now tbh
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 07:11
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:Im worse now tbh Hello
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 11:24
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:
2spoopy
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 13:36
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:Some shots from the 67 xposted from landscape thread. Pretty good, you could be making bank as a freelancer with shots like these.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 13:39
|
|
|
I got a Pentax 67 and it's totally rad. Don't know what the gently caress I'm doing with rectangular format though. Kurnell by Michael Garbutt, on Flickr elgarbo fucked around with this message at 13:02 on Aug 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 09:45
|
|
|
I got one of those intrepid cameras, to try out a large format camera. I'm shooting roll film on it for the moment until a large format scanner pops up on the local craigslist-equivalent site. It's not bad though the screw for locking the front standard locked parallel to the film plane seem a little off, having movements is rad though. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
I'll post this one here since all the fun bits are pointed away. 8x10 paper neg, enlarged to 16x20 and sepia toned.  M Turns Away by Jason, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
Received my SP-445 developing tank just now. Finally I can develop all those LF negatives I never shoot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
At least yours got delivered, mines still sitting in a holding depot in Melbourne somewhere, and I think alkanphel's got sent back because they hosed up his address.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
Yeah I hope I get mine soon...
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 12:16
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:Yeah I hope I get mine soon... Yesss..... I love this sort of thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 12:42
|
|
|
Thoogsby fucked around with this message at 01:56 on Aug 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 09:11
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Received my SP-445 developing tank just now. Finally I can develop all those LF negatives I never shoot. Mine now arrived, I'll give it a work out tomorrow with a couple of sheets
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 11:51
|
|
|
Wasn't sure where to post this-- In the Canon thread I was asking about the 5dsr because I've reached a point in my large prints where I'm not super happy with the results. Well, I think I want to step into medium format, and after a lot of research and finding something that suits my style and needs, the new Hasselblad X1D seems to be something MAYBE feasible. You guys have been very helpful, I'd love to get some insight on the pros and cons of a mirrorless medium format camera. Overall, it looks fantastic, and while mirrorless on full frame cameras can make them "slow", Medium format isn't exactly a rapid fire kind of photography anyways, so it doesn't seem to be an issue. Help me out goons!
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
somnambulist posted:Wasn't sure where to post this-- What is it that you're unhappy with from the 5dsr? I could see the low light performance being poor at 50mp due to the size of the sensor pixels or w/e but that's more what you sacrifice to get a sensor with that resolution. I would assume also the lens ecosystem for that X1D is ludicrous in it's cost.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:What is it that you're unhappy with from the 5dsr? I could see the low light performance being poor at 50mp due to the size of the sensor pixels or w/e but that's more what you sacrifice to get a sensor with that resolution. I would assume also the lens ecosystem for that X1D is ludicrous in it's cost. I havent used a 5dsR, but from my research the print quality isn't drastically better at large sizes compared to the 5d mark III. I could be wrong of course, but I've looked at various websites and everyone kind of says the same thing. That was my initial pick for the record, so I'd love to be proven wrong but medium format seems to be the next logical choice for me. I recently sold the license for a photo for a good 10k and I'm debating if that money should be spent on a great upgrade, or if i should wait for the competition to drive prices down on similar systems. I'm not looking to make a rush decision, this is really just a discussion on the benefits and drawbacks to certain cameras being used for large format printing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
Is DMF really medium format? It's like APS-H to 645 film's FF. Besides that, you could save yourself the early adopter premium and just get a Pentax 645Z or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
Spedman posted:Mine now arrived, I'll give it a work out tomorrow with a couple of sheets I can confirm that he SP-445 is pretty great, really even negs without any special processing parameters. I just treated the development like you would with a Paterson tank, inversion times, etc, no problems.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Is DMF really medium format? It's like APS-H to 645 film's FF. Besides that, you could save yourself the early adopter premium and just get a Pentax 645Z or whatever. I've thought of that but a few things- The 645z can only go to 1/125 with flash currently. The 645z is considerably heavier and I believe a much higher target for theft and stuff due to it looking "expensive" while traveling. I've used the 645z and it's pretty comfortable to hold but I don't know if it fits my style. And lastly, I think a digital viewfinder for MF sounds awesome. Would help a ton with nailing focus is imagine considering the depth of field of MF.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
somnambulist posted:Help me out goons! Wait for Fuji's much more affordable clone of the X1D. Should be announced at Photokina but I could be wrong. If you've ever played with a digital MF raw file, it's very different from the normal FF camera files, regardless of the megapixels. However you didn't exactly mention what you don't like about your current large prints?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 08:08
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:Wait for Fuji's much more affordable clone of the X1D. Should be announced at Photokina but I could be wrong. If you've ever played with a digital MF raw file, it's very different from the normal FF camera files, regardless of the megapixels. However you didn't exactly mention what you don't like about your current large prints? In what way is it different? (MF raw compared to FF) My current large prints are hung in a gallery and up close you start to see it break apart a bit. I printed something at 30x60 and it looked "ok" but I wish It had more detail.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 08:26
|
|
|
e; wrong thread
unpacked robinhood fucked around with this message at 08:40 on Aug 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 08:36
|
|
|
somnambulist posted:In what way is it different? (MF raw compared to FF) Well I don't know about you, but if you look at a 30x60" (I am assuming inches here) this close in a gallery setting -- then, seriously, they're looking at it wrong. You go up to this size for impact, not to look at it up-close and intimate. I've seen 35mm film stuff printed this big and it looked fine to my jaundiced eye. Also my own medium format stuff printed to 24" (admittedly less than 30") with nice paper and gallery lights which - again - also looked completely fine even upon closer inspection. (I found reflections in the paper/glass a much more annoying problem.) I'd ask myself if I'm not just rationalising my gear-lust after happening upon some cash. That said, I'm a film shooter and thus resolution and technical quality are quite low on the list of my priorities.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 09:11
|
|
|
somnambulist posted:In what way is it different? (MF raw compared to FF) Richer and more malleable files, better tonality. But if you want detail, that's really the domain of megapixels, so if the 5Dsr doesn't do it for you, you might want to rent a Hasselblad H6D with the 100mp back and see if that gives you what you want. Or look into stitching with the smaller megapixel backs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 09:27
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
somnambulist posted:In what way is it different? (MF raw compared to FF) I recently saw a show where 8x10 negs were wet printed to that kind of size, and if you got close you could start to easily see the grain etc. I think you're trying to solve a problem that isn't actually a problem, but you've got $10k to burn and more megapixels would somewhat elevate this non-issue. What kind of work do you shoot? Is there other gear that would improve you're shooting or make you're job easier? Would some travel give some opportunities you'd never have otherwise?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
Spedman posted:I recently saw a show where 8x10 negs were wet printed to that kind of size, and if you got close you could start to easily see the grain etc. I think you're trying to solve a problem that isn't actually a problem, but you've got $10k to burn and more megapixels would somewhat elevate this non-issue. I recently sold a print of this at 30"x60" and the ice looked "pixelated" a bit when printed at that size.  mendenhall by David Franco, on FlickrIt wasn't AWFUL, i mean, it sold-- but I noticed the people interested in buying the work got really close to look at details, and it kind of bothered me that they would be looking at a limitation on my camera. I might be overthinking it of course, but I felt like medium format would help in not only resolution, but in general clarity. I also do a lot of portraiture, and here I need the resolution less, but I do love the look of medium format portraiture (the depth of field is so nice) Here is an example of my portrait stuff.  Michaele by David Franco, on Flickrsomnambulist fucked around with this message at 22:56 on Aug 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 18:28 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 00:03
|
|