|
 Skyblue by Trevor Zuliani, on Flickr
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2017 05:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 05:10 |
|
|
Helicity posted:I'm feeling the itch for an MF SLR, so I'm looking at either the Pentax or the Hasselblad. While I do have a fondness for square formats, 6x7 is probably my favorite aspect ratio. Has anyone shot extensively with both? How did they compare on usability and print quality? If you get the metered prism the Pentax is more convenient but still much heavier. Print quality is the same basically. You get 2 more shots per roll on the blad. The Pentax has electrical components and they're expensive if they fail.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
Helicity posted:Is the weight difference like "oh gently caress this is heavy I hate this"? Do the 67s tend to need repairs, and are they easy to find repairs for? Part of the reason I'm looking at a new MF camera is that I'm getting anxious that the RF on my Mamiya 7 will knock out of alignment or something else will break - and repairs don't seem to be super feasible (and rangefinder MFs in general just don't "feel" right to me). Relative to a Mamiya 7, the pentax isn't as hard to repair (neither is a space shuttle). The only person who really repairs the 67 is a guy in the states who does good work but charges an appropriate amount for it. I needed some electronics replaced, that + a CLA was $500 CAD. The weight difference is huge. I'm a 6'2" 210lb guy and I have to swap which arm I'm carrying the 67 with as I walk around. It's heavy. The goon I most often go shoot with has a 500cm and I would say the pentax is around 80% heavier. if you're also carting around a tripod it gets to be a bit much. It doesn't bug me too bad but I can't imagine a smaller person wanting to sherpa that camera around for too long. This is with the handle and TTL prism which I think is the heaviest possible combo. Other things to keep in mind is that you can swap backs on the fly with the blad. The lenses are WAY cheaper on the pentax side and TBH I find them sharp as hell - if you can nail focus which is a challenge sometimes due to the microprism focusing system. I'd kill for a split screen style.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2017 06:01
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:I tried both and I preferred the Hasselblad by a mile. But it really is a personal preference thing - ergonomics and weight matters a lot and it's very personal. Don't forget the Hasselblad uses a WLF which flips the image unlike the P67. The 67 WLF also flips the image just to be clear. But you can get prisms for the pentax.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2017 08:50
|
|
|
That’s some turn of the century London poo poo right there. Penny for the ilford boy etc
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2017 08:18
|
|
|
Dev'd some more Portra. Had some issues that I'm not certain weren't from me loving up when I finish the roll in terms of light exposure, guess I'll be super careful and see if I still have that issue. Some Vancouver shots: Into the Mist by Trevor Zuliani, on Flickr At attention by Trevor Zuliani, on Flickr That Screamers Movie by Trevor Zuliani, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2018 18:52
|
|
|
^What would you say is the all-in cost of getting the equipment and enough supplies to dev 5-10 rolls? Riverview by Trevor Zuliani, on Flickr Riverview Tower by Trevor Zuliani, on Flickr Stairgrid by Trevor Zuliani, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2018 02:27
|
|
|
 Lynn Canyon Park(2) by Trevor Zuliani, on Flickr Lynn Canyon Park(1) by Trevor Zuliani, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2018 21:49
|
|
|
Lomo/holga shooting is confusing to me because (especially if you're shooting anything but B&W) you go through a lot of energy buying the film, loading it, shooting with it, dropping it off, paying for the negs, scanning it, uploading it, etc. Real MF cameras aren't too expensive, most retain their value very well, it seems worth it to actually see if you like the full experience instead of some lovely analog. Using a holga is as different from using a hassleblad/pentax as riding a donkey is from being on a motorcycle - it's not going to translate the non-gimmick MF usage experience at all. If you want the look that those systems provide then that's an aesthetic matter obviously. e: yeah exactly. It's all the hassle of MF with none of the benefit.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2018 18:49
|
|
|
ianskate posted:Just getting used to my newly acquired Pentax 67, when scanning in through v550 for some reason ICE didn't do a great job getting the dust/scratches, and I haven't had time to edit that stuff out... but don't mind me, just re-learning film. Grabbed a C41 press kit, gonna try processing color on my own to make this a cheaper hobby. You're already in photoshop to correct crop, colors, etc why not spend the time to clone out dust before you save it for uploading?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2018 22:54
|
|
|
and Tri-X 400 for B&W.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2018 19:49
|
|
|
mAlfunkti0n posted:I’ve seen talk in here about developing your own film but saying for now I want to keep it simple where would you all trust to have 120 developed? I trust different places for different types of 120 processing here in Vancouver.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2018 21:08
|
|
|
indyrenegade posted:I just got a good tax return back from the good ol Cananananadian government and I think I wanna take the plunge on a medium format camera. It's been something I've wanted to pursue for years after running around with my Canon AE-1. I'm in Vancouver with a Pentax 6x7 as my first MF camera. I mention that I'm also in Canada because the only person in the western hemisphere that repairs them is in the states and it cost me $550 CAD to repair/CLA after taking it out in the rain carelessly for 30 min or so. I really like the process of using the 6x7 and I love the negative size which is obviously shared with the RZ67. I think if I could do this again I would go for a MF camera that is fully mechanical so I don't have the headache of it (the metering prism which was a huge bonus just stopped working). The camera is beyond heavy and I have 3 lenses for it. With those lenses and the body+metering prism in an older Billingham bag I would say it's almost 20lb on the shoulder. If you're a person who likes to walk around shooting it becomes a bit much and it makes you want to leave a lens or two in the car.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2018 19:07
|
|
|
I think a cheap lovely plastic 3d printed handle on the 67 is nearly sacrilegious and certainly antethetical to the overall presence of that specific camera.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2018 22:08
|
|
|
If i could go back I'd get a non-electronic camera but my Pentax 6x7 has been fun. Its not something you enjoy taking out with 3 lenses though, it's seriously heavy even with a proper bag. I'd say it has the benefit of being very similar to 35mm film cameras so it's very easy to move into.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2018 01:01
|
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted:A local store recently got in a CLA'd Yashica Mat 124, which also had a new mirror put in. I'm not sure on the price, but assuming it's not outrageous I'll probably pick it up. It'll be my first foray into medium format, anything I should know about or keep in mind going in? Are you coming from digital or 35mm? I'd say just be aware of reciprocity for long exposures, it's something to google up.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2018 06:36
|
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted:Good news: got the Yashica Mat 124 and it seems super nice and clean! Glass looks brand new, and the focus screen was replaced with a bright clear new one. Bad news: the light meter doesn't seem to work. I tried taking the focusing hood off and cleaning the contacts, and testing putting a battery up to said contacts, but no dice. Doesn't seem like the end of the world since apparently the meter on these isn't the best, but is a little disappointing since I didn't know about it. Seems like the store owner may not have known about it either, when I asked if he had a battery to test out the meter at the shop, he didn't - so maybe he hadn't tested it either. I'll see if maybe he'd be willing to give me a discount on a handheld meter or something, which probably wouldn't be the worst thing in the world to invest in anyways. Anyone know of any success stories for repairing the meters? I did some research online and found that usually it's just a matter of cleaning contacts - since that didn't work I'm afraid it might be something busted in the meter itself, which seems like it'd be a harder fix. If it's a selenium meter it'd probably be inaccurate anyways. Still I'd go back and make a show out of returning it for being 'faulty' and then agreeing to keep it once they refund you a fair amount. I just repaired the meter on my 6x7, where the issue was a broken wire that I soldered. It was a little bit of a PITA, and if there wasn't an obviously broken wire then I'd likely be completely SOL. I don't imagine many people repair the meters in old MF cameras on the cheap these days. I agree that a handheld meter is probably the best thing to use regardless.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2019 23:38
|
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted:It's a pretty small local shop so I didn't make a big fuss, but the dude's nice and the camera was a good price in the first place. I talked to him about it and he comped me a free handheld meter and some rolls of film, so I'm happy. I probably could have gotten a partial refund if I was stubborn but eh whatever. Time to go shoot some garbage! The handheld meter is going to be a lot better for you anyways because the meter on a camera like that, even if it were still accurate, is going to be very primitive in terms of how center weighted it might be etc. I should probably learn to use a proper handheld meter but I'll just keep shooting films with huge latitude and not worry about it too much.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2019 00:30
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:I've been doing more work with the big camera lately. Looking for that next bit of inspiration. Made this in the meantime. How much dodging/burning do you do in the processing of the film with that alt process? That looks great.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2019 23:15
|
|
|
ImplicitAssembler posted:Tested the SP-445. Seems easy enough? I mean, there's something on it and I haven't developed anything in 30 years. (Fixer still stinks..did that bring back memories!). Take another picture of my rear end in a top hat and I'm going to freak out @ you
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2019 07:59
|
|
|
ImplicitAssembler posted:Lol, wtf. I figured a maintained software, with colour profiles, etc would be better than something from 2007, but no.. One of us is missing something here - how would a scanner give you RAW when RAW formats are from digital camera sensors? I think all of us scan to large TIFF files. Make sure you adjust the histo in Epson scan utility so that you don't lose detail in dark and light areas, you can set black points and do RGB levels in PS after the scan.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2019 07:40
|
|
|
real nap poo poo posted:I'm taking a large format class this term at school and I'm very excited to start shooting/hopefully posting - how good are light meter phone apps? They get the job done (unless you're shooting Provia slide film or something) but you'll be able to borrow real meters from school probably.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 07:50
|
|
|
ImplicitAssembler posted:This is a big dark hole...I'm now looking at getting a medium format camera, for faster/indoor photography. Who needs money anyway... I have MF and a modern DSLR and nothing about the MF camera makes it faster, even shutter speed wise since you can't pump ISO and fast glass isn't as big a thing for MF. Get a MF camera because it's fun but it's a slower process.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2019 22:55
|
|
|
Sludge Tank posted:Aluminium is garbage. CF is virtually bulletproof. I thought for a sec I was in the mountain bike thread and was about to respond v. rudely. CF tripods are the coolest and I can't wait to get one.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2019 05:29
|
|
|
GreaseGunner posted:Yeah it's ektar, the first print I made came out a little desaturated and the sky was overexposed so that was the edit I made to fix that. I'm only using Lightroom at home but have access to Photoshop at work but I usually need help figuring that out. I can also make larger prints at work but only on a semi-gloss/luster photo paper so if that's what you're interested in let me know. I'll try to see if I can get that magenta down a bit before I print again. Canon Print Studio Pro allows you to print a bunch of small test images onto one piece of paper so you can dial in brightness/contrast adjustments for printing. It's free and I'm pretty sure you don't have to be using a Canon printer.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2020 06:27
|
|
|
beergod posted:What’s the group consensus on a scanner for 120 negatives? Epson v550 or newer like mentioned in the post above, but also probably budget in some ANR glass film holders so you don't get newton's rings which are a pain to deal with (getting the film perfectly flat in the holder). You're not going to use the super high resolution scanning of some scanners because it can take over 15 min per frame so keep that in mind if you start looking at coolscans. Wild EEPROM can talk about his experiences with a coolscan. If you're wanting to see what the results can look like on the affordable side of things, every film photo on my flickr that doesn't have DSLR EXIF data is scanned with an epson v550 and normal holders (and shot with a pentax 6x7).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2020 10:34
|
|
|
If you aren't doing your own scans you're getting terrible scans.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2020 04:59
|
|
|
Very cool, feels significantly different from a lot of your other stuff but retains much of the same character.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2020 14:20
|
|
|
theHUNGERian posted:The roll of Fuji Pro 400H was more disappointing. No doubt that poor subject choices and light contributed, but the colors were difficult to get right too. I am only half-way happy with two frames. Pro 400H just sucks like that to be honest. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2020 01:17
|
|
|
theHUNGERian posted:Noob noob here again. I just got a roll of XP2 back, and I noticed that one end is curled like this Not really messed up. It's probably the way they dev'd it, something to do with how they put it through a machine or hung it etc. There's always a bit of a curve you just have to flatten it out a bit.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2020 19:27
|
|
|
I have a pentax 67 and have used both the WLF and the metered prism and I have to say that for the way the camera works and holds (basically a big SLR) I think it's better with a metered prism/normal prism - other cameras like TLRs and hassleblads make more sense to me with a WLF. I enjoyed the WLF but I really enjoy being able to lift my camera up to shoot over a fence or whatnot or high on a tripod. If I had a different MF camera I'd buy a lightmeter and probably use a WLF. I can't remember if the focusing was easier on the WLF but it definitely can be a pain with the prism.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2020 20:54
|
|
|
theHUNGERian posted:I'm still a noob and getting used to what I can and cannot do with film. I thought that the junk on the negative could cause more harm when I leave it under a heavy weight than I would solve with flattening out the film. You won't know how much junk is on your negs until you scan them in after so you should be good!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2020 03:10
|
|
|
I meant the shots themselves!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2020 03:58
|
|
|
Blackhawk posted:Some ektar from last night. These are good shots but I'm more impressed that you shot last night and have them processed and scanned today.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2021 04:21
|
|
|
I love it when goons help goons. I shot with a goon today but we just ended up drinking too much coffee and sweating.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2021 08:27
|
|
|
ImplicitAssembler posted:Experiment with long exposure in the (very heavy) rain. I had more planned but was worried about getting the gear too wet. Epsonscan 'can' handle pretty much anything that your scanner can provide, in terms of data. If you make sure you're capturing the entire histogram and don't let it do any kind of image enhancements or grading (do that after in PS) I think the other software is just more or less convenient. The same results should be possible with anything since it's just the raw info you're getting from the scanner. You could scan it as a positive and just flip it in PS for example. If I'm wrong about this I'm prepared to happily find new scanning software but it seems that most often when people run into issues with Epsonscan it's because they aren't using PS to correct the color channels (black point, highlights etc) after.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2021 05:45
|
|
|
theHUNGERian posted:I was going to post this in the post a day thread, but the thread appears to be more dead than this one, and we are supposed to limit ourselves to 3 pictures per day, so I will continue here. Apologies if it appears I am loving up the thread, it is not my intention.   Included the temp/tint adjustments I made so you can do the same on your end and see if it looks like the photo I posted. Do you have a couple different screens so you can drag it over (or halfway between) and see if there's a color difference? Do you have any software running that adjusts your monitor blue light or tint for nighttime eye health?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2021 21:43
|
|
|
Are you using any kind of eyedropper on neutral tones for the WB? It does a lot of the work.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2021 22:09
|
|
|
The color inversion in PS as described is really not so bad. Use whatever keystroke it is to show clipping (Alt or ctrl I think). I think pretty much all of us scan for the entire histogram so we don't lose any data and then get the image correct with the levels after. I don't have a good eye for color and I don't find it super difficult.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2021 01:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 05:10 |
|
|
Wouldn't have wanted to be standing beside it when this happened. Cool photos.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2022 22:10
|
|
