|
whatever you do, only buy plastic holders, new style riteways are the best, make sure where you're buying from says they're light tight any loupe will work, you don't need them that much if you're stopping down enough and shooting in daylight btzs hoods are worth the money get a dark 'tent', your sweaty hands will thank you. harrison pup tent is the winner. you can use a bag, it just sucks and you'll be more prone to get dust on your negs while loading send your film to citizen's in portland, their rates are very reasonable (2.95/sheet, c-41 or e-6) and their mail back rates are cheap as hell - i haven't gone there in person because of covid and my return shipping costs are like $3. you can ship in the holders, but it's going to cost more - i unload them into the same box the film came in and tape the edges with painter's or gaff tape.
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2020 23:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 23:23 |
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:Number all your holders and write down a description of each shot so if one has a leak you know which holder sucks. the new style riteways have little plastic dials with numbers (2 digits, so lots of possible sheet combos) to identify those problems
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2020 05:26
|
|
|
 this is the 'new' style, they don't have a metal lever to hold the slide in but instead have a tiny button (the visible white dot) that depresses to unlock the slide once they're inserted under the ground glass. cadillac holders easiest way to tell the difference is seeing how the top of the slide has a massive center nub vs. a single offset nub on one side
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2020 05:28
|
|
|
just get one in a copal shutter and buy a matching linhof board (don't spend your money on a fancy chamonix one, they're all the same size)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2020 06:15
|
|
|
the btzs hoods are great because they're waterproof and you can put the elastic end over the front standard and still peek under the far end to see the ground glass so you can shoot in the rain!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2020 18:48
|
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted:Another LF gear question! Anyone have recommendations for a relatively inexpensive spot meter? Preferably under $250 usd. I don't need flash metering or anything like that. I've got a small handheld sekonic that does great incident and reflective but no spot, so I can use that for now but would prefer to get a spot meter for LF. The only one I can find in that price range seems to be the Pentax Honeywell 1/21, but that takes some combination of 9v and mercury batteries that I'm not crazy on trying to make sure I get correct. Every once in a while it seems Sekonic L-508s go for as low as 250 on ebay which would be ideal, but if there's something that may be a bit easier to find in that price range I'm all ears. i have a spot meter and still use incident 99% of the time with LF
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2020 23:13
|
|
|
i would wait for the new plustek 120 but it might be another year or two
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2020 20:09
|
|
|
oh gently caress it actually materialized?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2020 21:13
|
|
|
i have my local lab develop (2.95/4x5 sheet for c41/e6) because it's way more economical in the long run to do scanning myself and developing sucks rear end
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2020 22:23
|
|
|
it's because fomapan loving sucks
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2020 19:51
|
|
|
don't use negafix, scan as positive, 48 bit tiff, and invert yourself in photoshop. set b/w points for each channel (clipping right where the negative's blacks and whites start) and then either manually pull the curves to get colors close or use the middle grey dropper tool
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2020 03:12
|
|
|
Megabound posted:The basic workflow is to scan as positive using 16bit raw with no corrections in scan, invert, use levels or curves to set your black and white points, then use curves to get the contrast you like. You may be leaving a lot of information on the table letting the software do it for you. yeah this (48 bit = 16 bit per channel, i forget what silverfast says)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2020 03:13
|
|
|
400h really does suck, and your metering is probably fine for slides. a full stop overexposure on negative film should be just fine
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2020 01:42
|
|
|
portra 400 is king for a reason, unironically
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2020 02:11
|
|
|
if you want that sort of "true" color you should be shooting slides or digital. the curves method for inverting negatives is pretty much what would be done for printing negatives individually (excluding minilab prints.) are you trying to shoot for the picture, or the film border?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2020 18:22
|
|
|
in my experience vuescan gave me clipped blues on my scans, no matter how much fiddling i did, making it impossible to get good colors out of. i think you're missing out on control if you let your scanning software invert your negatives for you instead of scanning as 48 bit (16 per channel) tiff and inverting yourself, either by the curves method or something like ColorPerfect
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2020 20:14
|
|
|
tweaking anything in the scanner software is a fool's errand unless you're tweaking it to give you the widest range, most untouched file possible
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2020 22:43
|
|
|
the only thing i do in colorperfect is use Ring CC - click in and there's a grid of 8 squares to click. one in the center shows your image. clicking an image on the outer ring takes your center image halfway in between the inner and the outer image. beyond that it's a loving nightmare, but it nails my daylight negative shots in a few clicks. really struggles with high DR stuff like portra at night so i still manually invert those with curves. colorperfect also works really well to correct casts after doing base b/w points, using touchup mode and ringcc why expect a one-click solution? nearly every other step of shooting film is complicated, no reason to not take your time and get it right after scanning.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2020 00:40
|
|
|
again i pose the question: why shoot film if you are looking for the fastest process
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2020 02:36
|
|
|
film spends most of its life curled tightly around a reel
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2020 17:36
|
|
|
The travelwide (kickstarter 4x5 3d printed p&s) had specific helicoids for the 2 focal lengths it supported with a distance guide that you paired with zone focusing or a separate rangefinder
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2021 22:29
|
|
|
i'm planning a roadtrip in a few weeks and struggling to not just go after the same photos i've been taking for a series i want to be finished with
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2021 19:39
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:the biggest problem i have getting my 4x5 in a bag is the giant metal rail which usually needs to stick out of a gap in tthe zippers condolences
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2021 02:14
|
|
|
how are you scanning/processing these
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2021 21:54
|
|
|
scan as a positive (don't use negafix) and invert yourself. invert in ps, b/w points for each channel (pull them in until they clip on part of your image and then pull back until it doesn't clip anymore, the threshold/show clipping tool will aid in this), then pull the blue curve down until blues look okay, then green, then red. or use something like negative lab pro (where you dropper on the film rebate) or colorperfect (where you can use the RingCC tool to move colors easily). negafix and in-scanner color conversions are always gonna be a hassle
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2021 00:52
|
|
|
404ing there bud
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2022 18:32
|
|
|
my intrepid was an absolute pile of garbage and the people who run the company are assholes. i legitimately regret spending any money on it at all. the travelwide isn't great either but at least the people who made it aren't insane pricks, but it's utility as a LF camera is limited, because having a larger negative isn't as big of a deal as actually having movements fwiw i shoot my chamonix in the rain and dust all the time, it's not full of electronics. i've dropped it and had to repair it. field cameras aren't meant to be delicate creatures, you're supposed to use them outside. bellows lugosi fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Jun 18, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2022 21:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 23:23 |
|
|
are you having trouble with enlargements? the difference in negative size is not nearly as impressive as, say, 35mm to 6x7.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2022 22:26
|
|