|
Definitely have some GAS right now, on a roll with buying old film cameras. Got an M3 from KEH and first roll developed off of it. Pretty happy with how these turned out. The Zeiss ZM lens has good contrast and saturation. I love how film naturally handles high dynamic range scenes well.      I bought a 5 pack of Velvia off Adorama on backorder. Who knows when it will actually show up. I'm thinking of stocking up on Fujifilm due to the hysteria of them possibly stopping their film production. I got an old Nikon FE2 off ebay. It seems to be working, but the mirror bumper is disintegrating so I need to buy one of those light seal kits and redo the seals. Theres some crud transferred to the mirror- any advice on how to clean it? I don't want to scratch the mirror.
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2024 18:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 19:08 |
|
|
LimaBiker posted:To expose it at 1600, while the camera thinks it's 400, you can just set the exposure compensation to -2. It will then expose as if it were 1600 iso film. Ok maybe I’ll load it up with the 400 and do -2 exposure comp. My only hope is it remembers that between shots. If I have to set it every time there’s no way I shoot a whole roll correctly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2024 19:39
|
|
|
Hello again film thread. I bought another even dumber thing:  What kind of speed film should I run in this? Here are the available shutter speeds, lens is 50mm f2.8. I'm unlikely to ever use it outside of daylight conditions:  I'm guessing like 100? Slavvy fucked around with this message at 06:05 on Apr 7, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 05:56
|
|
|
The upper limit for normal usage would be 400 ISO in full sun given the range of shutter speeds (sunny 16 ftw). In reality, the top shutter speed is likely slower than the inscribed 1/300s. Foma 200 @ f/16 & 1/300 in full sun would probably be a good match. Once upon a time, anything rated 100 ISO/ASA was considered a high-speed film. For something a bit more period, try PanF+ or Vision3 with it's whopping 50 ISO, one of Film Ferrania's new offerings, or something more exotic like FPP Sonic 25 if you're confident in your lab.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 06:30
|
|
|
Oh sweet, that's easy enough. I'll give the panF a crack as it's fairly cheap, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 08:09
|
|
|
I learned two things today: 1) my Kodak Retina focus adjust does not actually adjust. It is stuck at near focus and has been for at least 13 years. 2) some films are supposed to be prewashed before developing. Oops.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 03:15
|
|
|
carticket posted:I learned two things today: I learned #1 after a 2 week road trip and vacation. All rolls, garbage. The old retina is like a abusive relationship. You get abused but you can't help but go back and try to fix them. What type of film requires a prewash? I've only ever done c41 and rinsed beforehand, but Ive probably forgotten before.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 03:32
|
|
|
a dingus posted:I learned #1 after a 2 week road trip and vacation. All rolls, garbage. The old retina is like a abusive relationship. You get abused but you can't help but go back and try to fix them. Further research says it's not required, but I turned a batch of HC110 dilution B black by running TMax rolls through without prewashing them, or so I'm told.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 03:42
|
|
|
Yeah, Foma 100 goes bright green, TMax purple. No need to prewash but I find hypo-clear is the best thing to clean up any residual dyes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 04:33
|
|
|
I didn’t know this was prolific enough to be a meme but lol that someone’s making stickers
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 13:17
|
|
|
Beve Stuscemi posted:Weeeeeell.......... Beve Stuscemi posted:Double weeeeell…… I've never been one to know when to give up on a bad idea, so as soon as I figured out that my 1N was a bust because it was a used, ancient film camera, I turned right around and bought another used, even more ancient film camera! I got the 1N's older brother, the EOS 1, basically the same camera with fewer autofocus points and no viewfinder shutter for long exposures So far it powers up, doesnt error out, will load and rewind film, and the rear dial works great, so its already off to a much better start! Now I just need to get it home so I can make sure it doesnt have any issues accepting lenses, and then its off to shoot a test roll  On the left: New and busted On the right: Old hotness The new one is in fantastic shape, hardly a mark on it, so I'm hoping it lived an easy life. I wish there was a way to tell how many shutter activations these old bodies have, but I'll just have to take solace in the fact that its clean, and has a manufacture date of 91, which is later in the EOS 1's lifecycle. Beve Stuscemi fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Apr 8, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 20:38
|
|
|
A kid off Facebook marketplace was selling a box of vintage Kodak cameras for $100 that belonged to his father. One of the cameras is one of those motion picture cameras. It seemed to be working okay when I messed around with it. Several of the cameras worked but had slow shutter speeds I can imagine the lube is very dried up. There's a bunch of folding cameras that I haven't even figured out how to open yet. It has a Land Camera 150 as well in decent condition, that shoots roll film that is no longer made (apparently can convert it to shoot 120 film) The film was interestingly still in the camera but it looked used up  This is cool, film expired in 1931! Part of me is curious to see if it can still be shot and developed  Interestingly, I opened up the box that appeared to be a camera box. It ended up being an entire box of Kodachrome slides!   I offered to give the slides back if they had memories, but he didn't want them and said I can "throw them away". I definitely don't think I will be throwing these away. I can separate the slides that appear to have family members or key memories to give him back later. Hopefully I can find a Kodak carousel and view some of these slides.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2024 23:48
|
|
|
lollybo posted:
Nice find! I would absolutely try that film if I were you. Worst that can happen is it doesn’t turn out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2024 23:57
|
|
|
That polaroid is the pick of the bunch. People convert them to shoot 4x5 sheet film and they're great at that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2024 23:59
|
|
|
Cool haul! You can get a nice slide viewer for like $25 on Amazon. Much easier than setting up the projector.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 00:00
|
|
|
I took my seemingly perfectly functional practika to the marina for a test run, this is the first roll I've had developed from it. Everything seems to function correctly except it looks like the view finder is kinda offset sideways? Idk how to describe it, here are some potato shots of two crappy prints that make it really obvious:  When I took the pic the buoy was totally centered, I don't think this is a skill issue because I don't have a problem with my other camera. I know the lens isn't the issue because again, it works fine on my other camera.  Again the walkway was pretty close to perfectly centred in the viewfinder. What causes this? Can I fix it somehow?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 00:55
|
|
|
Just crop. I can barely remember how I composed my photos anyway, intent is in the edit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 00:59
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:I took my seemingly perfectly functional practika to the marina for a test run, this is the first roll I've had developed from it. Everything seems to function correctly except it looks like the view finder is kinda offset sideways? Idk how to describe it, here are some potato shots of two crappy prints that make it really obvious: Is one of your eyes further to the left or right than the other? One of mine is definitely higher than the other, or one leg is shorter because the horizon is never straight on my pictures.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 01:45
|
|
|
Also if your scans and prints are from a lab they could have hosed up the scanning position. Look at the negs and see if they're similarly off
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 02:04
|
|
|
a dingus posted:Is one of your eyes further to the left or right than the other? One of mine is definitely higher than the other, or one leg is shorter because the horizon is never straight on my pictures. It's got nothing to do with my eyes etc, I have no problems with my other camera. This camera just seems to cut off the left hand edge of the picture when you're looking through the viewfinder. So if you're standing dead center in front of an object it will appear perfectly head on in the photo but off to the right. I'm not interested in editing or cropping things digitally, the whole reason I switched to film is cause I have no interest in that stuff. But that's neither here nor there. The issue is definitely in the camera because again, I've never had this problem with my other camera at the same lab over the course of a bunch of rolls. I don't really see how the lab could've hosed it up but I'm not that clear on how that side works so maybe. Seems unlikely. I'm thinking the viewfinder or mirror or something is misaligned somehow? Or it's just east German shityness? It's a fifty year old camera.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 02:24
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:I'm thinking the viewfinder or mirror or something is misaligned somehow? Or it's just east German shityness? It's a fifty year old camera. You’re probably aware, but remember viewfinders typically don’t have 100% coverage. For example, my Nikkormat FT2 viewfinder has 92% coverage which was extremely apparent when I developed my first roll after getting a 24mm lens. Maybe your viewfinder is somehow misaligned and all of the missing horizontal coverage is on one side. I have no idea if or how that would be possible tho.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 02:40
|
|
|
I very much doubt the viewfinder / mirror is misaligned. That would lead to a whole host of other problems which would mean missing focus. The only thing I can think of is that the silvering has come off one side of the mirror, but also that would mean you wouldn't see the full image in your viewfinder. The best thing you can do is review the negatives as with just scans you're at the mercy of whatever the lab does. Labs are not particularly interested in providing you the best scan possible, only a good enough one for every customer, and labs routinely mess up. Also you should edit, a negative is just sheet music, the edited image is your performance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 02:48
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:It's got nothing to do with my eyes etc, I'm almost positive you have one eye more to the right of the other and vice versa. I'm just loving with you but you should crop your photos either digitally or on the enlarger.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 03:19
|
|
|
It's an SLR right? I know horizontal calibration can be an issue with rangefinders, but I've never heard of such a thing in an SLR... If you look at something with parallel lines in the viewfinder do they look parallel?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 03:48
|
|
|
Dive Bars: Nature's Tripod If having an SLR doesn't earn you a side-eye then ordering a Manhattan up definitely will.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 05:06
|
|
|
Update: looked at the negatives and they were perfectly centered, lab hosed up somehow. Time to find a new place I guess
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 06:25
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Update: looked at the negatives and they were perfectly centered, lab hosed up somehow. If you're doing black and white and really keen on it then home processing is the way to go. It's super cheap and the quality you'll get out of it will surpass any lab you can find. Initial investment for 35mm might look like $400 - $500 of gear (developing gear, chemicals, scanner, negative storage) but at least in Australia that's quickly recouped. My local charges $25 for dev and high res scan, it cost me 4c to process one roll.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 07:01
|
|
|
Megabound posted:If you're doing black and white and really keen on it then home processing is the way to go. It's super cheap and the quality you'll get out of it will surpass any lab you can find. Initial investment for 35mm might look like $400 - $500 of gear (developing gear, chemicals, scanner, negative storage) but at least in Australia that's quickly recouped. My local charges $25 for dev and high res scan, it cost me 4c to process one roll. It was xp2, so a fair bit cheaper per roll than 'real' BW, but I take your point
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 07:30
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:It was xp2 Fancy that, so was the Manhattan snapshot, metered at ISO 800 and processed in C-41 bleach bypass. From the same roll a ~12x enlargement onto 3.5x5" paper.  After a few more printing sessions I'm going to bleach & re-fix the negatives to see if it makes any difference.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 10:47
|
|
|
That looks fantastic, love the texture
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 10:53
|
|
|
lollybo posted:Interestingly, I opened up the box that appeared to be a camera box. It ended up being an entire box of Kodachrome slides! I love found photos, especially slides, I’ve started collecting them and archiving them when I can. We have a found photos thread too
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 10:58
|
|
|
I got my film back from my California trip, and I'm disappointed to find that most of them are underexposed. They were all shot on my ME Super on auto mode for simplicities sake, but it looks like either the meter is off in the camera, or the shutter is fast (I'm imagining shutters normally fail to a slower speed, rather than faster?). I'll have to see if I can rescue them in Lightroom. I guess I'm glad I got the EOS1, which almost has to have a more accurate meter than the ME. Maybe I'll shoot a roll completely manually metered on the ME and see if its the shutter or meter thats messing me up. ALSO, is it a valid test to take my 5D and my EOS1 out and compare their metering results (assuming the same lens on both)? My 5D meters fine, so I'd guess if I set it to the same ISO as the EOS1 I could use it to validate the metering on the EOS1?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 15:18
|
|
|
Beve Stuscemi posted:I got my film back from my California trip, and I'm disappointed to find that most of them are underexposed. They were all shot on my ME Super on auto mode for simplicities sake, but it looks like either the meter is off in the camera, or the shutter is fast (I'm imagining shutters normally fail to a slower speed, rather than faster?). I'll have to see if I can rescue them in Lightroom. Yes you can test it that way. Ideally the same corrected focal length so you on don't get a different scene to meter. When you say you got your film back, you mean just negatives that you're going to scan right? You're not talking about prints? If it's the latter the negs may be properly exposed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 15:42
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:Yes you can test it that way. Ideally the same corrected focal length so you on don't get a different scene to meter. Just negatives, no prints
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 16:01
|
|
|
Beve Stuscemi posted:I got my film back from my California trip, and I'm disappointed to find that most of them are underexposed. They were all shot on my ME Super on auto mode for simplicities sake, but it looks like either the meter is off in the camera, or the shutter is fast (I'm imagining shutters normally fail to a slower speed, rather than faster?). I'll have to see if I can rescue them in Lightroom. ME Super light meters dying is pretty common, mine is consistently about 2 stops under. You can adjust with the exposure comp dial if it's consistent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 16:57
|
|
|
The film speed dial on one of my ME Supers is janky, so that's worth checking out. If you wiggle the dial a little it changes the speed and you can watch the shutter speed dance up and down in auto mode.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 17:28
|
|
|
I got another OM-2 for a song, and it seems like there's some light leak issues. I've ordered new seals from eBay, but I wonder if worn light seals could cause underexposed photos? Light leak:     Is black and white film more sensitive when it comes to over/underexposure? I've taken some great shots with colour film in this camera, but maybe colour film has more leeway when it comes to underexposure? afen fucked around with this message at 21:56 on Apr 11, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 11:56
|
|
|
The light meter in the camera is probably out of calibration, because a light leak wouldn't cause pictures to be underexposed. There's probably a leak around the film door since the orange color is normally created by light passing through the orange back of the film. I thought b/w film was normally more forgiving but maybe it depends on the film stock. Have you tried pushing the contrast around in post?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 12:52
|
|
|
No light seals won't cause underexposed photos. Are you scanning at home?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 20:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 19:08 |
|
|
afen posted:I got another OM-2 for a song, and it seems like there's some light leak issues. I've ordered new seals from eBay, but I wonder if worn light seals could cause underexposed photos? I would guess shutter speeds being off before light meter calibration for most cameras.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 23:30
|
|
