|
Lifehack Only photograph anuses and it will always look like rear end
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 04:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 09:06 |
|
|
I've been mucking around with a 1938 Leica IIIa I was given. I've chucked the 50mm f2.8 Elmar from 1958 I bought for my IIIg originally, although I have a '49 Summitar which is now almost always mounted to it. These were taken on God's Own Film (Fomapan 100).  The other oddball I have is I recently acquired a Leica M1 - it's an M2 sans rangefinder. I'm not sold on the M over my screwmount Leicas for a stack of reasons (the RF telescope on the screwmounts are great), but I can get why the M has a real following. This was definitely shot on a roll of Fomapan 100, but I can't remember if this is on the f2.8 Elmar or the Jupiter-12. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 07:29
|
|
|
First of all scanning is relaxing. Sure it takes time but it's an important part of the process. Unless you are printing it's likely the first time you really get to see your photos which to me is still magical. It's also when you get to decide what the final images will look like. It's a great opportunity to think about your photos and how they all fit together. Or to think about photography in general!
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 13:39
|
|
|
Foma 100 ftw
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 13:39
|
|
|
I’ve always wondered: how hard is it doing darkroom prints of colored negatives? I know how to do B&W, even if I haven’t for a while, and prints with enlargers but I’ve always been told color negative film was designed from The ground up to be done via machines
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 21:35
|
|
|
It's a far more rigid process with less opportunity for creativity than black and white printing. Dodging and burning a colour print introduces colour shifts and you can't change contrast. The whole process has to be done in complete darkness (unless you have a very expensive safelight). The process is essentially:
For me the additional effort isn't worth it for the reduced artistic input. I'd rather scan and edit the few colour photos I take and get them printed with a nice inkjet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 22:28
|
|
|
I'm not sure yet, but i might sell my Osram Duka 10 low pressure sodium safelight. Sodium is the one you need for color paper. *If* i am gonna sell it, the price will be 50 euro, willing to ship worldwide. Works perfectly fine, and it is complete in its original box with user manual and stamped warranty form from 1985. If anyone might be interested, let me know. Whether i actually will sell it, depends on some other stuff i'm trying to get rid of. My tech room is too full of interesting old electronics. Even with the dedicated sodium safe light, you need to turn it all the way down for working with modern color paper, because the modern stuff is more sensitive than what they used when the safelight was new. I would like to have fully analog color prints just for the sake of doing it without a computer, but i feel like i don't have the energy to get into yet another workflow. If i were to do it, i'd do it in a communal dark room so i can use the RA-4 processing machines. LimaBiker fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Nov 11, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 23:26
|
|
|
I would be very interested in this if you decide to let it go
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 23:30
|
|
|
Ok, I went to the place with the dark rooms that sells film to buy film and walked out with a professionally refurbished Yashica Mat 124G. All the cameras I inherited that are medium format take 620 film and I really just don't want to deal with that. I really need to find all my undeveloped film stash and send em over.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2023 02:08
|
|
|
some delta 400 in a p&s 
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2023 03:43
|
|
|
I love that sequence
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2023 04:08
|
|
|
I know Cinestill is supposed to be evil, but shot my first roll of it and liked how several turned out. I know they aren't perfectly sharp I shot all of them handheld, but I was usually out and about        Also open to feedback- what do you think of the last one? I don't really know what my subject was supposed to be, but I thought it would be a unique perspective
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2023 04:13
|
|
|
Recoome posted:I've been mucking around with a 1938 Leica IIIa I was given. I've chucked the 50mm f2.8 Elmar from 1958 I bought for my IIIg originally, although I have a '49 Summitar which is now almost always mounted to it. These were taken on God's Own Film (Fomapan 100).  I just bought a iiif last month for myself. Shot my first roll of film and eagerly awaiting for it to get developed. What are the risk of light leaks on this camera? I have the older version of your lens, the Elmar is legendary though and what put Leica on the map. Both of your pictures look great. Did you have to get a new rangefinder mirror on yours? I bought from KEH the initial one was rated “excellent” and the mirror was in terrible shape, they have a great exchange policy and sent me another one in great shape, bright mirror and I suspect it had been CLAed as it functions more smoothly. lollybo fucked around with this message at 04:28 on Nov 12, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2023 04:18
|
|
|
lollybo posted:
Nice camera! I really rate these Barnacks are great user cameras so I don't think you can go wrong with them. The mechanism is extremely simple and really the number of these still kicking around is a real testament to how great they really are. The risk of light leaks are really small - the primary issue will be shutter pinholes or something like that. Anything prior to the Leica IIIc will have some issues with light getting around the baffles if the lens is removed in strong light, but that'll be it. I had a really oddball light leak with my IIIg because some of the vulcanite had come away from between the slow speed dial and the lens mount, as well as from around the lens mount. I just used RTV silicone black to fill it in rather than re-covering the whole thing but that would've worked as well. The advantage of these bottom-loaders is theres just not a lot of ways light can get in. I'll be getting a new mirror/optics clean on the IIIg in the next 12 months - it's not terrible but my IIIa absolutely smokes it regarding how nice the RF telescope is. The most annoying thing for me was doing the vertical alignment on the RF for the IIIg - there's not a lot of documentation as it's a bit more of an oddball Barnack but I ended up turning the prism with a toothpick and now it's awesome. e: the biggest trick is loading, for sure. It took a few rolls to get "the touch" but now it's dead simple to get the roll, pull it so it's 22 sprocket holes long, cut a 20 sprocket hole leader, and then seating the film. It's to the point where I can change film in and out and not lose a frame as long as it's going into another Barnack. Recoome fucked around with this message at 05:20 on Nov 12, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2023 05:17
|
|
|
lollybo posted:I know Cinestill is supposed to be evil, but shot my first roll of it and liked how several turned out. I know they aren't perfectly sharp I shot all of them handheld, but I was usually out and about I don't want to start a pile on, but my problem with cinestill (ignoring the ongoing corporate controversy) is that every single one of these would look better without being covered in red halation blobs
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2023 05:18
|
|
|
That's very true but if you are some kind of sicko who likes that then buy Reflex Lab film cause it's exactly the same thing
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2023 05:32
|
|
|
big black turnout posted:every single one of these would look better without being covered in red halation blobs 
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2023 05:46
|
|
|
Does anyone have a specific light meter app for Android that they find works well? The guy at the shop actually said that's what he uses for metering, but his was an iPhone app.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2023 05:49
|
|
|
I think halation blobs look neat in black and white - esp around candles n poo poo
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2023 05:50
|
|
|
carticket posted:Does anyone have a specific light meter app for Android that they find works well? The guy at the shop actually said that's what he uses for metering, but his was an iPhone app. This is the one I use when I don't have any other light meter on me https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.willblaschko.android.lightmeterv2.free
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2023 08:24
|
|
|
Megabound posted:This is the one I use when I don't have any other light meter on me Thanks. I'll have to check it against my DSLR results and see if it's close. I was way more comfortable with everything film, including trusting the camera light meters, when I was doing it regularly. I guess I'll still probably pick up a good modern incident light meter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2023 13:57
|
|
|
In the last thread I mentioned I wanted to see how different gammas of one film stock impact the resulting scans. I wanted to do this because (1) this article argues that Zone 8 density should be ~1.25 while my Zone 8 density is often ~2.0, and (2) I don't want to gently caress up some expired film I had recently picked up. The idea was to do two test rolls of Delta 100 where the only variable is developing time, characterize the film speed and gamma, and then do some actual subjects using another two rolls, so I can compare how different gammas impact scans of high dynamic range and low dynamic range scenes. I just finished the speed/gamma characterization and things are not going too well. Methods: I am using a light panel to create a uniformly lit surface, and I use my camera to shoot a "dose array": exposures from -5.5 stops to +5 stops, along with one blank witness frame so I can measure base + fog. The setup looks like:  I keep the aperture fixed and only adjust exposure time, making sure that +5 lands on 1 s. Developing: I use 12 mL Rodinal in 900 mL water (1+75) at 20 C for each roll of 120, and I use constant agitation in a Simma roller. On one roll I assumed ISO 100 and developed for 15 minutes, while on the other roll I assumed ISO 20 and developed for 10 minutes. Stop: 45 mL IlfoStop in 900 mL water (1+20), 1 minute Fix: 190 mL Ilford Rapid Fixer in 760 mL water (1+4), 5 minutes Rinse: 4 times rinse/agitate/dump with tap water, two final rinses with water that was filtered and then distilled Measuring:  The resulting roll is cut up into four strips, placed on the light panel, and I use my spot meter to measure how many stops darker the frames are relative to the blank witness frame. To eliminate ambient light, I place the light meter in physical contact with the film holder sheet and I put a cap on the eyepiece of the spot meter (though this last point only impacts the high density measurements). Stops are then converted to density in a spreadsheet. Results:  The data are plotted. Film speed is determined as the place where I get a density of 0.10. So if I meter at ISO 100, and the -4 exposure gives me a density of 0.10, then the film is indeed ISO 100. But if I get a density of 0.10 at the -3.5 exposure (half a stop more light than expected), then the actual film speed is ISO 70 (half a stop slower than assumed). Fudge factors: My Sekonik can only use 1/3 stop increments in ISO, while my Hasselblad can only shoot in half stop time increments. If I don't have a frame with a density of 0.10, I have to make an educated guess. In the ISO 20 roll, I had to use the lens wide open which resulted in some vignetting. Question: I am not surprised that the roll that was developed for 15 minutes came out with a high gamma of >1. But I was hoping that the second roll would give me a gamma of 0.6. Unfortunately, it appears that if I insist on reaching that gamma by just adjusting develop time (nothing else) I would end up with a film speed of ~ISO 10, which is comically slow compared to half box speed. So, what is the easiest parameter to tune? I am thinking the constant agitation is the next thing to adjust. I had initially bought the Simma roller so I would get consistent results. I come from the photolithograthy world, where one either agitates constantly or not at all; anything in between will give inconsistent results. Since I don't like the results of stand developing, I decided on constant agitation. But if this locks in high Z8 densities I will try a roll with normal black and white developing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2023 20:56
|
|
|
I've been shooting 16mm in this Minolta-16 MG and it's good fun. This is Double-X in HC-110, a bit overexposed.     
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2023 00:23
|
|
|
that glow is nice
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2023 03:47
|
|
|
Nice ergodox nerd
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2023 04:51
|
|
|
Thanks nerd!
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2023 05:09
|
|
|
You're welcome. I have the exact same one at home and the black one at work. On topic question: do y'all have multiple size development tanks? Right now I only have a Paterson 3 reel but I feel like I'd like to have a single reel tank so I don't *have* to shoot 3 rolls.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2023 05:12
|
|
|
big black turnout posted:You're welcome. I have the exact same one at home and the black one at work. You can just fill it part way up. Personally I'm lazy and have only developed a single roll of film like, 2-3 times in 15+ years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2023 05:20
|
|
|
How do you deal with inversions when it's going to be taking the film totally out of the liquid?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2023 05:22
|
|
|
big black turnout posted:You're welcome. I have the exact same one at home and the black one at work. Lol, I've got black with legends at work and white with blanks at home too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2023 05:36
|
|
|
big black turnout posted:How do you deal with inversions when it's going to be taking the film totally out of the liquid? It's fine, you're thinking too hard about it. I run single reels in my 2 reel tank all the time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2023 05:37
|
|
|
big black turnout posted:How do you deal with inversions when it's going to be taking the film totally out of the liquid? Buddy, I develop 4x5 in a Paterson tank with no holders!!
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2023 07:23
|
|
|
On the bottom of a paterson tank there's written how much liquid you need to use. 290 milliliter per 135, 500ml per 120 in my case. I always add a tiny bit extra just to be sure...
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2023 07:57
|
|
|
My 2 reel tank says 500ml but I always put 600ml. Once I had bubble shadows show up on my negs which was due to lowered volume in the tank because of a leak I assume. Switched to 600 and I've never had that issue before.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2023 15:37
|
|
|
theHUNGERian posted:[nerd poo poo] Tried "normal" (not constant agitation) B&W developing where I do 5 inversion in the first 10 seconds of every minute and things look better.  I'll stick to this recipe for now and only make changes to the development time as needed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2023 03:24
|
|
|
I checked the Yashica light meter against that phone app, and they both reported the same. I checked my Zeiss Bullseye against that app and the camera meter read a few stops low. I did some reading from a guy that repairs these cameras and apparently the meters are just awful in the context of modern film speeds and only really good with sub-100 ISO films. I think I used to use that meter, but I can't remember. I'll have to experiment with it once I'm developing my own film again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2023 19:22
|
|
|
carticket posted:I checked the Yashica light meter against that phone app, and they both reported the same. I checked my Zeiss Bullseye against that app and the camera meter read a few stops low. I did some reading from a guy that repairs these cameras and apparently the meters are just awful in the context of modern film speeds and only really good with sub-100 ISO films. I think I used to use that meter, but I can't remember. I'll have to experiment with it once I'm developing my own film again. You also don't know how center-weighted the camera meter is vs the other methods. Just shoot Portra 400 and leave the meters at home!
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2023 21:11
|
|
|
Counterpoint
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2023 21:41
|
|
|
Megabound posted:Counterpoint This is awesome. What is it called.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2023 22:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 09:06 |
|
|
carticket posted:This is awesome. What is it called. The light meter is a TTArtisans one, and it's a 3D printed cold shoe to NATO strap adapter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2023 23:27
|
|