|
So just in case anyone in here doesn't follow the film news that every Youtube, Podcast, Reddit, and Instagram outlet has been reporting on for weeks, Harman Technology (affiliated/synonymous with Ilford Photo), have created the first brand new color film emulsion in many years, coated actual film with it, stuck in 35mm canisters, and begun selling it to the public. It is an "experimental" formulation and package for now. A limited edition run from which the proceeds will be used to further R&D refinements to the film going forward. It has "a look" which is very much "contrast". Various photographers who beta tested it have had some results. The 3 videos I've found most helpful: Grainydays: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjyWK4P2sM0 He does a factory tour an interviews with several of the folks at Harman/Ilford for some more in depth background on the process Mat Marrash: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAC3UvhP3aA Has some great info on how best to scan and color correct so your images don't look like 1968's cross processing experiments while on acid (unless you want that, then go wild) Shaka1277: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5PrGMxUBb0 Has a very interesting result when cross processing in E-6 chemistry, virtually eliminating the grain present in the scanned result.
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2023 19:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 01:24 |
|
|
Honestly I feel like the Cinestill thing is a bit overblown. They got a trademark, it's probable they shouldn't have, but it's also almost certain they just hired a trademark representation firm who just looked over all this stuff and filed it for them, and if the PTO said yes then its really on the PTO for being idiots. They haven't sued anyone, they just sent letters that said "hey, we have a trademark for this title, please stop using it". I'm cynical enough now to wonder if the original guy who complained about it so vehemently (the dude who sells Reflex 800T, the film that is also Vision 500T with remjet removed), did it just to drum up sales. The Catlabs people also totally misclassified what was sent to them, and this is not taking sides it's literally in the letter they showed. It wasn't ever a threat to sue or any sort of lawsuit, just a "hey, this is in violation of our trademark fyi". Which is what you have to do btw if you own a trademark on something. If you DON'T send those kinds of letters or try to enforce it, you abandon your rights to it, something that would be pretty silly for a company who clearly just paid a trademark firm to do all of this stuff for them. It's not the greatest situation, but it's also like getting annoyed at a player for fault's in a game's core ruleset. If you don't like it, complain about the PTO or how trademarks work in general. In the meantime, just rename your film " 400 + 400 W", and enjoy the boost in sales from people who feel great about sticking it to the man. In actuality all of this stuff Cinestill did was probably a net benefit for people like Reflex.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2023 17:15
|
|
|
field balm posted:thanks for all the replies - i guess i should've known it was mainly post processing but i was hoping it was a film look i could cop, part of what attracted me to film is that (hopefully) i'll spend less time loving around at the computer. I will try some of the stuff mentioned anyway, from presets ive mucked around with ektar might be a decent guess. There's really no getting around editing. If you aren't doing it on a computer, you're doing it in the Darkroom :  Pretty much all famous film photos you know and love have been extensively worked over between negative and print. One of Ansel Adams' most famous images, Moonrise, Hernandez New Mexico, was a negative so thin it was almost unprintable. After the initial print was made (requiring dodges and burns +/- over a minute to different sections of the print), he then bleached the negative and selenium toned it to intensify it for subsequent prints. Unless you are a strict photojournalist, forbidden from altering images, you should be editing every single thing you want to actually look at again.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2023 06:14
|
|
|
carticket posted:I booked darkroom time on Saturday. I have to get a rundown of how they intend the room to be used, i.e. what do they want me to do with what I pour out of the tanks, etc. Never used a leader extractor not developed 120, so this will be interesting. It would depend on the developer, a lot of community/class darkrooms prefer one shot chems to stock because keeping track of how many rolls 20 people have run through a bottle is hard. D-76 1:1 is very common, and that will go down the drain. Stop bath will probably just be in a big tub and you pour it back in. Fixer will definitely go back into the big tub you got it from, or perhaps into a tub that has silver extraction.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2024 20:08
|
|
|
The ones that pose a real danger are the ones where they no longer make you separate things into different trays. The newer CT scanner checkpoints let them zoom in and rotate and stuff so they don't need you to sort it out, but, they blast a lot more in order to get all that visibility. The older xray ones, honestly unless its really high speed film you're probably fine going through one or even two of them from what I've seen. That said, if you arrive early and go to security when there aren't many people there yet and they have some breathing downtime, it will almost certainly not be an issue to get someone to hand check.
toadee fucked around with this message at 16:19 on Jan 12, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2024 16:15
|
|
|
Just be sure to read the actual description, in my experience. "Excellent" seems to be a lower grade than some might expect, but I have never seen the well rated ones neglect to mention something major in the description itself. Like you can see "Exc++" or something in the title, but the description mentions fungus or "minor balsam separation" etc in it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2024 22:52
|
|
|
I also got a refurb v850 and scanning large format in one pass is super convenient
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2024 15:34
|
|
|
Rodinal is fine. I think people get scared off by “increased grain” but it’s not that prominent, especially at 1:50.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2024 18:27
|
|
|
Megabound posted:It's not increased grain it's increased perceived grain. Rodinal is a non-solvent developer so it develops the silver grains as is while other developers like HC-110 are solvent developers which knock hard edges off the grain. Non-solvent developers increase perceived sharpness and Rodinal at higher dilutions also produces edge effects that can further increase perceived sharpness. Yes I know, but all people who have never put film in it is "increased grain". And also, there's not much of a difference practically between "increased grain" and "increased perceived grain", since all people tend to want to do with their negatives is perceive them, visually. And, all I was getting at is, in terms of practical results, you aren't likely to care or maybe even notice the effect on one random roll of film - it's more subtle than what discussions might hint at.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2024 22:46
|
|
|
My personal absolute favorite for black and white portraits is Fuji Acros 100. It's just so smooth yet sharp at the same time.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2024 15:17
|
|
|
topenga posted:I have lurked this subforum off and on over the years and learned quite a bit. I bought several different vintage cameras to play with because of this thread. So, thank you guys. Aside from the fact that you should just send the cameras in to get developed and stop worrying about it, you should probably also not overthink Cinestill. They hired an IP firm, the firm got a trademark that the USPTO probably shouldn't have given, but thats on the USPTO. Cinestill then sent a couple of letters to people saying "hey, we have a trademark on this". People went apeshit and said "Cinestill is suing everyone and causing community armageddon!". Cinestill did not, in fact, sue anyone, and if anything, all that really happened was a few other Kodak cinema film resellers got a bump in sales from the whole ordeal.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2024 18:44
|
|
|
I actually would stand develop in your HC-110 and not Rodinal, HC-110 suppresses fog. Dilute it 1:120, 3 inversions, tap the tank hard to get bubbles out, and leave it for an hour.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2024 17:01
|
|
|
That looks awesome, like a prop from an 80s sci fi movie.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2024 19:21
|
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:I am deeply lazy and also frequently use Sunny-16 "metering" so I use rodinal stand development exclusively. Results are... good enough that I don't bother with anything else. You should check out Diafine, similar vibes (doesn't care about temperature, doesn't care about film type, doesn't care about time even really as long as you do 3 minutes in bath A and 3 minutes in bath B), doesn't exhaust, never goes bad due to age. Eventually the film soaks up enough you need to top off you bottles but otherwise, just toss everything in the juice and it comes out. The only thing is you should agitate more than they suggest on the instructions. The only issue Ive ever had was some streaky development when I was like "oh maybe I should use their agitation scheme".
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2024 19:41
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 01:24 |
|
|
illcendiary posted:I bought an entry level Sekonic on eBay that I use for incident readings and it works well. Now that I’ve read the zone theory book, I’m having spot meter related GAS symptoms and have my eye on vintage Pentax stuff. We’ll see if I make that jump though One thing about zone theory/Ansel Adams' specific use of it - it really is focused on adjusting development for what zone you place the shadows and highlights on. This was possible for Ansel to do because he was developing one sheet at a time, and because he had done exhaustive and extensive experimentation developing test shots and measuring density in highlight and shadow areas with the results. If you don't have those constants dialed in, and/or you aren't able to adjust development to retain highlight detail even with very extremely zoned highlights, then there isn't really much gained from adhering to it. Spot meters are still useful, but just for the general knowledge/interest of the thread, it's good to note that really what you're doing is trying to meter around to find the exposure settings that are going to land the most stuff you want to retain a lot of detail of in that nice +/- two stop range, because you're almost certainly shooting a roll that you're just going to develop to some general standard.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2024 20:17
|
|