|
Looks pretty drat good!
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 01:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 04:08 |
|
|
The library and rear wall photos are gorgeous. What back do you have? I've been thinking of a 120 back for my 4x5.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 01:38
|
|
|
a foolish pianist posted:The library and rear wall photos are gorgeous. What back do you have? I've been thinking of a 120 back for my 4x5. It's the cheapest one I could find. http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-6x12-Roll-Film-Back-For-4x5-Large-Format-Camera-/280648716038 It came slightly broken, one of the rollers was stuck which made it impossible to advance the film after the third or fourth shot, and the plastic handle on the dark slide was coming off. These are a China Special, so lol @ the idea of a return policy, so I fixed the problems myself. You should definitely run a few test rolls through it to make sure everything is working mechanically before taking it out on a shoot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 01:41
|
|
|
Spedman posted:I'm guessing you used the Harman positive paper? Is it just like regular paper processing? Nope, I used regular old Ilford RC paper. It comes out as a negative. You can even put it in an enlarger and print it. It's a pretty awesome way to get the feel of a legacy process without going all in for new chemistry and materials. EDIT: I'll post the results when the prints are dry.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 01:56
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:Nope, I used regular old Ilford RC paper. It comes out as a negative. You can even put it in an enlarger and print it. It's a pretty awesome way to get the feel of a legacy process without going all in for new chemistry and materials. Huh? How do you use an opaque paper negative in an enlarger?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 02:12
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Huh? How do you use an opaque paper negative in an enlarger? The paper isn't 100% opaque, so if you stick enough power through it and expose for long enough it'll work. I'll be very interested in the prints that come out of it, especially from someone who knows their way around an enlarger.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 02:54
|
|
|
I was just carrying my 4x5 in from shooting some snowy backyard night shots, and I slipped on the snow on the way, falling flat on my back. Luckily, I've got good "save the machine, flesh will heal" instincts, and the camera's fine - I kept it entirely off the ground.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 03:00
|
|
|
Hey I was just wondering if any of you knew of a good quality but cheap film scanner that caters for medium format and 35mm? I have been looking online but much of the advice is contradictory. Thanks in advance
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 12:38
|
|
|
V700 is the standard recommendation. Good scanners are never really cheap.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 12:50
|
|
|
V500 works well enough, and it's much cheaper.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 14:26
|
|
|
V500 is completely fine for 120.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 18:14
|
|
|
V600 seems to be about the same price (you can get refurb v600's from epson cheaper than a v500 on amazon).
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 18:28
|
|
|
 Vintage Margarita by McMadCow, on Flickr That's my final print from the paper negative. I had to shoot wide open and I did a tilt to isolate her eye, but drat is that one sharp eye. The final exposure time on the enlarger wasn't bad at all, but doing a split filter print was pretty useless, as it takes a #5 to get good contrast through the texture of the paper. I stained the paper with tea to age it. I really love the results though, and I'm looking forward to doing more with this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 20:17
|
|
|
Wait you... you used paper as a negative, and then enlarged it ONTO paper? Did you actually enlarge, or could you theoretically shoot a paper negative and then make a contact print onto another paper?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 21:16
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:Wait you... you used paper as a negative, and then enlarged it ONTO paper? Did you actually enlarge, or could you theoretically shoot a paper negative and then make a contact print onto another paper? Yeah, that's an enlargement. It's an 8x10, but I could have gone mural sized if I wanted to. The texture of the paper negative appears in the print so it's not as clean as a cellulose negative, but there's no grain at any size, and the amount of detail is unbelievable. And yes, I believe you can make contact prints with paper negs. That was how calotypes worked, after all. I've never tried it, though. It's pretty easy to use a regular enlarger, aside from not having any grain to focus on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 21:26
|
|
|
Portra 160 Ma Maison by alkanphel, on Flickr  Wine Bottles by alkanphel, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 23:05
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:That's my final print from the paper negative. Fuuuuuuuuck! That's beautiful! So, this was just done on regular RC paper? Nothing special, just cut down some RC, put it in the holder, expose, and you're done?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 23:43
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:Nope, I used regular old Ilford RC paper.  McMadCow used RC paper!?!?!?!
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 00:01
|
|
|
^^^ As a negative! The print is fiber.  squidflakes posted:Fuuuuuuuuck! That's beautiful! Yep. Ilford pearl RC. I'm sure glossy would work just fine as well, and may print a little more cleanly. I metered at 4 ISO, so the speed is the only real issue. I shot this in a studio under 3600 w/s combined, so I didn't have to do a long exposure. Did have to shoot almost wide open, though. Out in natural light you're looking at a second+ exposure for sure.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 00:11
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:Portra 160 Very pretty tones and exposure. It looks nothing like the Portra 400 that I shot in 35mm. What gives? Just plain negative size? McMadCow posted:4 ISO... studio under 3600 w/s combined What EV would you estimate? That's really beautiful.  the hell is this bullshit by voodoorootbeer, on Flickr Is this a light leak and/or textured reflection off the backing paper? No leaks on this camera yet for me until this (5th) roll. I haven't even been particularly careful when unloading the camera in the past, besides doing it indoors.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 03:57
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:Wait you... you used paper as a negative, and then enlarged it ONTO paper? Did you actually enlarge, or could you theoretically shoot a paper negative and then make a contact print onto another paper? I read an article years ago in Black & White Photography (a wonderful UK photo magazine BTW). It was about how you could make a paper negative and then use a lightbox and a pencil to dodge it by shading on the back of the paper as a way to make a contact print but have more control over the final image.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 04:17
|
|
|
voodoorootbeer posted:Very pretty tones and exposure. It looks nothing like the Portra 400 that I shot in 35mm. What gives? Just plain negative size? Thanks. I think the negative size does play a part, in having better tonality, but I think it also depends on how the lab develops the film and how they/we colour correct it after scanning.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 06:03
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:And yes, I believe you can make contact prints with paper negs. I used paper in a pinhole camera and made contact prints with it, I was dubious that it would work, but I guess enough light gets through the paper to expose the other paper. Exposure times weren't even very long.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 06:51
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:^^^ As a negative! The print is fiber. Well thank loving God, I thought you had lost it and were pissing in jars and printing on RC paper a la Howard Hughes. quote:I metered at 4 ISO, so the speed is the only real issue. How did you determine the ISO of the paper?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 17:47
|
|
|
Is this a good deal if it actually works? http://newyork.craigslist.org/fct/pho/3647418207.html
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 18:13
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:Is this a good deal if it actually works? http://newyork.craigslist.org/fct/pho/3647418207.html It's not a great deal, but tessar rolleis are great apart from the dark focusing screen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 18:45
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:Well thank loving God, I thought you had lost it and were pissing in jars and printing on RC paper a la Howard Hughes. The thing is though, it is better suited for this application because it's thinner and it dries flat. So that makes it easier to put through an enlarger. An enlarger that is pointed at some luscious fiber paper.  squidflakes posted:How did you determine the ISO of the paper? I had done this years ago in class. The instructor told us to run tests on it around 1 or 2 ISO and go from there. This time the negatives looked best at 4 ISO. You're going to arrive somewhere in that range. 8th-samurai posted:It's not a great deal, but tessar rolleis are great apart from the dark focusing screen. $200 is a great deal for a Rolleiflex. At least where I'm from. It might be a little pricey for a Rolleicord.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 19:31
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:$200 is a great deal for a Rolleiflex. At least where I'm from. It might be a little pricey for a Rolleicord. User tessar Rolleiflexs seem to go for between $200 and $300 on ebay, the later planar and xenotar models are much more desirable and expensive. I have a post war Automat myself and apart from a giant scratch in the taking lens and the dark finder, it's a lovely camera. I only payed like $100 or $150 for mine because the previous owner had savaged it with an ill fitting leather replacement kit and spray paint.  DSC_2823 by 8th-samurai, on Flickr If you have $200 and don't already own a TLR you should buy a Rollei.  20100909-002 by 8th-samurai, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 06:31
|
|
|
^^^ That's some nice light right there. How's Lou as a person? I like his photography but I couldn't stand his stance back in the day - he was all about ~*SOOC*~ I have a question about the noise levels in my scans. I scan using V500 and VueScan. The latest roll I scanned seems ok, but the shots have what I think is too much noise, and I'm trying to figure out of the noise is due to the film/scanner/scanning technique. Here is a 100% crop of a Portra 400 frame, scanned at 3200dpi:  I haven't seen this kind of noise on my shots before, it doesn't look like film grain to me. I'm wondering of VueScan is underexposing my frames when I select them for a scan. I kind of wish I had a macro lens to 'scan' a frame that way and compare.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 16:36
|
|
|
I went to his workshop figuring I would get to network with some local photographers and learn a bit. Turned out most of the people that showed up were from out of town and not that interesting to talk to because they were actually sort of bad photo takers. The group critique was... interesting. Lou Bedlam is a pretty cool guy though, chatted with him a bit. I wouldn't do another one of his workshops but would totally buy the guy a beer if he was ever in town again I used to get similar noise from my v600, I think it's just a limitation of the cheaper scanners.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 16:47
|
|
|
Haha, what was the critique like? Was it like flickr comments? Time to either buy a V750 or a macro I guess.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 16:53
|
|
|
It was basically people trying to say nice things about photos taken by mediocre flickr photographers. So a bit awkward. get a v700 you won't regret it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 16:59
|
|
|
That looks like every Portra 400 photo I've scanned.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 17:02
|
|
|
dukeku posted:That looks like every Portra 400 photo I've scanned. Yep. 8th-samurai posted:get a v700 you won't regret it. Yep.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 17:32
|
|
|
Sounds good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 18:25
|
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:^^^ That's some nice light right there. How's Lou as a person? I like his photography but I couldn't stand his stance back in the day - he was all about ~*SOOC*~ i think that's just the grain. here's 100% crop of some ektar 100, which is even finer grained and scanned on an x5, and you can still see some noise. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 19:48
|
|
|
I need to shoot some Ektar. I guess I'm hitting the limitations of my scanner then. Good to know!
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 21:51
|
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:I need to shoot some Ektar. Ehhhhh...... I've never personally said those words. But then again I irrationally hate Ektar.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 23:07
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:Ehhhhh...... I've never personally said those words. Ektar isn't for everything but it's a wonderful film
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 23:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 04:08 |
|
|
QPZIL posted:Ehhhhh...... I've never personally said those words. You also stopped using your ME Super. It's obvious that you aren't one to be trusted when it comes to film.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 23:31
|
|