|
 img330 by spf3million, on Flickr dust 
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 13:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 11:18 |
|
|
well hello  
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 20:27
|
|
|
gently caress yeah, one of my all-time never-sell lenses (along with any variation of the SMCP-35mm/6x7-75mm, Nikon 105/2.5, and another few select lenses). I've never tested it scientifically, but it's sharp enough for me all over right from wide open. It give s nice amount of perspective distortion if you use it up close, it doesn't foreshorten too bad at infinity, the contrast is great, it's difficult to flare, and it uses a reasonable filter size. I basically have no complaints whatsoever about that lens. It's even very reasonably priced for a high-performance Distagon. It really doesn't get better than this unless you go buy a Mamiya 7 or something. Talk about diminishing returns. Someday I'd love to try the 75/2.8 asph and the 300 or 400 EDIF. I really ought to sell a bunch of my other crap to get hunting for one. I'd love to see what the modern high-ISO sensors can do for astrophotography. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 01:29 on Aug 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 01:20
|
|
|
Saint Fu posted:
What do you mean? Dust exposes black on negative film.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 01:46
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:What do you mean? Dust exposes black on negative film. Dust physically on the negative is black and gets inverted to white.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 01:54
|
|
|
pseudonordic posted:Dust physically on the negative is black and gets inverted to white. But it isn't. Dust blocks light and therefore the negative beneath it is clear, which prints as black. White dust happens on negatives AFTER exposure and blocks the paper/scanner, equalling white. I mean, I think we're both saying the same thing here, but my point is that if that dust isn't black, why hasn't Saint Fu just cleaned his/her negative or spotted the dust in Photoshop? Why bother telling us?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 02:14
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:I mean, I think we're both saying the same thing here, but my point is that if that dust isn't black, why hasn't Saint Fu just cleaned his/her negative or spotted the dust in Photoshop? Why bother telling us? Whining about an insignificant aspect of your photo that displeases you is a time honored tradition?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 02:17
|
|
|
Because I tried cleaning the negative and spent a good deal of time with the spot healing brush in PS already.Paul MaudDib posted:Whining about an insignificant aspect of your photo that displeases you is a time honored tradition?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 02:19
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:But it isn't. Dust blocks light and therefore the negative beneath it is clear, which prints as black. Fixed it for you. But seriously why does anyone tell anyone on a forum. We should only post pictures and let the pictures tell their own tale, whatever that may be. Because art.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 02:41
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:But seriously why does anyone tell anyone on a forum. We should only post pictures and let the pictures tell their own tale, whatever that may be. Not at all, I think stories and statements that accompany pictures can be great. I just don't get why he was complaining about a problem that is 100% fixable but remained unfixed by choice. It gave me the impression that it was misidentified as something that couldn't be corrected (dust during exposure). Mr. Despair posted:Because art. I don't see any boobs in that picture. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 02:58
|
|
|
Thanks McMadCow, you're right I was just being lazy. My complaint was more with regards to diminishing returns with dust removal. I don't have woot-esque patience and thought I had gotten to the point of good-enough but now can't stop seeing the dust I missed. If I were going to pay to have it printed I would give it another round but I don't care that much. Why can't my photos be perfect the second I scan them without any effort on my part?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 03:55
|
|
|
Saint Fu posted:Thanks McMadCow, you're right I was just being lazy. My complaint was more with regards to diminishing returns with dust removal. I don't have woot-esque patience and thought I had gotten to the point of good-enough but now can't stop seeing the dust I missed. If I were going to pay to have it printed I would give it another round but I don't care that much. Why can't my photos be perfect the second I scan them without any effort on my part? One neat trick that I found helps at least with the eyestrain part: 1.Copy your layer. 2.Use the Photoshop automatic dust removal thingy on your layer, yes it will butcher fine detail. That's OK. 3.Set the layer mode to difference. Now all the dust (and some fine detail) will glow brightly. 4.Spot away.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 08:41
|
|
|
VomitOnLino posted:One neat trick that I found helps at least with the eyestrain part: The newest version of Lightroom has something like this, if you select the heal brush and look at the bottom of the window right above the film strip there is a check box that will highlight dust spots and detail areas.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 15:32
|
|
|
swt
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 18:22
|
|
|
Was at a wedding in Norway recently, here's cake on Porta 400 shot as 800 pushed one stop: Question: I will be shooting some black & white soon, and I'll be doing the development. I don't have any wetting agent, but I have Tetenal Colortec C41 fixer. Isn't that just the wetting agent? Can I use it to get rid of those nasty water spots that sometimes form because of stray droplets not running off? (EDIT) And oh, here's one recent one from Flickr...  Wooden Dry-Dock Rail by Cdammen, on Flickr Mega Itch fucked around with this message at 20:34 on Aug 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 20:30
|
|
|
No don't use the c41 fix, thats similar to the B&W fix that you'll use and needs to be completely rinsed off at the end of the process. What you want is some Kodak photo-flo, you should be able to get that from wherever you get B&W chemicals, its cheap and a bottle lasts for ages.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 22:35
|
|
|
TMAX 400 Geylang Serai Market by alkanphel, on Flickr Provia 100F, converted to b&w  Adam by alkanphel, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 01:22
|
|
|
Is this what shooting LF is like guys? Someone please let me know tia.  I can't believe this didn't go in the OP. Dr. Despair fucked around with this message at 10:31 on Aug 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 10:28
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Is this what shooting LF is like guys? Someone please let me know tia. Not unless that blimp is made of money and instead of Johnny Five Aces there is only shame.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 12:46
|
|
|
A couple of shots from roll I'd forgotten about in a 1920's box camera of mine (6x9 cropped): In of Mario's by mr_student, on Flickr  Out of Mario's by mr_student, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 13:40
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Is this what shooting LF is like guys? Someone please let me know tia. The OP has been updated.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 17:17
|
|
|
My 120 Portra supplies are running critically low and I'm heading to Croatia on holiday in a couple weeks. I'll definitely be getting some more but while I'm at it does anyone have sweet colour film recommendations that I might not have tried yet? I've mainly been using Portra 160 and 400 and Velvia 100 so far, bit of Provia too. Just waiting for my new lens to show up at the moment.  
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 20:56
|
|
|
I'm a little scared to ask how much you put down for that lens? If you're good at metering you could try some Ektar, it's as finicky as slide film with exposure. I think it was intended to be Kodaks replacement for the Ektachrome films.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 21:57
|
|
|
Spedman posted:I'm a little scared to ask how much you put down for that lens?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 22:03
|
|
|
Yeah, just treat it like slide film in terms of metering precision. I figure you have about a half stop of real wiggle room, one stop overexposed is probably OK, beyond that you really take your chances. It gets really saturated, everything gets an earthy cast, and the colors tend to go neon (laser yellow, cyan blue, fire engine red). On the other hand if you're bemoaning the death of Ultra Color films then it's the stock for you. Set your meter at 50 or 40 and go to town.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 22:23
|
|
|
I got a bunch of expired Portra 400UC from a guy who was moving to digital and I like it, so perhaps I'll give it a shot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 22:26
|
|
|
VomitOnLino posted:One neat trick that I found helps at least with the eyestrain part:
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 01:42
|
|
|
Polaroid dust & scratch remover also works really well (it also installs as a Photoshop plugin) http://web.archive.org/web/20071015015231/http://www.polaroid.com/service/software/poladsr/pdsr1_0.exe I'll have to try that difference layer trick, it sounds handy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 02:21
|
|
|
Spedman posted:I'm a little scared to ask how much you put down for that lens? Nah. I've shot just as much Ektar as Provia, and I've hosed up way more Provia. I tend to go with either sunny 16 or a meter app on my phone with occasional DSLR test shots to meter. It could be that I just tend to get lucky with my Ektar or I shoot the Provia under more challenging conditions but I dunno. If you're even remotely competent, you'll be fine with Ektar.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 04:29
|
|
|
I'd love to start shooting medium or large format film, but I live in an apartment with zero options for home development. My next big purchase I was thinking would be a Pentax 6x7, would I be able to get the film developed anywhere locally (I live in Denver, not sure if major places still work with anything other than 35mm) or is this something I'd need to ship out someplace until I can work on developing my own film rolls?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 04:02
|
|
|
Do you have a sink? If so, you're good to go. If not, you've got more important things to think about than photography.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 04:10
|
|
|
GobiasIndustries posted:I'd love to start shooting medium or large format film, but I live in an apartment with zero options for home development. My next big purchase I was thinking would be a Pentax 6x7, would I be able to get the film developed anywhere locally (I live in Denver, not sure if major places still work with anything other than 35mm) or is this something I'd need to ship out someplace until I can work on developing my own film rolls? Yeah, plenty of places to develop 120 in C-41 pretty much in any decent-sized city (E-6 not so many but you can probably find). If you're shooting black and white learn to develop at home. I live in an apartment and load the film under three blankets and it all works all right.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 04:11
|
|
|
HPL posted:Do you have a sink? If so, you're good to go. If not, you've got more important things to think about than photography. I have a sink, but I also have a roommate who I'm sure will be plenty irritated when I start sealing off the kitchen or the bathroom for large amounts of time to develop crappy landscape photos or such. Unless I'm really missing something, I was under the impression that you needed complete darkness to develop film, and that's really not an option for my living situation right now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 04:20
|
|
|
GobiasIndustries posted:I have a sink, but I also have a roommate who I'm sure will be plenty irritated when I start sealing off the kitchen or the bathroom for large amounts of time to develop crappy landscape photos or such. Unless I'm really missing something, I was under the impression that you needed complete darkness to develop film, and that's really not an option for my living situation right now. Unless you're doing your own printing, you only really need total darkness for loading film into your tank. The tank should be light-tight and will provide all the darkness you need.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 04:31
|
|
|
Yond Cassius posted:Unless you're doing your own printing, you only really need total darkness for loading film into your tank. The tank should be light-tight and will provide all the darkness you need. Good to know; I'll take the film developing questions into the film thread for more fleshed-out answers. Thanks for the replies all, still planning on picking up a 6x7 sometime soon, so it's good to know I have options for external development until I'm good to experiment with film development at home.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 04:40
|
|
|
I feel like i am accumulating more and more medium format gear, but shoot it less and less as I favor the convenience and inexpensiveness of 35mm film. I need a kick in the butt, and put my F3 aside for a while, because Ican handle film much better than this now:  scan0252.jpg by Stingray of Doom, on Flickr ... and I want to see what I can do with a 120mm negative.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 07:59
|
|
|
I tested my new DIY portable darkroom today in possibly the windiest/wettest days we've had all year. The darkroom went well for its first run, it needs some adjustment with the tarp dark cover, where the flap on the tarp needs to be attached with velcro or something. Also I need to get a strong camping light and cover with red cellophane, the 25W lamp wasn't bright enough to really see the developer and collodion pouring properly, hence the plates came out a mess. The resulting images were exposed okay on both aluminium and acrylic, but the pours and light leaks from the poorly shut tent ruined the images. The darkroom tent.  Now with tarp for darkness.  Inside with all the stinky chemicals.  The terrible plates.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 13:32
|
|
|
Putrid Grin posted:... and I want to see what I can do with a 120mm negative. It's not 120mm.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 16:44
|
|
|
dukeku posted:It's not 120mm. Unless you shoot 6x12 or 9x12. (The numberings for roll film types have nothing to do with measurements. They are essentially just old Kodak catalog numbers.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 17:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 11:18 |
|
|
6cm then?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 18:12
|
|