|
These were posted near the end of the old thread, and are worth repeating: http://www.toyoview.com/LargeFrmtTech/lgformat.html http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/camera%20movements.html
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2013 20:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 22:41 |
|
|
aliencowboy posted:How feasible is it to unload a partially shot roll of 120 and reload it later? I have a single exposure used on a roll of Velvia 50 that's been keeping me from shooting what I want to. I think you should be able to open the camera in a dark room, remove both spools from the camera and wind it back up on the source one. There might be a risk of losing some film/backing tension i.e. risking the film being less plane on the second run through. If your alternative is just dumping the roll entirely I'd say go for it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2013 21:29
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:I've done this and it works fine. It will be especially easy since you're only on the first frame. Had you been further along it probably would have been easier to shoot the roll with the lens cap on, then reload the film and shoot it all again with the lens cap still on; basically this would rewind the film. Isn't it risky to load 120 film from the wrong end? Since only the starting end is fastened to the backing paper, when you run it backwards you risk the film itself not following the paper and jamming. This could be especially bad on cameras that don't have a flat film path, such as Hasselblad backs.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2013 22:37
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Hey LF types, a quick question. I need an iris I can butcher for use in DIY lenses You could try cheap enlarger lenses, they always come with an iris aperture and the cheapest aren't worth much anyway, optically.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2013 19:23
|
|
|
Those leaks look somewhat like what I got on my Yashica Mat-124G when the screws on the film roll holders weren't entirely tight.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2013 13:03
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Spedman posted:My new home made 8x10 sliding box camera. Sweet. How do you light-seal the sliding area, some felt glued to the wood? Does it have any kind of guide rail or otherwise, and how easy is it to focus precisely?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2013 17:06
|
|
|
What are the exposure times like with the paper? Have you tried adjusting them significantly? (I assume they are quite long, going by the sensitivity B&W paper typically has.) Maybe try lighting the scene with a series of flash fires, see if that gives a better colour rendition. Also see if you can do something to reduce the natural contrast of the scene, the colours might be getting washed out by the underexposure in the darker areas or something. Aren't RA4 papers typically rather high contrast from the beginning, since C41 film tends to have somewhat low contrast?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2013 22:55
|
|
|
I saw a quite cheap Graflex 2C in a store today, with a lens described as 15cm f/4.5. It's tempting, are there any things I should watch out for, or reasons to avoid it entirely?
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2013 19:36
|
|
|
nielsm posted:I saw a quite cheap Graflex 2C in a store today, with a lens described as 15cm f/4.5. It's tempting, are there any things I should watch out for, or reasons to avoid it entirely? Turns out it takes non-Graflok backs, and the store didn't seem to have any correct ones on hand.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2013 10:28
|
|
|
On my Yashica Mat the film gate isn't perfect and in very bright light will leak outside the picture like that, if the light source is close to an edge.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2013 16:37
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:The idea is that it doesn’t matter that it’s a 6×6 lens. It’s the same as any other 80 mm lens, e.g. one that was made for 35 mm. But the flange focal distance is probably significantly longer, and the image circle larger than a lens made for 35mm, so you might be able to mount it on bellows and tilt and shift it around.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2013 15:05
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Genderfluid posted:9x12? i've never heard of any rollfilm that's 9cm high. Yeah it's sheet film, the "metric equivalent" of 4x5" sheets. Still it's a negative with 120mm on one side 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2013 18:30
|
|
|
Elderbean posted:What films are generally available? How easy is it to develop my own negatives? Does it look like any brands will be dissapearing in the near future? By "generally available" do you mean "stocked by any random store", or "possible to buy without major hassle"? Because you won't find much more than overpriced Kodak and Fuji consumer colour-negative 135-format film in most stores that still sell film. Serious photo stores will stock a better range, and at better prices. Kodak, Fuji and Ilford films are available at any serious store. Some will also sell rebranded films at cheaper rates. Other brands that are a bit harder to come by are Agfa, Foma and Rollei. (I think the Agfa and Rollei branded films are actually made at the same plant in Germany.) There's also some Chinese brands and such. If a serious photo store carries a brand they tend to carry their entire line. Developing B/W is ridiculously easy. If you can prepare Nescafe you can develop B/W film. Colour is a little bit harder, but not much. (But the chemistry is less generally available.) Both Kodak and Fuji are shaving their film lineups to those that sell, but the worst has probably already passed.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2013 13:50
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:For someone lusting after getting into medium format (for a portrait project I have in mind - yes I know I could easily do that on 35mm/digital, medium format is just so awesome), would this be a good starter camera? It's a decent camera, the price seems fine. From the pictures is looks somewhat dirty; if you buy it, make sure you check it mechanically before starting your project. Also check that the taking lens isn't dirty. (My 124G has crap inside the taking lens, causing some bad flaring. I've read some stories about it possibly being a general problem.) The meter battery might be flat or dead, you're probably best off using an external meter. If you're going to be using flash with it, beware of the sync contact setting. It's easy to accidentally switch it from X sync to M sync. (If it's not on X sync, electronic flashes will be fired too early and barely affect the picture at all.)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2013 23:22
|
|
|
deaders posted:using my tablet as a backlight for scanning Careful with that. Unless you put an inch or so between the tablet screen and negative you can easily get the pixel matrix from the screen showing up in the pictures.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2013 11:36
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:How about throwing a sheet of tissue paper or kleenex over the screen to diffuse it? Then you get that texture on your pictures instead! There's only two things I know give even backlight diffusion for negative scanning: A uniform/textureless plastic diffuser, or any other diffuser and sufficiently distance between negative and diffuser so DoF blurs away any texture.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2013 19:15
|
|
|
This seems really strange. The lamps are lit, suggesting the sun is setting or rising. The very dark shadow areas suggest the same thing. Meanwhile the buildings in the background are brightly lit, suggesting it's high day. If this is really what you saw, then fine, but I don't think it's at all an interesting picture then. If it was actually getting dark then your processing doesn't indicate it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2014 11:37
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:How much interest do you guys think there would be for a portable battery powered scanner that can scan 135 and 120 to DNG onto a memory card. I say portable so that it does not require a host computer/desktop-software and is reasonably sized. Of course it would have to have a LCD screen for preview and settings. If you wanted to build a "different" film scanner, I think a continuous roll scanner would be more interesting. A single high-resolution pixel row (similar to flatbeds) with good backlight, in a fixed position, and then a motor feed that allows it to automatically scan a whole, uncut roll of negatives in one go. Sufficiently smart software should then also be able to cut the single huge image up into individual frames.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:
Uh, that isn't the up-arrow notation, is it? I hope it isn't. (Well okay, a single up-arrow is the same as exponentiation. Still, don't invoke crazy concepts you don't need.)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
KEH is also somewhere I don't want to deal as someone not in the US. They require dumb documentation before they want to deal with foreigners, photo of credit card or something like that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2014 10:09
|
|
|
OjaiYoda posted:developing this is going to suuuuuuck. Buy a minilab.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:Yeah it recommends 290 mL for one roll so it sounds like you were a little short for two. I always round up to 300 and 600. Google "massive dev chart ratio calculator" to get the proper measurements Paterson Universal tanks use 300 ml (290) developer per roll of 35mm film, or 500 ml per roll of 120 film, Polyfractal's issue was with a 120 film. But yes if the reel is sliding up and down during development then it might settle above the top of the developer, and you get uneven results. Use rotation agitation instead of flipping the tank, then your reels won't slide up.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2014 10:35
|
|
|
Curves in Lightroom on negatives sucks, yes. Extremely cramped and hard to do something precise. It works somewhat better if you do a pre-process step to 16 bit TIFF with inverting and basic range cropping. Pre-process to DNG doesn't work though, because Lightroom saves the unprocessed image and then the processing settings, so importing that back in gives you nothing new to work with. Not using Photoshop because it's stupid expensive. Btw sorry for soiling the medium/large format thread with a small format negative. nielsm fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Jan 26, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
mulls posted:Also, on the Epson v550 question, it looks like the Epson holder is 6mm x 22mm, so just long enough for four 645 frames but only long enough for 3 6x6 frames. Yes. You cut 120 film shot as 6x6 into 4 strips of 3 frames each. Exactly what the holder fits.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2015 10:26
|
|
|
Welp. The back lens element on my Yashica Mat 124G.  Can't imagine that being anything other than fungus.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2015 14:00
|
|
|
Managed to clean the lens in my Yashica, much better now. The skylight windows here would have had massive bleeding with the previous fungal coating.   I need a better digitizing/scanning method for medium format.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
deaders posted:Yashica Mat 124G - should be able to get one for around $200  That's some unusually long development times. If Maco or Fotoimpex has it next time I order film I'll probably try a pack.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
Tried doing some LF street. I still don't have a good scanner, so cheap DSLR scans that don't do the negatives justice.   I did toss the musicians a coin.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Nice! Speed/Crown Graphic? I used to do some street stuff with my Speed, once you dial in the Kalart that thing thing is awesome. Yes, in fact the very camera I bought off you  I'm waiting for a box of Tmax 100, that should make it easier to get photos at large apertures in sunny weather.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
Loaded some Kodak sheet film for the first time today. Is all of Kodak's packaging that lovely? Glued paper bags for the film sheets, rather than those neat black plastic bags Ilford and Foma use. The one part I did like was having multiple smaller packs inside, instead of all the sheets in a single big bag.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
Tried developing sheet film in trays today. Never again.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
crap nerd posted:Beyond toy cameras, is there anyone out there still making medium format film cameras? I think Fuji GF670 is still in production. It was introduced not too many years ago.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
Sealing foam is usually there for a reason. If you remove it, replace it with some new foam. You can usually get pre-cut replacement foam sets on eBay for a few dollar.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2015 08:17
|
|
|
Spedman posted:This might be of interest to people, a high speed (iso 120) direct positive paper Kickstarter: Actually "just" high-speed paper designed for reversal processing, but I'm chipping in for at least a small pack of 4x5" too. Might go for more later, depending on the chemistry they're promising to post about soon.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
what the gently caress posted:E; Would it be worth stating an alt process thread? IDK I don''t think there are enough dorkroomers doing it but would be nice to have a dedicated thread so we're not polluting the LF/MF thread with my bullshit. Dodge This: Wet Printing and Alternative Processes
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
That70sShirt posted:It's too bad they don't make Pan F Plus in LF. I love that stuff. Not at all the same, but low-sensitivity stuff certainly exists. You could also try orthochromatic/technical film. Rollei RPX 25 Rollei Ortho 25
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
Animal posted:I have been lusting after medium format for a while, but I am mainly a travel photographer and I just can't lug that bigass Pentax in the OP, as awesome as that would be. Any opinions on the Fujifilm GF670? It folds into a pretty compact package. It's expensive, selling for the low $1k on eBay. But it does have aperture priority which maybe in the long run will save me money on film because I won't ruin so much of it. Any similar cameras for less money?? You can usually get a Rolleiflex, Yashica Mat, or other TLR, for rather cheap. They're always 6x6 format, but in size or weight aren't much different from a typical DSLR with a small lens.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2015 08:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 22:41 |
|
|
evilspoon21 posted:
What brand of direct positive paper, and what kind of exposure are you using? I've tried some, and never had any success getting usable photos. When my photos weren't massively underexposed (metering for about ISO 3) they were still unusably high contrast.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2016 14:04
|
|
