Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Rated PG-34
Jul 1, 2004




for scanning negatives using a digital cam (canon m5), would a reverse mounted nifty fifty do the trick? i don't have a dedicated macro

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

rockear
Oct 3, 2004

Slippery Tilde

HorribleAvatar posted:

Speaking of scanning film, I have a Canon Canoscan 8800f that I purchased in 2010 to scan some family film, slides, and prints. Seeing as it's now ten years old do the LEDs fade or loose any sort of efficiency to where it would affect scan quality? After I was done with the initial project I only used it a handful of times the last being in 2016. My brother also lost the film holders which I can find on ebay for around $25.00 so my other question is it worth it at this point to buy those film holder or should I get another scanner? Thanks in advance.

I use an 8800f and find the results to be pretty decent for 35mm. One caveat is the Canon software seems like it sucks to me. I already had a Vuescan license so I'm using that. So if you're looking at $25 for film holders and $100 for Vuescan / Silverfast, that's almost getting into used Epson V550 territory. Having used both, I would say the quality is very close between them. Maybe a slight edge to the Canon.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/lamealias/

The most recent 50 or so photos on my flickr were scanned with the 8800f. Before that is V550 mostly. I'm not really great at scanning or at post-processing though, so maybe search the 8800f tag and see what you think.

HorribleAvatar
Feb 26, 2012

We're through running form these bastards!

rockear posted:

I use an 8800f and find the results to be pretty decent for 35mm. One caveat is the Canon software seems like it sucks to me. I already had a Vuescan license so I'm using that. So if you're looking at $25 for film holders and $100 for Vuescan / Silverfast, that's almost getting into used Epson V550 territory. Having used both, I would say the quality is very close between them. Maybe a slight edge to the Canon.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/lamealias/

The most recent 50 or so photos on my flickr were scanned with the 8800f. Before that is V550 mostly. I'm not really great at scanning or at post-processing though, so maybe search the 8800f tag and see what you think.

Thanks for the response after having thought about it for a few days I think I'll just try and scan some of the prints we have instead of buying the film holders. I got a similar answer on another forum I posted this question on about the Epson scanners I might just try and buy a used v600 early next year.

Cacator
Aug 6, 2005

You're quite good at turning me on.

Helen Highwater posted:

Why the gently caress would you do that? What size image does that even spit out? It must be like 500MB or something. Most of the v500/550/600/650 series have a native resolution of 2400dpi so scanning higher than that doesn't add real resolution anyway.

They rarely get above 30 MB actually if I'm converting to JPEG. I'm aware the scanner has a physical limitation but the up scaling seems to still give me more to work with so 🤷‍♀️

Cacator fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Nov 5, 2020

GunForumMeme
Apr 22, 2010
Friend of mine mentioned a few weeks ago that she’s been missing out on photography and also mentioned that shes always preferred film from when she did projects in high school/college. Photos would be travel walking photography kind of stuff.

I know nothing about used 35mm SLRs. Was thinking of getting her one for Christmas and something like a 50mm or some kind of variable zoom lens to go with it. Was thinking some bargain grade camera from Keh that would take serviceable Tri-X photos. I figure something minimally decent so it can give her something to build on if she wants to take it and run with it, but if it ends up being sparsely used and collecting dust it won’t break my bank.

Any recommendations? Thanks.

Dudeabides
Jul 26, 2009

"You better not buy me that goddamn tourist av"

GunForumMeme posted:

Friend of mine mentioned a few weeks ago that she’s been missing out on photography and also mentioned that shes always preferred film from when she did projects in high school/college. Photos would be travel walking photography kind of stuff.

I know nothing about used 35mm SLRs. Was thinking of getting her one for Christmas and something like a 50mm or some kind of variable zoom lens to go with it. Was thinking some bargain grade camera from Keh that would take serviceable Tri-X photos. I figure something minimally decent so it can give her something to build on if she wants to take it and run with it, but if it ends up being sparsely used and collecting dust it won’t break my bank.

Any recommendations? Thanks.

Canon AE-1, Pentax K1000, Pentax ME and ME Super are ones that you can get at above bargain pricing for not too much.

Fools Infinite
Mar 21, 2006
Journeyman
Either get something that's been CLA'd and tested, or budget for it.

Stingwing
Mar 26, 2010

Thank you Mr President for Making America Great Again! USA #1! I shouldn't have to understand other cultures, I'm a god damn American hero.

Fools Infinite posted:

Either get something that's been CLA'd and tested, or budget for it.

Definitely do this. I own literally all of the Canon A series cameras and I've had to send in half of them in for a CLA.

Captain Organ
Sep 9, 2004
cooter. snooper.

GunForumMeme posted:

Any recommendations? Thanks.

Echoing what everyone else has said, but also don't sleep on the '70s-80s Minolta stuff if you find a deal on one.

Blackhawk
Nov 15, 2004

Minolta SRT if some kind (100, 101, 201 etc.) Are good too.

frogbs
May 5, 2004
Well well well

Dudeabides posted:

Canon AE-1, Pentax K1000, Pentax ME and ME Super are ones that you can get at above bargain pricing for not too much.

These are all great suggestions, but I’m going to throw out a less traditional suggestion in the Canon EOS Rebel G. Yes, it’s plasticky, but they’re cheap as hell and every one I’ve found has worked straight away. That, along with a nifty 50 and you’re good to go!

CodfishCartographer
Feb 23, 2010

Gadus Maprocephalus

Pillbug

Blackhawk posted:

Minolta SRT if some kind (100, 101, 201 etc.) Are good too.

They're fantastic cameras, if a bit heavy (due to how well they're built)

I'd like to give shutouts to the Minolta X-700, lightweight and good quality, feels good in the hands, hard to find things to complain about with it.

Dudeabides
Jul 26, 2009

"You better not buy me that goddamn tourist av"

frogbs posted:

These are all great suggestions, but I’m going to throw out a less traditional suggestion in the Canon EOS Rebel G. Yes, it’s plasticky, but they’re cheap as hell and every one I’ve found has worked straight away. That, along with a nifty 50 and you’re good to go!

There's nothing wrong with a Rebel G either. I have an EOS 1n and it's great brick of a camera. I think when it comes to default inexpensive cameras we all tend to err on the side of more manual operation for cameras should the batteries go out or the electronics take a poo poo.

President Beep
Apr 30, 2009





i have to have a car because otherwise i cant drive around the country solving mysteries while being doggedly pursued by federal marshals for a crime i did not commit (9/11)
That’s pretty why I’ve sworn off X-700s and the like.

Stingwing
Mar 26, 2010

Thank you Mr President for Making America Great Again! USA #1! I shouldn't have to understand other cultures, I'm a god damn American hero.
I was browsing ebay and found the single worst camera I've ever seen listed there, an AV-1 listed as "good condition" :







That poor camera :(

frogbs
May 5, 2004
Well well well

President Beep posted:

That’s pretty why I’ve sworn off X-700s and the like.

Does the x700 use LR44’s? I’ve had bad luck with coin cells before, but the Rebel G uses 2 CR123’s, which I think tend to last a bit longer.

President Beep
Apr 30, 2009





i have to have a car because otherwise i cant drive around the country solving mysteries while being doggedly pursued by federal marshals for a crime i did not commit (9/11)

frogbs posted:

Does the x700 use LR44’s? I’ve had bad luck with coin cells before, but the Rebel G uses 2 CR123’s, which I think tend to last a bit longer.

Yep, two of them iirc. It’s the capacitor(s) making GBS threads out that’s soured me to them. Also last I looked (it’s been more than a year) they were getting stupid pricey.

Megabound
Oct 20, 2012

Get an X570 over an X700, only one cap, dead simple to replace if needed and 2 LR44s lasted me about a year.

Blackhawk
Nov 15, 2004

Went for a ~320 km 4 day bikepacking ride with my partner and took my Bessa along with me, I think the rangefinder is slightly out of whack now from all the vibration though :S Also it looks like my C41 chemicals are pretty toast.















rockear
Oct 3, 2004

Slippery Tilde
RIP Fuji Pro 400H (I guess they have enough stock to keep selling 120 for a while but 35 is gone immediately and sold out everywhere.)

Insanite
Aug 30, 2005

Bummer. Wonder how long they'll be producing other stocks, TBH.

Viginti Septem
Jan 9, 2021

Oculus Noctuae
Holga 120











Sauer
Sep 13, 2005

Socialize Everything!

This owns. Makes me want to stop procrastinating on my 6x7 pinhole project.

frogbs
May 5, 2004
Well well well
So I lucked out this weekend, and a very generous person was giving away a Beseler 23c II on Craigslist. It did need a few parts that i've already ordered from ebay (the lamp top cap and the condensor adjustment knob).

It also didn't come with a lens, I'm going to be printing some 6x9 negatives, so I picked up a 100mm Schneider-Kreuznach Componon-S for like $50. Based on the limited reading I did, that should be in about the same league as a Rodenstock Rodagon ore El-Nikkor for a more reasonable pricepoint. Did I do ok, or are there better options out there that aren't super pricey?

I also couldn't stomach the new prices for 6x9 negative carriers, and used ones seemed a little hard to come by, so i'm trying one of these 3d printed ones. Anyone used one before? https://www.ebay.com/itm/3D-Printed-Beseler-23C-Negative-Carrier-Version-2-Pick-A-Size/143615819214?var=442574953440

Edit: It also could use a little grease/lubricant a few places. I've read that Lubriplate is what Beseler used to use, so I think i'm going to pick some up: https://www.amazon.com/Lubriplate-L0044-086-No-130-Aa-Tube/dp/B002M956OW/ref=sr_1_4?dchild=1&keywords=lubriplate&qid=1614640940&sr=8-4

frogbs fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Mar 2, 2021

King of Bees
Dec 28, 2012
Gravy Boat 2k
I have a couple of Navy besler topcon 35s that i shoot with all the time and the history of the company is cool

frogbs
May 5, 2004
Well well well

King of Bees posted:

I have a couple of Navy besler topcon 35s that i shoot with all the time and the history of the company is cool

Whoa, I had no idea they made cameras too! Looks like they did some 4x5 press cameras in addition to 35mm, but most if not all were imports of Topcon from Japan: http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Beseler_4x5_Press_Camera

King of Bees
Dec 28, 2012
Gravy Boat 2k
The 35s were used mainly by photographer's mates from aircraft doing recon. Eventually the Nikons tooks over even though the topcons were basically bullet proof and the Nikons were delicate compared.

Megabound
Oct 20, 2012

That's rad frogbs, welcome to the wet printing world. We do have a darkroom thread that needs some love. I haven't printed in a bit cause it's too drat hot but I'm looking forward to getting back in there when the weather cools down a bit.

I imagine the Compoanon-S is just fine, the 100mm should get you the coverage you need for 6x9.

Megabound fucked around with this message at 03:35 on Mar 2, 2021

frogbs
May 5, 2004
Well well well

Megabound posted:

That's rad frogbs, welcome to the wet printing world. We do have a darkroom thread that needs some love. I haven't printed in a bit cause it's too drat hot but I'm looking forward to getting back in there when the weather cools down a bit.

I imagine the Compoanon-S is just fine, the 100mm should get you the coverage you need for 6x9.

Oh awesome! Didn't realize there was a darkroom thread, i'll post in there as I get things setup. I've done a little printing somewhat recently. In pre-pandemic times I frequented one of the community darkrooms in Portland, but I have a hunch it isn't coming back for a while, so it's time to figure out a home setup!

Where are you that it's that hot this time of year? I'm facing the opposite problem most days.

Also, glad that lens will do! I also almost bought a similar Schneider-kreuznach Componon 105mm lens, which was labeled as 'rare'. One interesting aspect is that it apparently has 16 aperture blades which is....a ton for an enlarging lens, right? Would that make any appreciable difference?

frogbs fucked around with this message at 03:51 on Mar 2, 2021

Megabound
Oct 20, 2012

frogbs posted:

Oh awesome! Didn't realize there was a darkroom thread, i'll post in there as I get things setup. I've done a little printing somewhat recently. In pre-pandemic times I frequented one of the community darkrooms in Portland, but I have a hunch it isn't coming back for a while, so it's time to figure out a home setup!

Where are you that it's that hot this time of year? I'm facing the opposite problem most days.

Also, glad that lens will do! I also almost bought a similar Schneider-kreuznach Componon 105mm lens, which was labeled as 'rare'. One interesting aspect is that it apparently has 16 aperture blades which is....a ton for an enlarging lens, right? Would that make any appreciable difference?

I'm Australian, it's been up around 93F of late and when I'm standing in a closed box with a projector bulb, not fun. I've never noticed a big difference between my 6 blade lenses and more, but I'm not in there with a loupe peeping my fine grain sharpness. It might make a difference for seriously large prints but for 8x10s off of 35mm and 6x9 I think you'd struggle to see much of a difference.

For me the best thing about a quality lens is not having to stop down so far to get a sharp print, reducing exposure time.

NicelyNice
Feb 13, 2004

citrus
Hey film thread, I recently purchased a film camera for the first time in like 20 years (I used my mom's OM-1 when I was a kid). It's a Pentax K1000 with a 50mm 1.4 lens. It's been really fun to shoot, but I haven't been 100% happy with the way my pictures have turned out. I'm just taking them to the 1-hour photo shop down the street and having them burn them to a CD at 6 megapixel (the best they can do).

Everything just looks a little more soft and hazy than I would have expected with white balance all over the place. In particular, the slide film looks super soft - wondering if it is:

a.) the camera
b.) the film
c.) the development process
d.) the scanner
e.) me
f.) everything is fine

Velvia 100 at full size

https://i.imgur.com/zLtyGKe.jpg

Kodak Color Plus 200

https://i.imgur.com/EBpP5r2.jpg

Or maybe it's fine and I shouldn't be nitpicking film on a 4k monitor in the first place?

Anyways, here's some pics from the first four rolls of film I shot over the past three weeks:

Kodak Color Plus 200






Fuji 100



Fuji Velvia 100



Fuji Superia 400

Sneeze Party
Apr 26, 2002

These are, by far, the most brilliant photographs that I have ever seen, and you are a GOD AMONG MEN.
Toilet Rascal
Those all look nice. In my experience, film is softer than what we're used to shooting digital. Just lean into that. And old 50mm f1.4 lenses are sharp, but they can't hold a candle to modern glass when it comes to sharpness. Your photos are good. What are you using to scan?

Edit: Oh, I just saw that you're scanning them at the lab at 6mp. That would explain part of your dissatisfaction at "high resolution" and with the color balance. Do you have a DSLR that you could use to "scan" the negatives? It's kind of a pain-in-the-butt process to get set up, but once you do, it's fast and the results are amazing.

Sneeze Party fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Apr 3, 2021

Megabound
Oct 20, 2012

Seconding sneeze party, it will be the lab scan. It's always better to do your own scanning but it can be a big upfront cost. At any rate nice photos!

NicelyNice
Feb 13, 2004

citrus
Thank you for the feedback - basically wasn't sure what my expectations should be. Unfortunately, don't have a DSLR to scan negatives and not too keen on purchasing a scanner at the moment. One of the reasons I wanted to go film was to get over the fussiness of digital and just enjoy shooting, and dropping off the photos locally and having them take care of everything is more in line with that. I guess I can always take the negatives to a different scanner if I ever need higher resolution ones down the road. Thanks again!

cerious
Aug 18, 2010

:dukedog:
Scanning can be fussy sometimes but it's not super hard to push through a roll of 35mm through a Plustek while you're just browsing on the computer. The quality is far better than most lab scans, it doesn't take too many rolls to outweigh lab scan costs, and most of all you won't have to worry about labs doing bad scans. I used to have lab scans badly underexpose/overexpose things that I would later re-scan and get much closer to what I actually shot. The color balance would also be way off too since they just blanket apply something to the whole roll. It's still work to go from a lab scan to a decent picture so why not just cut out the middleman and get scans for yourself?

Uncle Ivan
Aug 31, 2001
Yeah those look pretty good to me. I started shooting film recently too, and yeah, I mean, it's just total poo poo compared to a digital camera even from 10+ years ago. But it's about the process, tonality and about not having to mess around with the files to get nice contrast and colors. Technically, digital is obviously superior in every single way.

NicelyNice
Feb 13, 2004

citrus
Cheers, I may pick up a Plustek 8100 in the future - I kind of like the zen feeling of just getting scans back from the 1-hour photo and not worrying about editing photos, but it's a bit obnoxious to at the whim of whoever is manning the scanner that day (the hardware itself is apparently nice, a Fuji SP3000, which they let me see but not touch).

Speaking of zen, I am totally digging the Pentax K1000. I was lucky enough to try out a ton of cameras since I live in Tokyo, and armed with the results of every "what film camera should I buy" web search I visited a bunch of camera stores. The K1000 is just downright crazy in its simplicity - there's literally no fluff on it. I picked it up and immediately knew how to use it and everything felt right in place.

I thought I wanted an aperture priority camera like the Canon AE-1 Program or something with a bit more features like a Nikon FM2, but none of them offered the "being there" feeling of the K1000 and just felt clunky or weird in some way (I guess it makes sense that camera user experience has come a long way in 20-40 years). LED light meters in particular seem like a bad use of technology. I was intrigued by the Nikon FM3A and I've definitely missed some shots due only having fully manual control available, but shooting film with the K1000 has let me enjoy photography like I haven't in a long, long time.

Sneeze Party
Apr 26, 2002

These are, by far, the most brilliant photographs that I have ever seen, and you are a GOD AMONG MEN.
Toilet Rascal

NicelyNice posted:

Cheers, I may pick up a Plustek 8100 in the future - I kind of like the zen feeling of just getting scans back from the 1-hour photo and not worrying about editing photos, but it's a bit obnoxious to at the whim of whoever is manning the scanner that day (the hardware itself is apparently nice, a Fuji SP3000, which they let me see but not touch).

The Fuji SP3000 can do, I believe, roughly 20 megapixel scans. At least 14, but I think 20. Maybe even higher than that? You might be able to get the staff to look into that, if they know you and they're cool and they're not busy.

President Beep
Apr 30, 2009





i have to have a car because otherwise i cant drive around the country solving mysteries while being doggedly pursued by federal marshals for a crime i did not commit (9/11)
Hi, film thread. Work and family life is finally settling down a bit and now I have some time to do film photography again. Finally bit the bullet and got a MF camera that (hopefully) won’t constantly malfunction and I took it for a first spin yesterday.

MiG-21

The camera itself worked great, and I’ve made worse photos myself, so all in all it was a nice outing. I have lots of improving to do—e.g. I need to get serious about controlling contrast to avoid blown skies/crushed shadows—but I’m ready to be a little more methodical now.

For 120 I think I’m going to stick with HP5+ for a while to have at least one constant to rely on. I’ve been using Rodinal for pretty much everything for the past few years, and I generally like it, so I think I’ll keep with that too. Been using 1:50 lately but I might go to 1:75 to tame contrast some. I also need to get off my rear end and buy some filters (still!)

e: Sounds like HC-110 is what I need.

President Beep fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Apr 11, 2021

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Blackhawk
Nov 15, 2004

I use Ilford lc29 which is apparently similar to hc110, I use it in their maximum recommended dilution of 1+29 in a rotary processor which are typically terrible for boosting contrast but it seems ok. I don't shoot much B&W though so ymmv.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply