|
Jeez, B&H/DHL are taking forever to deliver my developer. Ordered on 4/12 and it’s ETA is the 23rd.
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 01:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 14:18 |
|
|
  I like the light poles. 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 20:15
|
|
|
So I shot my first roll of Foma 200 in 120 and I noticed in one photo in a light area there were tons of tiny black marks which I assume are scratches. Does this film scratch easily and did I breathe on it too hard or something?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2021 06:30
|
|
|
might want to try a hardening fixer if you aren't already using one, or adding a hardener to your fixer. but foma is known for scratching incredibly easily.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2021 06:36
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:might want to try a hardening fixer if you aren't already using one, or adding a hardener to your fixer. That's a shame. It's definitely the film then since I haven't had this issue with any others. It only came into contact with my fingers as I was squeegeeing it dry and the negative sheets.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2021 16:55
|
|
|
Mixed up a batch of QWD ECN-2 chemicals and ran some test shots through the Chromabox automatic processor, results were pretty good imo, way better than I ever got processing cine film in C41. There was still a tiny bit of remjet left but the prebath got rid of 99.9% of it, better than I could ever get it when manually wiping it off. Two shots of the same colour target, digital camera on the left, kodak vision 3 250D on the right. Cine film DSLR scanned and inverted using negative lab pro and all of the 'auto' settings (no manual colour correction). The patch colours in the digital photo are more accurate but I think the ground is a little too red, I kinda prefer the cine film tbh. Another random shot from the same roll, very bleak overcast morning. Some weird light leaks to the left of frame but otherwise good results. 
Blackhawk fucked around with this message at 09:41 on May 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2021 09:35
|
|
|
Blackhawk posted:Mixed up a batch of QWD ECN-2 chemicals and ran some test shots through the Chromabox automatic processor, results were pretty good imo, way better than I ever got processing cine film in C41. There was still a tiny bit of remjet left but the prebath got rid of 99.9% of it, better than I could ever get it when manually wiping it off. Did you also set black point on the film shot of the color grid?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2021 09:46
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:Did you also set black point on the film shot of the color grid? Hmm I can't remember, I don't think so? Pretty sure all I did was use the dropper tool to set white balance off the film mask and then convert using NLP's auto settings.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2021 10:03
|
|
|
Idk if this is the place but I wanted to ask the darkroom ethos about instant photography. I’ve recently been on a kick because I don’t have a set up to develop my own film and make my own prints (both of which I really enjoy and am not sure I’d be as motivated to improve if I was paying someone else to have my film to be developed and scanned), there is something about having the whole darkroom process be instant that I really enjoy and appreciate- even tho I’m absolutely terrible at framing my shots still. Anyway, I wanted to see if anyone had experience with different cameras, different film (Polaroid, instax mini/wide/square), the process of making a digital copy, creating works from one or multiple shots AND what they had to say about all these things. Or if I’m just being a dummy and maybe it’s too shallow of a medium? As far as modern cameras with full control, it seems like MiNT is the only manufacture out there but I’m a noob and trying to learn so school me please.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2021 16:23
|
|
|
instant film is fine, but you mostly don't get a high-quality image out of the end, if you get something you really like you have one little print and that's it. you can scan the print but it's much lower-resolution, it's like crappy-smartphone resolution (you can scan as high-res as you want but there's just not much information in the positive to actually capture). With peel-apart style film you could bleach and scan the cover slip as a negative which works but is a little tricky/unreliable. there is of course a certain interesting philosophy to it as a disposable/ephemeral medium. it works well as a snapshot medium, just like you'd expect from a Polaroid, they are super fun at parties and at festivals and that kind of thing. (remember going places? that was awesome) in some aspects the relatively instant feedback could be nice, but it's also offset by the fact that it's a couple bucks a shot, you're paying MF/LF prices for something with relatively low final IQ. The Instax type produces very nice image quality, the Impossible Project is more of a lomo type thing from my understanding, they aren't as reliable as the original polaroids were yet. It's still a lot of fun, don't get me wrong, but you are spending a LOT of money per shot for something that's not super great IQ, and you are definitely going to have to pick your equipment to suit the available film even then, because the choices are getting very very limited, and there is no guarantee that in 5 or 10 years whatever you buy isn't going to go obsolete anyway. I really miss the Fuji peel-apart films because they were by far the best option both from an equipment perspective, the print-quality perspective (same as Instax), as well as getting a negative that you could potentially recover, fuji packfilm used to be the go-to answer for instant photography. For instax, you have the Fuji cameras (which are all automatic), the Mint GF67, and Lomo just released a new version of their Instax Graflok back. Assuming you can get it working properly (always a problem with lomo) the graflok back is going to be the best quality because it lets you use nice LF lenses, and right now it's $135 (delivery in october). You would also need a 4x5 camera to put it on - probably a press camera with a rangefinder. The Mint is $1000 and is probably going to give you a "premium" lomo experience (glass lens is advertised as a feature, lol), but that's not entirely a bad thing given the snapshot nature of the format. You will not be able to do negative recovery because instax is an integral type. This is going to be by far the most affordable way to shoot instant film, it's $15 for a pack of 20 shots so $0.75 per shot. As far as the old Polaroid cameras, the SX-70 is definitely the nicest, and that'd be my recommendation for the impossible project films. They're still fairly automatic cameras, but they do have TTL viewing (they are technically an SLR!) and manual focusing. Figure on them needing to be repaired before you run film through them (you can try it but it'll just waste a pack of film). The film is going to be temperamental, Impossible Project film is not as reliable as the actual Polaroid stuff was. ONE film is a new one, it's another small company bringing back 3x4 packfilm. Like Impossible Project I wouldn't figure on it being reliable, but it is a larger format (3x4), and there are actual Polaroid film holders available vs just Lomo junk. It's peel-apart so you can recover the negative. It looks like this is running $12 a shot (175 EUR for a pack of 10 shots) so definitely a big step up in expense. Finally you've got the 8x10 peel-apart film from Impossible Project. Now you're talking about a serious investment in equipment and film (it runs $18 a shot, $180 for a pack of 10), and it's B+W only, but it also is the best quality you're going to get out of instant. Believe it or not this isn't actually awful as far as 8x10 film pricing - Portra 400 will run you about $20 a sheet before processing - it's just an expensive format to shoot, and probably more than you are looking to do. I'd say the Mint GF67 or the Lomo Instax graflok back are probably the most realistic options, but maybe the SX-70 makes sense too if you are willing to spend up for the Impossible Project film. ONE film and 8x10 are cool but hard to justify the price I think. I think the Mint is a bit of a tough sell at almost $1000 for something that's basically lomo tier hardware but it's much more turn-key than a LF setup (for the Instax back) will be. But you could also use the LF camera for MF or LF as well. Do note there is no guarantee that fujifilm is in it for the long haul, Instax is supposedly selling well for now (or at least was, before the pandemic), but Fuji regularly discontinues film stocks with little notice. You could buy something and 6 months later they stop making film for it, just one day it'll be like "welp we're done with that" and it'll be done forever, it's happened frequently with them. In that sense the Instax back might be better because if that happens you're only out $135 for the back, while the camera itself should hold value decently. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 16:42 on May 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2021 17:05
|
|
|
here's some negative recovery I did from Fuji peel-apart instant film. I was a broke college student then and only ever got to shoot a couple packs of it before it was discontinued  First one is the 4x5 type and the second one is 3x4.  as you can see has a definite textural imprint from the paper (especially the second one), and the tonality isn't quite the same as the print, but still very pleasing, and you can get a lot of resolution off it, far more than you can doing a direct scan of the resulting positive (or an integral film). the burns are from bleach leaking around the tape I used to hold it to the glass, could never quite get it to hold tightly. maybe electrical tape or something would have worked better.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2021 18:30
|
|
|
I miss peel apart a lot  and yeah I was using Instax wide for a bit but seeing how excited Fuji is for axing film at the drop of a hat I’m incredibly wary of investing in any film ecosystem of theirs
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 13:35
|
|
|
a couple years ago i thought i read that their instax line is actually incredibly profitable, but idk if that's still true. i still have 1 pack of fp-3000b in the fridge 
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 17:39
|
|
|
Instax photos are always pretty poor quality, even on the higher end cameras, or shoved in other non instant cameras. But there are cheaper ones with nearly the same quality so it's not a huge investment. They also make portable dye sub printers which are much better quality than zink or Instax if quick prints is what you want. The Instax is always fun at parties though.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 17:52
|
|
|
yeah I have an instax sp-2 printer for making prints from my xt-2, which is pretty awesome. I have an instax wide camera that I never use, but I wish they had a printer that took wide film too.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 17:58
|
|
|
polyester concept posted:a couple years ago i thought i read that their instax line is actually incredibly profitable, but idk if that's still true. If i'm not wrong, it makes like double the revenue of their cameras and lenses.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2021 03:36
|
|
|
Instant is cool and good and it's more about how you use the medium than whether or not a medium is worthy to shoot. I'm more interested in the final image not how that image was conceived. Unless you're shooting lomo purple or something.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2021 03:46
|
|
|
Also it's fun to cut open and gently caress around with the chemistry as it's developing. This is more achievable with polaroid than instax iirc.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2021 11:43
|
|
|
Is there a recommended online scanning service? I’ve got ~50 sets of negatives I’d like to digitize and I was thinking ScanCafé.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2021 22:02
|
|
|
Loving this thread! Have just dived into 35mm photography -- had a roll developed at the local store to check if my camera even works, but I've got a developing tank on the way. I imagine it's very satisfying to engage with the whole process hands-on. Here's an early effort, shot on Ilford HP5:  harbor edit by a hot dad, on Flickr The light's very flat down here in winter (bottom of New Zealand) so I'm chasing starker, more geometric shapes. This was shot on manual, guessing at exposure -- really grateful to this thread for the considered discussion on sunny 16, approaches to pushing film, etc. Keen to get more into it! a hot dad fucked around with this message at 01:32 on Jun 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2021 10:10
|
|
|
a hot dad posted:Loving this thread! Have just dived into 35mm photography -- had a roll developed at the local store to check if my camera even works, but I've got a developing tank on the way. I imagine it's very satisfying to engage with the whole process hands-on. Nice, I'm in Auckland. I recommend that if you're going to be getting into it more and you want the best possible results you should start doing your own scanning, typically film labs can't spend much time getting everything perfect so you can get much better results yourself. Also home developing B&W is a good idea because most labs will charge more to develop it (due to the lower volumes) and it's cheap and trivially easy to do yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 20:58
|
|
|
Yesss too right, the scans I got back were frankly pretty trash. Gonna borrow a DSLR and come up with something at home. Does anyone have any tips for...visualising subject separation at different apetures when using a camera without DOF preview? Does it just come with practice? I was taking some photos the other day and ended up bracketing at different aperture widths to make sure I had something close to the composition in my head.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 22:54
|
|
|
it comes with practice, but this might be of help until then https://dofsimulator.net/en/
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 20:16
|
|
|
The scanning thread is locked so I'll ask this here instead. My father past away earlier this year and left a couple of hundred (~750) mounted slides that I'd like to get scanned. Additionally my mother has a bunch of negatives, maybe a hundred rolls worth, that I would also like to scan, these are mostly 135 but a chunk of them are 126. I have an epson v500 and while scanning the occasional roll of 135 on that is fine I'd loath to go through this amount of slides/negs using it and it seems it would cut off a few mm of the 126 negs. Is there any scanner that has fairly good throughput and that will do both mounted 135 slides and strips of negs of both 135 and 126? If not, what would your suggestions for scanning the 126 film be, other than the v500 I have a panasonic GX80 (GX85 in the US) but no macro lens?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2021 10:25
|
|
|
After doing a bunch of sx-70 shooting I’m getting ready to grab a Pentax ME on a whim, but before I pull the trigger: is it worthwhile to throw away a few more  for something like an MX? I don’t really have a sense for what makes a better film camera or what extra money gets you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2021 03:49
|
|
|
Once you get into that era of SLR the camera functionalities are all quite similar, with the major differences being lens selection, handling and build quality. The Pentax K mount is a wonderful system to buy into for it's many varied and cheap lenses. The things that would stop me buying a ME would be the lack of a fully manual mode, you can work around that with the exposure compensation dial but it is something I would grow weary of. The things that'd stop me buying an ME or ME Super are the lack of aperture preview and the inability to see selected aperture in the viewfinder window. Part of the reason I would go back to shooting SLRs is so I can assess exactly what's in focus by stopping down the aperture, and the thing I appreciated about my Minolta X570 was the ability to compose and adjust settings without ever having to take my eye from the viewfinder. Everyone is going to have opinions about why their SLR is the best SLR, but if I was buying another (and I probably will at some point) it'd be a Minolta XD (Might be called an XD-7 or XD-11 based on your market) for the reasons above, and I'm a sucker for Minolta because my first SLR was a Minolta X570.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2021 04:09
|
|
|
Megabound posted:Once you get into that era of SLR the camera functionalities are all quite similar, with the major differences being lens selection, handling and build quality. The Pentax K mount is a wonderful system to buy into for it's many varied and cheap lenses. The things that would stop me buying a ME would be the lack of a fully manual mode, you can work around that with the exposure compensation dial but it is something I would grow weary of. The things that'd stop me buying an ME or ME Super are the lack of aperture preview and the inability to see selected aperture in the viewfinder window. Part of the reason I would go back to shooting SLRs is so I can assess exactly what's in focus by stopping down the aperture, and the thing I appreciated about my Minolta X570 was the ability to compose and adjust settings without ever having to take my eye from the viewfinder. Minoltas are definitely dope. SRT 102 is a good choice for a few reasons: batteries are only needed for metering instead of shooting, can easily see the aperture and shutter speeds from the viewfinder, and mirror lock. Downsides are it's heavy and has zero automation. I haven't used an X570 but it looks like mostly the same sort of camera but plastic and non-mechanical? I also have used an X700, which I love, but looking at the X570 it just seems like the objectively better body lmao. My main 35mm body is a Voigtlander Bessa R and while I love the compactness of it and the rangefinder style, there are a number of small annoyances when using it. Notably the viewfinder doesn't show aperture OR shutter speed, and there's no "off" switch so it's easy to drain the battery in a bag, and if you instinctively wind after every shot you'll inevitably waste some film. I wound up taking out my X700 for a spin a while back to shoot some test shots and I had forgotten how much easier it is to use than the Bessa lmao
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2021 04:34
|
|
|
The X570 is better than the X700 for a couple reasons. No program auto, easier to replace the capacitor when it dies (there's only 1) and when you're in manual mode you can see both metered and selected speed. It is however plasticy, like the 700. Still solid but not the kind of solid you get with an all metal camera. My main 35mm shooter is a Canon VL. No meter or anything, and I just sunny 16 it all day. I'm now confident enough in my ability that I don't need a meter except for particularly tricky scenes. It does lend itself to a different style of shooting. I generally compose out of camera, set my settings up and then bring it up to my face for final composition. I've lived with it long enough now that I can accurately estimate where I need to stand for either a 35 or 50mm lens to get what I'm seeing. I also find myself setting my settings as I walk and the light changes, and I'm using zone focusing a lot more. I think all of this comes with rangefinder life.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2021 05:25
|
|
|
dupersaurus posted:After doing a bunch of sx-70 shooting I’m getting ready to grab a Pentax ME on a whim, but before I pull the trigger: is it worthwhile to throw away a few more FWIW, I use an MX most of the time. It’s tiny and tough, and I dig the manual mechanicalness of it. Do you have reasons that you personally are going back and forth between the two?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2021 12:23
|
|
|
Insanite posted:FWIW, I use an MX most of the time. It’s tiny and tough, and I dig the manual mechanicalness of it. I was first thinking ME since it seems well regarded and is a good impulse buy price (and the title of the gear thread). The MX seems the same but with more controls, but I'm balking at the price a bit. I'll check the minoltas out, the prices on them look to be pretty good. Edit: or get my dad to give me his contaflex again... dupersaurus fucked around with this message at 14:20 on Jun 15, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2021 14:18
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm glad I built up a film arsenal before prices really shot up. :\
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2021 14:29
|
|
|
I got burned by a few X-700s. SR-T models 4 lyfe.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2021 18:31
|
|
|
My first film camera as an adult was a Minolta SRT-100 (poverty version of the 101) and it's a literal brick of metal, fully mechanical with the battery only needed for the lightmeter. It works fine but I hardly use it anymore because the batteries for the lightmeter are a pain. It's supposed to use mercury batteries that you can't get anymore, you can use zinc-air hearing-aid batteries instead but they only last a few months whether you use them or not and have leaked in the battery compartment more than once. I suggest that if you're looking for a camera try to get one that uses commonly available batteries and not mercury ones. My daily driver is a voightlander bessa r3a, basically a much cheaper Leica M6. Takes normal LR44 batteries, has aperture priority with exposure compensation and lock or full manual modes, uses m-mount lenses. A lot lighter and faster to use than the Minolta and really I'm only using 35mm if I want to be quick, if I have time I'd rather shoot LF.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2021 21:49
|
|
|
MadlabsRobot posted:The scanning thread is locked so I'll ask this here instead. Buy a macro setup for the slides - a cheap eBay macro rail to dial it in, something to use to mount the slide (an old slide copier is best, if you can find one cheap), and an old manual macro on an adapter shouldn't be too bad. Once set up it's much faster than a scanner and IMO offers better quality than most flatbeds. Scanning 35mm negs is my own personal idea of hell, but I'd probably say power through them on the V500 for "good enough" social media quality stuff while watching Netflix or whatever, and send off any real gems to get professionally scanned. I was never happy with trying to photograph and then colour correct negatives but my appetite for the finer points of post processing is probably not all that great.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2021 00:29
|
|
|
Heeellllllp - someone tell me how a roll could've gotten hosed up like this? It's not like I didn't put in enough developer, I didn't expose a significant part of the roll when unloading the film or loading it into the tank, and the shutter on the camera is working fine. This sucks because the three photos I wanted to see the most are the ones that got ruined. I can see faint remnants of them too so it's not like they weren't properly exposed.
Cacator fucked around with this message at 05:25 on Jun 24, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2021 05:13
|
|
|
Cacator posted:Heeellllllp - someone tell me how a roll could've gotten hosed up like this? It's not like I didn't put in enough developer, I didn't expose a significant part of the roll when unloading the film or loading it into the tank, and the shutter on the camera is working fine. This sucks because the three photos I wanted to see the most are the ones that got ruined. I can see faint remnants of them too so it's not like they weren't properly exposed. How do you know your shutter is fine?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2021 05:38
|
|
|
You're not even seeing the rebate frame with the letters and numbers on it. Wouldn't that point to that part of the film being exposed outside of camera before development?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2021 05:48
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:How do you know your shutter is fine? Because when I test it, it fires for the appropriate length of time. And like I said I can still see where the last few shots were exposed on the roll but they're very faint. bobmarleysghost posted:You're not even seeing the rebate frame with the letters and numbers on it. Wouldn't that point to that part of the film being exposed outside of camera before development? That makes the most sense but I clearly remember unloading it from the camera and loading it into the tank as it was on Saturday. Edit: Hmm, now that I think about it there's the possibility that when loading it into the tank I missed the little spool that the reels wrap around and I had to open it back up to put it back in. I may have turned on the lights when the funnel was attached, but the cover was not......... although I don't know if that explains the clear delineation between the exposed part of the roll and the unexposed part. I guess if the exposed film is opaque then that would block any more light passing through to the rest of the roll. Goddamnit, amateur mistake. Maybe I should get myself a changing bag. Cacator fucked around with this message at 06:30 on Jun 24, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2021 05:51
|
|
|
New camera day! Thanks for the recs. I’ve already taken a bunch of cat photos, can’t wait to see how I messed them up. Already planning what lens to get next. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2021 03:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 14:18 |
|
|
Nice choice, if you've got it stuck to aperture priority I'm sure they'll all be perfectly exposed. Comp and focus is on you tho.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2021 03:48
|
|