|
Hi, guys. I'm starting to get into film after cutting my teeth on digital, and I've got a basic availability question: My family and I will be going to the UK from the US for Christmas, and I'd like to take my film camera with me, but the whole exposing undeveloped stock to x-rays issue has me a bit worried. To mitigate that, I might just purchase some film while we're over there, that way it'll only go through scanning a few times on the way home. Do any UK goons know a place that regularly stocks film? Not looking for anything fancy; cheapo 200 or 400 speed color film would do. There's a Boots near where we'll be, so perhaps there? Thanks!
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2018 15:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 03:35 |
|
|
Ooh, I like this composition.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2018 15:58
|
|
|
Fools Infinite posted:You can carry it through security and tell them you have film you want hand checked instead of sent through the scanner. Yeah, I'd heard of that, but we'll be travelling with a five-year-old, so the more streamlined security is, the better! pseudorandom posted:
Here's a thing: https://filmadvance.com/2013/10/how-to-flying-with-film/
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2018 16:51
|
|
How big of a problem are x-rays for film? The last (and only) film I brought on a trip seemed to come out fine. What kind of adverse effects would be expected from them being scanned? 
|
It’s three flights each way, so I’ll probably see what I can find in town when we land. I’m willing to take my chances having undeveloped film exposed to carry-on x-rays two to three times, but four to six is definitely more worrisome. I’m a turbo-noob when it comes to film, so the cheap stuff is a-okay with me. I bet I could probably just have Amazon drop ship some film to where we’ll be staying too. Might look into that...
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2018 11:51
|
|
|
Just outside of Ripon. There’s a Boots in town. Harragate’s not far either.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2018 12:27
|
|
|
Awesome! Thanks!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2018 14:57
|
|
|
Megabound posted:Every camera store I went into in Reading had film for sale, just ask and they'll probably pull out a box from under the counter. Thanks. That's good to know too. I suppose I could've just as easily googled camera shops myself, but I'm unsure of the convention over there (if there is one) of actually keeping things in stock.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2018 14:59
|
|
|
Pulled off my first home development job just now! I was a bit stressed out, especially as I’d heard horror stories about the C-41 process, but I did it! I feel like a kid who’s just learned to ride his bike. 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2018 02:08
|
|
|
Ffffffffriday night, motherfuckers!  Developed two roles of color film that were in a box with an old Yashica Electro 35 that my wife’s father gave her years ago. Only two or three actual images out of 48 exposures though. :/
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2018 02:05
|
|
|
Not too bad, really. The biggest problem I had to overcome was how to blur the pixels on my ipad so that they didn’t show up in the image. In order to get enough separation with the depth of field that f/8 creates, I’ve got two pieces of glass glued together with four little feet made out of film canister lids. That base, combined with the thickness if my film holder, gives me juuuuuust enough distance from the screen. The camera is a 7D. Kinda old, but it seems up to the task. I’m still dialing in my setup, but once I get some decent results I’ll share them here. Very interested in any tips others may have! Glad to share any more details about my arrangement too.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2018 02:29
|
|
|
50mm 1.8 STM with a 21mm macro extension tube. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B071RZT8GY/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_PLFaCb1J0X04Z I’m able to fill the frame and focus well, so I figure I can’t ask for much more than that. For settings, manual focus, aperture priority at f/8, two second delay on the shutter. Shutter speed goes to around 1.3 seconds or so. President Beep fucked around with this message at 07:10 on Dec 1, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2018 04:04
|
|
|
File size-wise, how do film scanners stand up to DSLR capture? The more data, I presume the better results, roughly speaking.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2018 19:00
|
|
|
Okay, here's an image "scanned" with my DSLR setup. If you pixel peep, you can still make out a faint pixel grid--looks like I don't have quite enough separation yet. ( ). Having never used a film scanner, flatbed or otherwise, I have no idea if this is any good or not. I'm also new to film, so the editing might be poo poo too. Hell if I know! I'm open to feedback on any and all aspects of this snapshot. I'm used to digital, and this looks a bit oversaturated to me in places, but I couldn't easily dial things back without causing other problems. Is this kind of color intensity simply the nature of some films? This was shot on Kodak Gold 200.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2018 23:52
|
|
|
Sauer posted:Gold is a consumer film so it usually does have pretty high saturation and contrast. It also tends to have the typical Kodak warm tones which your image doesn't have. You've got too much blue going on. Ah! Thanks. I really do feel like I’m starting out at square one here, and it’s feedback like this that I find helpful. e: This seems like an improvement. 
President Beep fucked around with this message at 02:03 on Dec 2, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2018 01:46
|
|
|
Cool. I'll put it into photoshop and try that. Thanks again.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2018 02:36
|
|
|
Okay, Sauer, this is the last time I'll pester you (and the thread) with this image. Setting the gray point in photoshop seemed to improve the magenta cast in a way that I was having trouble with in lightroom.  I sure do feel like film editing gives me more rope to hang myself with compared to digital!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2018 02:51
|
|
|
Yeah, at first I thought it really had been that bright yellow, but once I warmed things up I realized that I’d been waaaay off. I think what was loving with me a bit was that the bushes to the left looked correct, so I assumed the rest of the foliage must’ve been right as well. Nope!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2018 10:15
|
|
|
Post/username combo.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2018 17:33
|
|
|
Gosh, those are some nice looking images. Now that I’ve developed a handful of less expensive drug store C-41 process film without ruining anything I think I’ll try Portra next. What film stock and subsequent developer did you use? I’ll be coming back from vacation with a handful of rolls of HP5+ 400 shot at box speed and the various ways to develop black and white film is definitely causing me some angst. I have no idea what might work “best”.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2018 19:43
|
|
|
Been shooting a bunch of HP5+ and FP4+ while on vacation. It’s very cool to be able to stroll into the Boots in town and find this poo poo on the shelf.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2018 22:52
|
|
|
What in the heck? You’d think that marks like that that progress laterally across the frame would be a shutter dragging issue, but the fact that they’re semicircular has me utterly stumped.
President Beep fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Dec 23, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2018 18:14
|
|
|
I have plastic reels with the tiny little film guides. I like to think that using them helps me to learn patience. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2018 00:09
|
|
|
Even the second hand paterson tanks on ebay go for almost new prices. Like, who in the hell would buy a used tank when for a few bucks more you can have brand new?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2018 16:33
|
|
|
The product of almost three weeks in the UK over the holidays (not including 700 or so digital shots). Two rolls of FP4+, four rolls of HP5+, and one roll of Fuji X-Tra 400. I’ve got a lot of developing to do! I’ll share anything that’s worth half a drat. 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2019 20:30
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:This one was an accident, two different people on two different train carriages. Holy poo poo. What a cool accident. Kinda reminds me of the spirit photography stuff that was in vogue around WWI.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2019 09:30
|
|
|
Meh. I’m not too thrilled with how that Fuji 400 turned out. Any technique shortcomings aside, the grain with this stuff seems really coarse; even more so than the comparable Kodak film. I also struggled with underexposed foreground coupled with blown out sky in some shots.   
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2019 12:50
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Was that self-developed and scanned? I ask because I hated the way 400H came out when I did some night shots with it and developed/scanned it at home. Avoided it completely for like a year. Then I tried it out again when I needed some 400 speed C41 film and my local shop was out of Portra. Turned out to be decent for use in daylight, at least with the way the lab scanned and color corrected it. Yeah, home developed and DSLR scanned. I still struggle a fair bit with negative color correction, so that may be part of my dissatisfaction.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2019 17:14
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Give us a raw uninverted scan to play with and let's see. Why the hell not? Anyone feel free to give it a whirl. https://www.amazon.com/photos/shared/elK_3iJ4Q5W-9I5SFLLeBg.KLNGrhmMaIgbQ9tMJu5jy1
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2019 21:39
|
|
|
poo poo. That worked earlier... Try this one: https://1drv.ms/u/s!AtBTxxMMLeBujRv4GMbwM4E2ND7L In the meantime, here’s my quick-ish attempt at an adjustment. I can’t tell whether or not there’s actually a magenta cast, bit it seems like the slightest nudge of the slider in the other direction makes everything look green. Idk. It was taken later in the day, so there was something of a sunset creeping in. 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2019 22:18
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Obviously it's not perfect but I don't have Photoshop on my work computer, so this was done in 2 minutes in Snapseed on my phone. Literally all I did was set white and black points for R, G, and B channels individually, with the B midpoint bumped up a tad, then set some points on the RGB curve for brightness. drat! That looks markedly better than how the majority of my adjustments turn out when I shoot film. Hey, at least I know where the issue lies now. Thanks for the example and process summary. I’ll use that as a baseline for future edits. Very cool indeed.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2019 23:38
|
|
|
Sauer posted:Negative Lab Pro did this with your scan: That’s much better as well. Right now I use the subscription based lightroom, which is what I tend to use but I believe doesn’t support extensions. I also recently acquired photoshop though, but I hardly know anything about it yet. I should probably start handling my negative work there—it seems like the color correction tools are more robust.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2019 12:07
|
|
|
...aaaand bookmarked. Thanks, HH.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2019 13:38
|
|
|
I processed two rolls of FP4+ yesterday as well. This is the first time I’ve shot B&W, but I’m pretty happy with how things turned out. Similar to Blackhawk above, I only had to make some minor adjustments in post.   Ended up cropping this one a fair bit, so it does look kinda grainy. President Beep fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Jan 6, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2019 13:10
|
|
|
Continuing to work through my vacation pics. Developed and scanned my first two rolls of HP5+ today.  Learning to edit color negatives has been pretty frustrating for me, and working with black and white had provided a nice change.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2019 02:13
|
|
|
What in the hell? Could it be for some medical/industrial application? Wonder if it's meant to accept some kind of weird slides.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2019 17:29
|
|
|
I started out with HC-110 as well. It does seem pretty forgiving. On a related note, the first few rolls of B&W I processed I used some of my C-41 technique, i.e. periodic inversions after the initial agitation. I realized after the fact that only agitation is called for, and I think I see why, as those negatives did seem to turn out relatively grainy and contrast-y.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2019 01:57
|
|
|
To be honest, I’m very new at film, so my depth and breadth of knowledge is really limited. If you look upthread though, you’ll see a portrait I took shot with HP5+ (agitation only) and an earlier landscape shot with FP4+ 125 (gentle inversions following initial 30 second agitation). To me, the portrait seems less grainy with less contrast. At first I thought the landscape looked grainier than expected because I cropped it in post, but as I developed a few more rolls that turned out smoother with more subtle shading I began to suspect my initial technique.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2019 03:41
|
|
|
You may have a point. I suppose that’s why stand developing involves such long dev times.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2019 03:59
|
|
|
Ah, got ya.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2019 05:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 03:35 |
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:I've seen this happen on the past few rolls I've shot where part of the right frame isn't exposed. Happens about 2-3 times a roll usually near the end. I'm shooting a Minolta X-700. Any ideas? My X-700 does similar things once in a while.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2019 00:53
|
|
