|
Yond Cassius posted:Do you have any idea of about when they were taken? Are they cut individually, or part of a roll? Are the edges square, like they were originally sheets, or are the corners a little off-square, like maybe they were cut by hand? These are individual with very square edges. My guess to time frame is 1939, the event they are surrounding was a religious sermon given at Madison Square Gardens and broadcast to numerous other sites, so it was a big deal back then (technology wise and all). One of the frames can be seen here : http://imgur.com/a/JnKFV Also, I got these in a ziploc bag .. what would be the best container to keep them in? Individual protective papers?
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 07:05 |
|
|
I would guess that the most likely format is 3.25x4.25 sheet film. Nitrocellulose negatives aren't super dangerous unless you're storing a pile of them in one place but you probably do want to be careful how you store them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
Quarter-plate film would be approximately that size (3-1/4" x 4-1/4"). I think sheet film was out of popular usage by '39, but quarter-plate would have been the most common size by far. I think it's cut from a roll, though. That bottom edge doesn't look like it was cut straight across (maybe it's the picture), and I don't see any notching that would help a photographer determine which side had the emulsion on it. It might have been taken from an old film pack; I'm not sure if those had notches. My next best guesses would be 118 (3-1/4" x 4-1/4") or 130 (2 7/8" x 4 7/8") roll film.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
Yond Cassius posted:Quarter-plate film would be approximately that size (3-1/4" x 4-1/4"). I think sheet film was out of popular usage by '39, but quarter-plate would have been the most common size by far. I couldn't look at the pictures on my phone. I think the film might be bowing upwards a bit. Hard to tell. The notch is a good point (although I have no idea if film of that vintage was notched). 118 rollfilm is a reasonable guess too. As for scanning it, the ghetto way would be to take an evenly illuminated white backdrop and snap a picture of it with a camera with a macro lens (cellphone if you don't have one). Do it as straight-on as possible so that the entire thing is in focus. Then you invert the colors and play with the luminosity curve. Like so.  The next step up would be putting them in a flatbed. But you'd need something like a V700 to get that much bed size, and I don't know whether the standard holder fits 3x4. In theory you should be able to go crosswise on a 4x5 holder though. I don't see much value to putting it on a better scanner or getting it done commercially or whatever. The negative is probably from either a box camera or a low-end folding camera and there won't be much resolution there. As mentioned the intention at the time was for you to contact print the negatives, they weren't designed for tons of enlargement. They might be OK if they came out of a higher-end camera with a Rapid Rectilinear, Cooke Triplet, or a Tessar, but those were high-end cameras than most people could have afforded. Just from looking at the negative I don't see *tons* of resolution there but it's hard to tell from a random cellphone snap. I guess I don't really have a comment on nitrocellulose negatives, I've never handled them before, but maybe like a lockbox or other metal container that's well away from anything flammable. Be very careful around flames, when nitrocellulose goes it goes like crazy. Your negatives will be gone in probably 5 seconds and IIRC it gives off toxic fumes as it burns. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3Ot1W-yiaE
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:The notch is a good point (although I have no idea if film of that vintage was notched). 118 rollfilm is a reasonable guess too. I have three vintage sheet-film negatives in my collection from around that time, the oldest from the late 20s. They're notched, but also 4x5. The notches around that time are very simple, more along the lines of a clipped corner or divot cut in one edge than the coded stuff we see today. It's more than possible that smaller sizes weren't notched, this was some lower-end generic brand film, or the film was shipped as packfilm (not sure if this was notched or not). As I think about it, the argument against sheet film ("no notching") is balanced out by almost the same argument against roll ("no edge markings"). It's a hard puzzle! Paul MaudDib posted:I guess I don't really have a comment on nitrocellulose negatives, I've never handled them before, but maybe like a lockbox or other metal container that's well away from anything flammable. Be very careful around flames, when nitrocellulose goes it goes like crazy. Your negatives will be gone in probably 5 seconds and IIRC it gives off toxic fumes as it burns. I personally wouldn't be *too* worried about nitro film; I think Kodak started using acetate safety film for their consumer side c. 1910. You usually have to worry more about nitro on movie picture stock, which used nitro because it was a lot cheaper and held up better to projection (until it went up in smoke). The major concern would be chemical breakdown; the early acetate films will chemically decay and become brittle. You'll notice them starting to take on a certain vinegary smell. Once the breakdown starts it's both irreversible and unstoppable, but you can delay it quite a lot by keeping the film in a breathable box with a silica gel pack. Keep sheets of acid-free paper between them to help buffer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
Yond Cassius posted:And that's after he already said that he can't mount the lens you wanted? Was he expecting to talk you into something else? New message from Steven Icanberry/Alpenhause!  quote:You know what? You have got to be one of the most Jacked-Of S.O.B.'s Cock Sucking loving Piles of poo poo Too loving Cheap to answer a loving message!! Go Jack Someone else The gently caress Off!! Fillthy Shitbag!!! gently caress YOU!!! Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 07:16 on Nov 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 07:09
|
|
indeed. You weren't kidding. I've heard Will Littman is similarly pugnacious, though in a different way; there's been a joke running around since at least the early 2000s that there's something in the 110 plastic or glue that makes people modifying them go crazy.
|
Reply Alright Then or something like that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 08:06
|
|
|
You guys are a treasure trove of knowledge, thank you! I sent them off yesterday to a scanning service just to see if there was more they could do. A friend is paying for it so we will see. I'll share the results when I get them. Thanks again!
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 11:56
|
|
|
  Much sharper on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 12:07
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:New message from Steven Icanberry/Alpenhause! brb paypaling him 5 dollars to see what wins out his hatred of paypal or his greed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:Liking ektar more than I thought I would. I like the first one especially. Ektar is good, imo. Good for for dim/diffusely lit interiors and natural environments. Portra 400 I like more for urban/street/architecture and interiors with strong natural light sources or flash illumination. Ektar is nice for shadowy urban scenes, though, too. Especially where lights have a green tinge. imo I've never used portra 160, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
Spedman posted:
love these
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 07:27
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
I bought a Pentax 67 a while ago and it never clicked with me, it and i just never got along. But i dusted it off this time, and i'm starting to call in love with it: Guy at Mini Mart by Kyle Sonnenberg, on Flickr Creeper's Car by Kyle Sonnenberg, on FlickrSuch a clunky beast i just want to bash someone with it once though if i get mugged.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
elgarbo posted:love these Then here's some more (again, sharper on Flickr)   
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
Kiev 88 on Ektar Rafting MF-7.jpg by Iain Compton, on Flickr  Rafting MF-11.jpg by Iain Compton, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 09:18
|
|
|
^^ Feels very LOTR!
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 09:28
|
|
|
Those are very filmic for sure. Really like it. Although I think the horizon may be off on the second one. E: anyone know A Guy who repairs Pentax 67s? My shutter isn't actuating reliably at speeds faster than 1/250. There is a local repair guy here in Vancouver but he doesn't have parts. So I guess I'm looking for a (differently) broken 67 as well. VelociBacon fucked around with this message at 10:35 on Nov 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 10:31
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:Those are very filmic for sure. Really like it. Although I think the horizon may be off on the second one. Yea tehre's this one guy, but he's gonna call you a gently caress and accuse you of jacking him (forgot which thread that was from) e: oh it was from within this page http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3783287&pagenumber=14#post466039277
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
pentaxs.com
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
The space available in my fridge for actual food grows smaller and smaller. Somehow I'm not completely sure I mind.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:pentaxs.com Eric Hendrickson, aka "The Pentax Whisperer"
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 06:23
|
|
|
Yeah I emailed him, he got back to me to say it should be less than $300 USD. Hope so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 07:30
|
|
|
Seems like my Pentacon Six has some problems lately, either with light leak or second curtain. I've drawn my own conclusion but need a sanity check. Sorry for the lovely crops that will follow: Barely visible in the right part of frame:  More noticeable here:  Much more noticeable on slide film, unsurprisingly:   It is more prominent the brighter the scene is, and especially if a light source is very near or in the frame. I presume that this is just a light leak, rather than second curtain lagging, the smudge being lighter near the edge of the frame than the edge itself. There is also this picture:  It is about 5 minute exposure. Surely on such a long exposure shutter lag wouldn't be noticeable?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 14:58
|
|
|
Could it be light coming in through the viewfinder? Does it happen if you compose the scene and then close the WLF or if you use the prism instead?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
Yond Cassius posted:The space available in my fridge for actual food grows smaller and smaller. Somehow I'm not completely sure I mind. How do you shoot your 8x10? I have 18 sheets of astia in my freezer but I'm terrified to shoot it. Box speed? Worried about bellows compensation?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:How do you shoot your 8x10? I have 18 sheets of astia in my freezer but I'm terrified to shoot it. Box speed? Worried about bellows compensation? I just got this little stash over the weekend and haven't shot any of it, but here's my experience from the Ektachrome G I've shot (not a lot, admittedly, but I was about as nervous as you are, and it's worked out well so far). In my experience they work about the same, for exposure: 1 - Start with box speed. 2 - Add the bellows factors I've outlined below. I do pay attention to it, but it's rarely as big a deal as the LFF Ansel Cult wants you to believe. 3 - If you're shooting film of substantial age or unknown storage history, it might be worth burning one frame to bracket. You can fab a set of masks to carve up one frame into pieces, or I can have an extra set made for you. I have a quick-and-dirty set I made out of cardboard, but I've got a TAP Plastics nearby and I'm going to have them make me something better - it's simple and surprisingly cheap. 8x10 can comfortably fit 12 exposures at 2.25" square, which is way, way more bracketing than you should reasonably have to do, especially if you're just checking for speed loss - any slide film that's lost three+ stops is probably so degraded and color-shifted as to be worthless anyways. Bellows factors: It's really not that complicated, and even for slide film most of it will be buried in the tolerances of your film and the precision of your equipment. The Nikon F6's shutter is supposedly accurate to less than .03 stop, but you're just not going to get that with a big Copal, and even less most of the older shutter designs - I understand that getting even within 1/10 of a stop is a pretty good day, and that's OK. Your film will eat it. Most of the time you should be able to eyeball your exposure to the next 1/2 stop and call it good. It's just like doing timing calculations for darkroom enlargements, but in reverse. There are really only two rules to remember: illumination area increases to the square of distance, and stops are factors of 2. Twice the area means half the light means one extra stop. 1 - Measure your extension to the flange of the lens (for LF lenses, generally the optical center, either the front or the back of the shutter - focus to infinity and figure out which, but it doesn't matter much). 2 - Calculate the extension factor ( measurement #1 / focal length of lens ). Telephoto and retrofocus designs will have different extension factors, but those are pretty rare. In that case you'd use the extension-to-infinity-focus as a "virtual lens length", and just stick a label to your lens board so you can remember. 3 - Square this. 4 - Take the logarithm of (3), base 2. 5 - Add this many stops. In practical terms, this means "add one-quarter stop for every extra 1/10 lens length extension beyond infinity". It's accurate to within three hundredths of a stop for lens extensions under 1.5x lens length, and pretty accurate to 2x lens length. My complete table of fudge factors looks like this: The notecard in Cassius's Camera Bag posted:Round extension up for print film, down for E6 * Beyond 2.0x, you can add 1/4 stop either for every .2x lens length (more accurate) or 1/4x lens length (accurate over a longer range). The .2x rule is accurate to within 1/10 stop up until 2.7x lens length, and the 1/4x rule is easier to remember but is accurate (within 16ish% of a stop) way out until a truly impractical 4.75x lens length. Bring a scientific calculator if you plan to go longer - and let me know what on Earth you're shooting with that much magnification. Full-sheet pictures of dandelions? Notice that this means, at normal 300-360mm-ish 8x10 lens lengths, if you remember "add half a stop if I can shoot it with a Nerf gun, add one stop if I could poke it with a stick", you're probably within 1/4 stop (closer than an old manual SLR will even let you go!) without doing any measurements at all. I've only found the higher numbers interesting when attempting crazy macro stuff, and even then I've never had a reason to test this - with any film - beyond 3x extension. The math checks out, but it's a pretty extreme edge case.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
Just bought a fuji gx680ii with lens, rollfilm holder, aa battery holder and 135mm 5.6 lens for ¥19,000! The camera store guy said it was in really bad condition, but other than being a bit grubby and worn everything seems to work. Any tips on problems to look out for? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
^ Lower back
iSheep fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Feb 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
spongepuppy posted:Just bought a fuji gx680ii with lens, rollfilm holder, aa battery holder and 135mm 5.6 lens for ¥19,000! Bellows issues?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Bellows issues? There don't seem to be any pinholes or tears - once I get home I'll run a roll of film through and see what happens. It looks like replacement bellows are inexpensive and reasonably easy to fit - plus the movements are a bit hard at short extensions with the regular one, so i might just get a bag bellows anyway if there is a problem. It did take me way too long to work out that nothing was working was because the dark slide is keyed to disable everything until it was removed though!
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 08:10
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:Could it be light coming in through the viewfinder? Does it happen if you compose the scene and then close the WLF or if you use the prism instead? Now that I think about it, all those shots are with the WLF, shots with prism are fine, and I do not have a habit of closing the wlf before taking a shot. I will check it out when I finish a roll, and whatever the problem is, I'll just be glad that it isn't a shutter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 07:05 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 02:13
|
|