|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
08-27-2012, 07:06 AM
|
| |
Thanks for your replies!
I think you may be on to something with the agitation - I swirled the tank for about 15 seconds, and tapped the tank on it's edge 3 times with this roll. On previous rolls, I've spun the agitation stick that's built-in to my developing tank. So, this roll was different than the previous ones in this regard. However, I would have expected bubbles to form at one edge of the film (i.e. the top), or be randomly distributed throughout the frame. In this case, there are two distinct bands of these spots - one at the bottom of the frame and one at the top, with the middle pretty-much clear of any spotting. I noticed when I hung this roll to dry that there were bubbles from the Photoflo running down the length of the film (they seemed to cling to the film advance holes), which is why I was heading down that path with my analysis.
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
08-26-2012, 09:33 PM
|
| |
I have a few rolls of black and white film development under my belt now, and have been reasonably happy with the results so far. To date, no severe disasters, although I will admit that my attempt to pre-expose an entire roll, rewind it and then shoot it was more than a little misguided. Lesson learned: frame lines don't necessarily coincide with every film load, so don't do this unless you are amazingly consistent at loading your film, or you really want dark lines down the middle of each frame.
However, my last roll has left me with a dust/spot removal nightmare. The attached image is a crop from a scanned negative frame that shows a line of spots that appeared at the top and bottom of each frame in the entire roll. Keep in mind that you're seeing the negative, so the dark spots in the attachment appear as bright white spots in the print. Anyone have any idea as to what may have caused these?
Here's my development procedure:
1) Prepare all chemicals, taking care to keep the developer away from any other chemicals (different container, oral syringe to measure developer, labelled container top)
2) Stand develop in Rodinal (3.6mL: 400mL of water) in a spiral tank for 1 hour
3) Ilfostop stopbath for approx 20-25 seconds
4) Ilford Rapid Fixer for 6-7 minutes (reused on subsequent rolls)
5) Photoflo as a rince agent.
My best guess is some sort of cross-contamination between the Photoflo and the stop bath. I use the same oral syringe to measure both out, and this time around, I prepared the Photoflo first. I noticed some bubbles at the top of the stop bath just after I prepared it. Could these have interfered with the action of the stop bath and/or fixer? I would have thought that with such a low concentration of developer, that the developer would be completely exhausted anyway, rendering the stop bath somewhat superfluous.
FWIW, the film I used was Fuji Acros 100. I highly doubt that this would impact the above result, however.
Thanks in advance for any insights!
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
08-13-2012, 08:17 PM
|
| |
Here's my take: the discontinuation of the K-5 is intended to prevent discounted end-of-life K-5s ($1,000-ish in Canada) from putting downward price pressure on the new K-30 ($850 for same sensor, fewer features). From a business perspective, I agree with that decision. From a consumer perspective, I'm cursing it, because it means I won't be able to snap one up for $600-700 sometime in the next 6 months.
Also, consider what would happen if Pentax only had the K30 available in stores for the holiday shopping season. Not a pretty picture from a sales perspective (and I'm sure Ricoh would agree). Expect to see the next Pentax advanced amateur DSLR announced in the next month and available in stores soon after (i.e. hopefully on or before Black Friday).
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
06-20-2012, 08:59 PM
|
| |
Thanks, everyone, for your responses. As fate would have it, I finished another roll today, but it's too late for me to soup it tonight and tomorrow looks like a write-off. So, it'll have to wait until Friday. If I still run into trouble, I'll try Treker's trick of loading the film "backwards" onto the spool. Heck, it can't be any worse than the time I had to try 5 times in the dark, popping the spool open each time to start over. The good news was that I didn't lose any keeper frames to folds in the film, but I don't want to count on lightning striking twice!
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
06-20-2012, 05:55 AM
|
| |
I had a similar issue with my Spotmatic F, where there seemed to be some intermittent resistance to advancing the film (even with no film in the camera). It turns out that there was a screw loose (but not out) in the gear assembly on the bottom of the camera. So, as one of the shafts rotated, the loose screw stuck-out and contacted other bits and prevented it from rotating smoothly. I carefully removed the bottom plate, found the loose screw and tightened it. Everything has been working smoothly ever since.
I hope this helps!
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
06-20-2012, 05:50 AM
|
| |
I'm new to tank developing black and white film at home, although I have to say that I've very pleased with my efforts thus far. I have an "AP" branded plastic tank, but I believe that the same tank is sold under different brands - it's black with a red top and white spools. The only real issue I've experienced relates to loading the film onto the plastic spool. Having experimented a bit, here's what I've found to be the problem:
I have two film cameras - a Spotmatic F and a KX. On both of these cameras, the take-up spool (on the right side of the camera, as you look at the back of the body) winds the film in the opposite direction to the way the film is wound on the spool. If you imagine looking through the bottom of the camera body, the film is wound clockwise around the film cannister and counter-clockwise around the take-up spool. This is significant, because the only time I've experienced an issue with loading the film onto the developing take spool is when I've just taken the film out of the camera. In the dark, I can feel that the end of the film is curling back against itself, making its journey around the developing spool more difficult than it needs to be, causing the film to buckle before the entire film is loaded onto the spool.
So far, the only solution I've found that works is to develop the film several days after removing it from the camera. My theory is that the extended time wound-up in the film canister helps to restore the film's original curl, making it easier to put on the developing tank spool.
Has anyone else experienced this? Any chance the film I'm using (Fujifilm Neopan Acros 100) is especially prone to this, due to the film base used? The other option I've considered is switching to a stainless steel tank/spool. Has anyone who uses stainless steel spools found this to be an issue? I'm not processing a significant volume of film (I'm averaging about a roll a month), so I'm somewhat reluctant to switch for the sake of being able to process a roll the same day the film is done.
Thanks in advance for any thoughts/insights!
|
|
Forum: Monthly Photo Contests
05-18-2012, 08:38 AM
|
| |
I drove past this scene several times on my way home from my Tuesday night volleyball league. It brought back some good memories from my own university days. On the night I finally brought my camera, there was no one out front. I set-up my camera and tripod, mostly out of stubbornness, and resolved to take a shot of the building by itself. As I was doing this, a bus stopped next to me, and dropped off about 2 dozen students, who marched across the street and waited patiently to enter this pub. At that point, all I had to do was focus, compose, and time the shutter release on bulb for 8-10 seconds) to coincide with the breaks in traffic. Of the 4 frames I took, I liked this one the best, because of the slight motion-blur in the line-up and the manager counting his catch. Also, I found out why this line-up always appears on Tuesday nights when I was post-processing this image: The sign to the right of the front door (under the light) describes the pub's "Foxy Tuesday" specials, hence the name.
Photo Geek-Speak:
Film: Fuji Neopan Acros 100
Developer: Rodinal 3.6mL:400mL water, stand developed for 1 hour
Scanner: Epson Perfection v600
PP: Lightroom and PSE 9 (large radius unsharp mask, enhance sharpness and curves adjustments)
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
01-21-2012, 10:47 PM
|
| |
Reading Ansel Adams' book, The Negative, I came across a technique for improving shadow detail in high-contrast image called "pre-exposure", where you expose the film to a very dim, out of focus and evenly-lit light source to raise the base exposure to zone 1 or 2 across the entire frame. You then meter and capture an image normally.
Since I primarily shoot black and white film in "sunny-16" conditions, where I don't feel my DSLR can capture the full dynamic range of a scene, this seemed like a worthwhile technique to try. In my excitement, I blasted through an entire roll of film, metering at 4 stops below middle grey, rewound the roll (being careful not to lose the end in the film cannister), and reloaded the same film into my Spotmatic F, taking care to line-up the crease in the end of the film with the take-up sprocket.
Okay, so that was a little silly, in hindsight. A more reasonable approach would have been to just pre-expose a single frame when composing the shot on-site, and then taking the second exposure following the "multiple exposure" technique described in the Spotmatic owner's manual. Live and learn.
Anyway, my question is this. I will undoubtedly end up with some mis-alignment between the frame of my pre-exposure, and the final exposure. However, given that the pre-exposure is 4-stops under middle grey, would the mis-alignment even be noticeable? More to the point, if I use the multiple exposure technique described in the owner's manual, will it matter if the film moves slightly after the pre-exposure as I "advance" the lever to reset the shutter for the final exposure?
Thanks!
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
11-10-2011, 10:54 PM
|
| |
I have a new (to me) Spotmatic SP F in great condition. I've put a few rolls of film through it without a hitch. Yesterday, I noticed a slight change in the ratcheting sound when I advance the film. Actually, I didn't have any film loaded, but you get the idea. This only occurs for maybe 2 consecutive frames in 6 or 7; the others all sound normal. Here's where things get a little weird. When I pop-open the back, the frame counter doesn't always reset. I can try several times, walk away and come back an hour later, then it works on the first try, but not on the second or third.
As far as I can tell, the film advance functions; I'm just worried about putting any strain on any misaligned parts inside the film advance mechanism.
The only possible root cause I can think of is that I advanced the film with the counter at frame 36 several times (again with no film) just before I noticed this. Is it possible that this rotated something beyond a threshold that put something out of alignment? I don't remember ever forcing the film advance in any way; I'm just trying to understand where this symptom could have come from. Also, should I be concerned about using the camera in its current condition? Or, do I risk damaging it?
Thanks in advance (and sorry for the pun!)
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
08-28-2011, 09:20 PM
|
| |
This will sound outrageous at first, but hear me out. Go for the DA*50-135. Expensive? Yep. Too long to be your only lens? Yep. But, it's tailor-made for portraits and longer-distance shots of kids on the beach (and elsewhere). It's also weather sealed, which makes the thought of sea spray and sand getting on it less troubling.
Personally, I use my DA*200 as my "beach lens". Why? The long focal length and large maximum aperture are perfect for isolating my intended subjects (my kids) from unintended subjects (i.e. the big, hairy guy wearing a speedo bending over to fetch sunscreen from a bag in the background). With a wide-to-normal focal length, you'll usually get too much clutter in the background (unless you are all alone on the beach, which doesn't happen nearly as often as you like).
So, why am I recommending the 50-135? Simple, to give you a little extra flexibility with your first lens. This focal length range (approx 70-200 in full-frame terms) is a staple for professional event photographers for a reason. And, realistically, you won't notice too much of a difference between 135mm and 200mm in practical shooting situations. You can prove this for yourself by trying a 70-200 in the store and zoom from 135 to 200 while looking through the viewfinder.
Best of luck, whatever way you choose to go!
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
08-26-2011, 09:20 PM
|
| |
Don't be so sure:
Granted, it's not against the night sky, but I think the same technique would apply:
1) Use a wide-angle lens (this was my FA*24) and pre-focus it (a hyper focal aperture and focus distance combination would be a reasonable starting point). I can't focus on these little guys with my naked eye, so I can't reasonably expect a camera to do better. So, why bother trying? Up your odds by zone or hyperfocal focusing.
2) Use a flash (bounced, as here, or direct). Expect most, if not all of the exposure to come from the flash - 1/180 sec shutter speed is a good idea to maximize the range of the flash. This shot was taken at F3.2, 1/80s and ISO 400 (my usual "indoor" combination). Next time, I'll try F5.6, ISO 200 and 1/180. The background will be darker, but the bat should be sharper and just as bright.
3) Get close - this photo was helped greatly by the fact that the bat was flying laps around my garage looking for a way out of my garage.
4) Blast away, until the bat(s) get annoyed by the bright flashes of light and fly away.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
08-22-2011, 10:12 PM
|
| |
I can't speak to the 15mm, but here is a shot that I think illustrates what the DA35 Macro is capable of at a distance (albeit not technically at infinity, per se):
Disclosure: I've played with the curves a little and applied my standard sharpening in Lightroom (radius 0.5, amount 95). K10D (10 MP) with the DA 35 at F2.8, 1/320s, ISO 100. Focus was on the green tree in the middle.
Centre crop (including intended focus point):
In terms of outright resolution in the centre, I couldn't reasonably ask for more from a lens at F2.8 at a distance (with or without a "macro" label engraved on it). Granted, this shot isn't at infinity, but I think the difference is academic - the focus point in this shot is in the neighbourhood of 70 feet away and the house behind it is also very sharp at about 100 feet.
Extreme left edge (the tree is slightly in front of the plane of best focus; the roof shingles appear to be sharper):
Here, I see a fall-off in resolution at the extreme edge of the frame, compared to the centre. What do you expect? It's wide-open!
Between the centre and left edge (but behind the plane of best focus):
This crop simply shows the usual depth of field effects of a large aperture lens focused closer than it's hyperfocal distance (for pixel peeping purposes).
Overall, with more than 2 years and thousands of frames under my belt with this lens, I really haven't seen any degradation in optical performance at different distances. It's uncanny how this lens (or at least, my copy of it) can perform so well in so many different scenarios.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
08-17-2011, 07:44 AM
|
| |
I have the Super-Multi-Coated version of this lens and I can confirm that it is very sharp in the centre at all apertures (allowing for diffraction at smaller apertures). Pixel-peeping the corners at F3.5 will show some spherical aberrations, as you would expect for a lens of this era with a simple 5-element, 4-group spherical design. However, they're gone by F5.6.
This lens has a few characteristics that really stand-out for me:
1) It's tiny. We're talking borderline pancake territory here.
2) The build quality is outstanding (better, frankly, than my DA 35 Macro Limited) and focusing feel is exquisitely smooth and well-damped.
3) Flare resistance is off the charts. Better than any modern lens I own (including the DA 35 Ltd and the FA 77 Ltd). Shooting wide-open straight into the sun with a dark subject as a background, you can barely see one faint white blob with soft edges, if you go out of your way to look for it. Stopping down makes the blob smaller and pentagonal, with harder edges, making it slightly more visible.
4) One nice ergonomic touch is that 15 feet, F8 and the focus index are all labelled in red-orange. This is the hyperfocal focus setting at the sharpest aperture on film. Simply line-up the red labels and you're all set for landscape photography.
There aren't many downsides to this lens. Obviously, the maximum aperture isn't particularly fast, but that's part of the trade-off for the small size and amazing flare resistance. Practically speaking, the only things that really gets in my way of using it more on my DSLR are the need to use stop-down metering, and the lack of AF. So, it usually lives on my Spotmatic SP F, with which it can do open-aperture metering (the S-M-C and SMC Takumars were the first ones able to do this before the K-mount was introduced).
Someday, I really should do a shoot-out between my 35mm S-M-C Takumar and my DA 35 Ltd.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
08-13-2011, 10:38 PM
|
| |
For a recent family vacation in San Diego, I just took the following primes:
FA*24
DA*200
The FA24 was for shots of our family doing things where I also wanted to show where we were doing it (zoo, Legoland, Sea World). The DA200 was for candids on the beach where I wanted to isolate my family from other beach goers.
I also took my sigma 10-20, but that was a bit of a waste in hind sight. I had intended it to be for some "golden light" shots of scenery and architecture, but I only got 1 chance to use it and wasn't really happy with the results anyway. Next time, I would probably just leave it at home.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
07-28-2011, 06:04 PM
|
| |
How many stops over neutral grey will Velvia retain colour and detail? I'm playing around with a test roll in anticipation of using it for a photo tour in the fall. I know that it is very high contrast, so i would expect to blow out to white/clear, but I'm not sure how much highlight range I have to play with. On my K10D, I know that if i spot meter something white and set the EV compensation to +1.7, I'm right on the limit of blowing out the highlight.
Thanks in advance!
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-23-2011, 10:44 AM
|
| |
I had an issue with my DA35 Ltd, which has since been satisfactorily resolved under warranty. Here's my description of the issue, and responses from those wiser than I:
DA35 Ltd Focus Failure: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
(apologies for linking to "the other" forum, but I think it will be more helpful to you than me misinterpreting the responses on your behalf).
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
06-14-2011, 07:36 PM
|
| |
Rubber on lens hood - mine is firmly in place, although I suppose I could remove it if I really put some elbow grease into it.
Sharpness - I initiall had some misgivings about the wide-open performance of my copy, which later proved to be a backfocussing issue. DoF is extremely thin at 200mm/F2.8, but can be used to great effect once the AF is "sighted-in". Wide open, with accurate focus, this lens has respectable sharpness, but this improves slightly upon stopping down to F3.5. I see no difference in resolution between F3.5 and F8 on my copy. Where this lens really shines is its handling (handholdable, and very easy to bring the optics to bear on your subject) and outstanding contrast between F3.5 and up; contrast at wider apertures is on par with other first-tier lenses, but gets into another league stopped down slightly.
One quick tip that really helped me with this lens - When focussed at 30 feet to infinity, the AF response on this lens is faster than the SR spool-up time (on my K10D, at least). So, if your shutter speed is below 1/400 or so, make a conscious effort to watch for the SR ready indicator in the viewfinder before you fire the shutter. This will eliminate any blurring due to movement of the SR assembly (including the sensor).
Best of luck with this lens! It's definitely capable of taking great photos.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
04-27-2011, 09:20 AM
|
| |
At the end of the day, I think the OP is trying to find a lens that can be brought into focus on the intended subject as quickly as possible. Achieving this goal requires good performance on the part of both the lens and the camera body.
When evaluating the ability of a lens to respond to the commands issued by the camera's AF system, you should also consider what distance range is relevant to the type of shooting you are interested in. Some lenses (notably the DA 35 Macro Limited) have a very short focus throw for subjects between (say) 5 feet and infinity, but much longer to get down to the minimum focus distance.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
03-20-2011, 08:14 PM
|
| |
I agree re: corner softness and field curvature. I'm not sure that field curvature is necessarily a bad thing for a wide-angle lens; makes focus and recompose techniques more reliable. Also, thanks for the tip about under exposing - I did this instinctively at first, thinking that I had messed-up the metering by not dialing-in negative EV compensation for darker subjects. Now I know I'm on the right track. The good news is that by F2.5, the astigmatism is minimal and it's not visible (to me) at F2.8 and beyond.
True. That's part of the reason why this is a torture test. I'm not convinced that any lens could tolerate this type of misuse (subject, exposure and pixel-peeping) without visible anomalies.
The FA*24 already has an aspherical element (that's the "AL" in it's official name). I'll just take this as a sign that the FA*24 pushed the limits of lens design about as far as possible (in its day - circa 1990).
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
03-19-2011, 11:41 AM
|
| |
I just got this lens on Wednesday and have been playing around with it, trying to learn how to get the most out of it. I've learned through experience that every lens has its own personality that you have to get to know before you really become confident when using it. As part of this process, I've learned that:
1) This copy backfocuses, relative to my other lenses (requires +200um adj vs. +70 for my other lenses).
2) This lens has some field curvature - my first shots of flat subjects were outright blurry in the middle and sharp starting about half way out to the corners.
3) It's spherically corrected such that the foreground "bokeh" is exceptionally smooth, whereas the background bokeh is, um, not.
I've taken the following shots as a sort of sharpness "torture test", using leafless trees instead of a test chart. Despite the boring, colourless scene, there is lots of fine detail throughout the frame to allow sharpness (both resolution and contrast) to be judged. Focus is on the largest tree in the central portion of the frame. All images were shot in rapid succession without adjusting focus. All shots were processed identically in Lightroom 3.3 (WB adj and my default "S" tone curve).
F2:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5258/5540044555_a054235159_o.jpg
F2.8:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5015/5540051821_68b8c8e13a_o.jpg
F4:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5017/5540640610_6b109e7dea_o.jpg
F11:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5019/5540663634_faf18bef8d_o.jpg
In these images, you can see:
1) Purple fringing and resolution loss in the upper corners of the frame at larger apertures
2) Lateral CA in the upper corners at all apertures (correctible in PP, but I haven't done this here)
Overall, I'm impressed with this performance except at F2, where there appears to be a "fogginess" throughout the image. It's possible that this may be a focus error on my part, albeit a slight one. The fogginess is most pronounced at further distances from the camera. F2.8 is much "clearer."
Any insights or comments from other FA*24 owners? Is this fogginess I'm seeing here a matter of technique, or an inherent characteristic of this lens? If it's a technique issue, what do you do to avoid this (aside from shooting at smaller apertures)?
Thanks!
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
03-13-2011, 07:57 PM
|
| |
I only have the DA*200. I opted for the DA35 Ltd instead of the FA31. However, this was before I started to think about shooting slide film on a borrowed KM body. When I see the 35mm FOV on this body (no vignetting apparent through the viewfinder), I start to wonder if I got it right. Then again, I've only shot one roll of velvia since then and the FA31 was twice the price at the time...
However, between the DA35 Ltd and the DA*200, it's no contest, the DA 35 Ltd is by far my most used lens. It's size, versatility (FOV and close-focusing ability) and image quality make it an easy choice when heading out the door (or indoor family photos with bounce flash). The DA*200 is my "kids sports and beach vacation lens." I've used it for soccer, skating lessons (indoor) and photos of my family on the beach (the narrow FOV and large aperture make for great subject isolation to make your subject stand out in crowded areas of the beach). I've even used it for a wedding, but I was a guest, not a professional (ain't it great to be an "amateur"?).
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
03-12-2011, 06:55 PM
|
| |
If your "older SLR" isn't capable of controlling the lens aperture electronically, then the choice between the FA 31 and the DA*200 becomes very easy - get the FA 31. The DA*200 does not have an aperture ring, and therefore would shoot at F22 on a camera body that isn't capable of controlling the lens aperture. I happen to have a DA*200 and a KM film body (circa 1976). Even if the lens is capable of covering the full frame image area, I wouldn't consider it to be a viable option on that camera body. Conversely, the FA31 would work flawlessly on such a camera body (without AF, of course).
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
03-10-2011, 08:19 PM
|
| |
Good one! Can I have a do-over? I would totally add this lens to my fantasy lens line-up for birding.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
03-10-2011, 08:18 PM
|
| |
This is entirely arbitrary on my part to add a degree of challenge to the game. I got hooked on Pentax during the digital era (the K10D baited me), so I first learned about the DA, DA Ltd and DA* lenses. I soon gained an appreciation for the reputed quality of previous lens series. I've also noticed that certain lenses from each series seem to be recognized as the best of the series, although not usually unanimously. So, rather than looking for opinions about the best lens of each series, I thought it might be interesting to think about the best lens line-up that could be created from the different Pentax lens series.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
03-10-2011, 08:09 PM
|
| |
No need to restict yourself to the lenses you already own, unless you consider them to be part of your "dream team"
Game over? No. LBA over? Perhaps, but that's probably crazy talk anyway...
I hear that these are compatible. You focus the lens manually to the approximate range of the subject ("roughly in focus"), then the TC takes over the focusing duties, relying on its own screwdrive AF mechanism.
|
