|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
04-08-2019, 05:39 PM
|
| |
Who says?
It's a great forum :)
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
04-05-2019, 07:26 AM
|
| |
If anything out of date film should be less sensitive and coming out underexposed.
Maybe try another roll on a camera with a known-good meter & shutter.
Is your basement climate controlled? Generally cool? A swamp in the summer?
All these things matter. I found some neopan that had been sitting in a desk at my parents house for +/- 7 years and developed it without too much trouble a while back. That desk happens to be in the coolest room in the house (my old room) and out of direct sun. Fresh film would've been better, but it wasn't too bad. Of course, B&W is more forgiving.
If you're developing yourself or using a pro lab you could do a clip test on the next roll. This is a sizeable stash of film so it would be nice to see it salvageable, even if only for side-projects and social use.
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
04-04-2019, 06:13 PM
|
| |
2016 should be fine. As mentioned you may notice minor shifts on the slide films.
Do you know what the storage conditions were? That will tell you a lot about what to expect.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
04-04-2019, 02:22 PM
|
| |
There is a video on youtube here that gives a decent overview of the mechanics under the baseplate. Might help you, might not. I have no affiliation with the video's maker, just stumbled on it myself a while back and this thread jogged my memory. I can also recommend a good tech in Ontario, though I don't know where you're located.
Any progress on the jam?
You Tube
|
src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/iY3dbBZH5M0?controls=1" allowfullscreen>
|
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
04-04-2019, 11:52 AM
|
| |
I would be interested. I shot the original sightseer around 2012, and now I am jonesing to shoot one again. I was actually considering going out and buying one! :eek:
If you can get it going again let me know.
As an addendum, I live in Windsor but maintain a PO box in Detroit, which could make a stop here an easy jump-off point for a Canadian tour.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
04-04-2019, 09:30 AM
|
| |
Does this mean the screwmount is out of action for now?
|
|
Forum: General Talk
03-21-2017, 11:54 AM
|
| |
Just picked up an F-Mount 20-35 2.8 AT-X Tokina about a week and a half ago.
OH! and a few 77mm filters (yellow, polarizing, warming & cooling for color films) for when it and my 80-200 are on the F3.
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
01-08-2017, 10:37 AM
|
| |
It's definitely more finnicky than B&W. I've done it, in the FIU darkroom, but we had a developing machine for the prints, just slide them in one end and about 5 minutes later you have a complete, dry print at the other. Don't know how it would go with trays. I'm going to look into it this week and will def. let you know how it goes if we try it.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
12-16-2016, 07:27 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Repairs and Warranty Service
12-15-2016, 12:51 PM
|
| |
In this case I think blacking out the scratches would help, esp. with the rainbows in your first image. A colleague of mine once took a permanent marker to the front elements of his Nikkor 20-35. Even on that very wide lens with a not terribly useful hood it caused a substantial improvement. Hard to watch, but ultimately effective.
|
|
Forum: Repairs and Warranty Service
12-15-2016, 12:17 PM
|
| |
I've heard of (esp. reporters) doing this, but you might try taking a china marker or sharpie and very carefully blacking out the scratches. It'll keep them from catching light and showing up as bright, ugly marks in your photos. You'll still have the same (prob. minor) loss of sharpness, contrast, etc, but not the gnarly glare.
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
11-17-2016, 09:41 PM
|
| |
OK, so I was coming here to ask exactly the OP's question, plus one more.
How much of a pain is it to develop color PRINTS?
I've done it before, using a machine to develop, but I've just found two perfectly good color enlargers in a secondary darkroom at my uni. Being in the darkroom club, and knowing how absolutely gorgeous wet-printed superia 1600 is....
Well I want to give it a go and I'm figuring as a club we have enough people to make the chemistry economical.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
11-08-2016, 04:12 PM
|
| |
As others have said, it's possible but a pain, not really worth it. Better to get a 24mm (Pentax, Tamron, or Kiron) for the K1000, or an FM2 for the 24mm Nikkor. Which is best for you depends on your goals and existing equipment.
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
11-06-2016, 11:41 AM
|
| |
Thanks for the comments. I appreciate the feedback and will answer a few questions in case it makes a substantial difference. I think it's also worth mentioning that 600 CAD works out to around 450 USD.
My current setup is an X-E2 (most recent firmware) with the original 3 primes and the 16-55, plus a flash, some extra batteries, etc. I like the way the fuji handles for a lot of stuff, but it just can't keep up with action. Although the AF and VF are better than the X-E1, as a combination they really reduce the hit rate.
Sports really isn't my main line, and I'm not making too much money on photography right now, but I could take on a few more sports shoots if I had gear I could count on.
As for lenses, I have a few AF-D lenses (including the ED 180) because I have a film Nikon that I learned on. The reason I'm wanting to make the switch is because, as an experiment, I took my F3 with me to rugby yesterday.
I had an easier time manual focusing on the F3, and most of my shots came back in focus. Some would be very nice indeed if they were scanned properly. That big viewfinder made it very easy to follow action and time shots perfectly, where with the EVF I often feel I'm grasping and guessing for shots. Squinting through the EVF after using that big, bright OVF left me feeling like I just can't trust the Fuji in really fast-paced situations.
I've been thinking of running two systems, fuji with the small primes for everyday carry and certain kinds of work, and an SLR with a 24-70 and my 180 (eventually a 70-200) for really fast-paced situations.
FWIW I've shot a d750 for class, and 6d (newspaper's camera) and own a few good lenses on Nikon, including the 180 and a 50 1.2.
So, I'm a little spoiled on equipment, and really want something that feels solid and has a good control layout. Although I wouldn't mind going APS-C, it would have to be a well-built body.
My principal concern really is, at average viewing size will there be a big difference between the Fuji and the d700, assuming they're both shot RAW?
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
11-05-2016, 11:55 PM
|
| |
I was wondering if anyone might be able to comment on the d700 as a choice for journalism and sports.
For a little bit of background, I shoot semi-professionally, doing work for my university's newspaper and sometimes events & concerts. My equipment is fuji, but the AF and MF are just not up to action. I've been offered a d700 for about 600$ canadian, and already have some lenses from my F3 that would work, so I'm considering it. My two major concerns are IQ and viewfinder size/brightness.
What brought this about is that I was shooting rugby this afternoon, brought along my F3 with a 180mm on it, and realized that I was nailing more shots with MF than my fuji does with AF. Focusing through that big VF is just so much easier...
It was a real revelation, and cemented a few thoughts I've been having for a while. EVFs just aren't there yet.
So, will the d700 have IQ to keep my editor happy and a big, bright viewfinder to make my life easier?
My main concern is high ISO.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
08-31-2016, 10:12 AM
|
| |
I've seen Leica, I've seen medium format, obviously the LX has come up, but how about a word for the venerable Nikon F3?
Although the MX has a comparably bright VF, It's a little small for my hands, it doesn't do aperture-priority, and the film advance, though very smooth, has always been a touch too long for me.
So, in lieu of the LX, which would likely be an excellent choice, for me the camera would have to be an F3, non-HP, with the grid focusing screen. Motor drive optional.
The lens is a more difficult choice, but would be the AI-s 50mm 1.2 that's just come to me.
The films would be mainly Delta 400, plus the odd role of Superia 1600 and occasional Delta 3200. I like low-light.
A comparable kit to the LX + 50mm 1.2 that a few have already suggested, really.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
08-31-2016, 09:58 AM
|
| |
At ISO 400 I'd recommend the Kentmere 400, it has a nice grain and to me looks enough like tri-x to be pleasing, but different enough that your photos don't look like 1970s journalism. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's a distinct look. It doesn't push terribly well though, for that delta 400 is much better.
For using flash in brighter conditions something like FP4+ (ISO 125) or PanF (ISO 50) might be good as well.
Ilford is really the main player in B&W film these days.
Foma, which has already been mentioned and likely will be again, is quite nice in the 100 & 200 speed varieties, but the 400 ISO never produced good results for me. As others have said its true speed seems to be more like 250 or 320, meaning it pushes and handles shadows comparatively poorly. For portraits you might have very good results with the 200.
For color, I really like Fuji's (rapidly dwindling) lineup. Superia 1600, shot with a 50mm 1.2 (though it's not a Pentax lens....) and wet-printed is something special.
Regarding bulk loading, it can be a good way to save, but until you settle on one or two main stocks I wouldn't recommend it. 100ft of film is a big commitment just to get a taste.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
08-24-2016, 05:48 PM
|
| |
Well, as has been said it's a good idea to stick mainly to one film (or perhaps two, one faster and one slower) until you know it well, then begin experimenting.
The foma films in ISO 100 and 200 (especially the 200) I've found to be quite good, and I like them a lot. However, in the 400+ range Ilford is the best choice. Tri-X is already grainy at 400 and is not useful pushed to 1600 or above. I shot 100's of feet of it when I started with film, and was usually displeased with the results in low light.
I changed then to Kentmere 400 to save some money, found it to be better at 800 and 1600 ISO, although tri-x is nicer at 400.
The real winner, though, is Ilford delta 400. Nice, fine grain, good tones, and strong contrast.
So, perhaps you would find Foma 200 to be a good daylight film and Ilford delta to be a good product for low-light.
Hopefully that helps, there are already many good answers here and taken together they should be very useful.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
08-24-2016, 05:33 PM
|
| |
IF you have access to a darkroom you can also get away without the bulk loader.
Simply turn off all the safe lights, close the door, and stretch out your arms. The length between them will be about 32-40 exposures worth. It's a little harder to tape and spool, but not too bad. In one of my classes one time we all did this about once a week, and set up a crank like this - load bulk - to do the winding.
It avoids both putting the film through another potentially scratchy felt AND the cost of a loader, plus the ends of your films aren't fogged.
Just a thought, but something that worked out well for me.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
07-18-2016, 04:29 PM
|
| |
Sharpness is still incredibly low. What was your shutter speed? I would suspect a bit of camera shake or slightly missed focus is at play.
Also, were you using lens hoods? It wouldn't help you at all with big flare ring from the train's headlight, but would likely improve overall contrast.
Would you mind posting the B&W conversion of the photo?
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
07-17-2016, 09:32 AM
|
| |
For cropped-sensor, go Fuji. A far better platform than Sony APS-C in my experience, and to Canon mirrorless IMO.
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
07-16-2016, 09:36 PM
|
| |
Fuji is absolutely great coming from film cameras. Clean dials, good build quality, etc. I've used an X-E1 daily for about 3 years now. Really superb.
I've also given up using adapted glass on it.
Why?
No auto-aperture, even focusing is stopped down. This is like stepping back to the mid 1950s. It really slows down your work.
So if you need to do anything fast with adapted, manual glass, and it's mostly PK, stick with a pentax camera.
If you're really into wide-angle, look at the Sony, for full-frame.
For APS-C, Fuji is a great choice and X-E2/X-T1 used prices are very good at the moment, with the X-T1 obviously running a little higher.
In the APS-C class, I think it's pretty well agreed (and my experience has been) that user interface/experience with the Fujis is miles ahead of the Sony Alphas, and appreciably better in IQ, esp. if you're shooting jpeg.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
04-20-2016, 11:12 PM
|
| |
Yes, it was active quite recently. I was looking at some of their pages in the last week of march.
It just seems like a very real loss to adaptall users, like losing this forum for m42 and K users or Mir for Nikon.....
A shame, really.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
04-20-2016, 09:11 PM
|
| |
(I'm only posting this here because so many film shooters use adaptall.)
This afternoon I was looking for the specs of a few adaptall lenses and noticed that adaptall-2.org has gone offline. It seems like a sad day for those of us who like the old equipment. I've had a 17mm, 200mm and 35-80 on M42, K-mount, and Nikon, always film.
Although the lenses are still excellent users and will be for a while it feels slightly ominous to lose such a good resource.
|
