Film (Analog) Photography Thread
- Thread starter PacificRimJob
- Start date
I absolutely love my little Olympus Pen cameras... half frame is so fun. These are from my tiny little Pen-D
14307576:WoFlowz said:
Oh damn that is possibly my dream camera. Such a good one.
I have an F2 which is a beast in comparison.
I should have another roll filled and developed by next week
WoFlowz
Active member
Two questions for Film/Analog NS as I have no clue what I’m doing. What type of manual zoom lense would be best for a Nikon FM2 I’m assuming some old nikkor but idk maybe there’s a less expensive option or something? Also how difficult is developing and scanning your own film and does it require a actual dark room? Or make shift dark room?
14317252:WoFlowz said:
First things first - I am jealous of your FM2...
Now..
If youre looking for a zoom lens, that completely depends on what youre going to be using it for. for film, I like to keep my lenses pretty compact, so I usually use primes.. But you can find some really nice old zooms for cheap (under 50$ or so).
One of my favourite lenses ever is the Nikon Series E 75-150 f3.5. It is compact, sharp as shit, built well, and fixed f3.5 aperture. It was sold as an amateur lens, but professionals loved the thing.
However, 75-150 is only for telephoto... if youre looking for a do-everything walk around zoom, you have two solid options... the Nikon Series E 36-72mm f3.5 and the Nikkor 35-105 f3.5-f4.5. Theyre both good options - the 35-105 being a little bigger and zoomier. Id get the 35-105 if I was just looking for one lens to do everything, and the 36-72 if youre also going to pick up the aformentioned 75-150, since they work together extremely well and both have fixed f3.5 max apertures (and both are useable at that aperture)
If you want a wide-angle zoom, you dont have a ton of options on the cheap unfortunately, but the FM2 takes Nikkor AF and AFD lenses, so you could go with the Nikkor AF/AF-D 24-50 f3.3-4.5. I dont know how great this lens is - It is most likely just okay at best, but I know you can get them pretty cheap (under 100$ for sure) and they work great on that camera, so there you have it.
I used to have the nikkor 28-50 f3.5, and would use that as a walk-around option along with the 75-150 f3.5, and that was an absolutely awesome lens, but it will surely cost a lot more.
For wide angle stuff I would probably stick to a prime, since zooms tend to make the widest angles real fucking distorted unless youre willing to fork out some serious cash. I love my Nikkor 24 f2.8 for a do-everything wide angle. You dont need wider than 24mm for 98% of anything.
----
As for developing and scanning...
You dont need a fully dark room to do either.
For developing, you need a changing bag, and a developing tank. Youtube has an absolute plethora of information on this.
For scanning, that depends on how youre going about it. If youre using a flatbed then it doesnt matter at all (although it is slow, and stupid and you end up with a big honking scanner in your room all the time and I hated that). If you are using a DSLR and macro lens to scan like I do, you dont need a dark room, but you definitely dont want a specifically well lit room with an overhead lamp, since you might get reflections on your film that will mess up your scans.
WoFlowz
Active member
14317306:DingoSean said:
Ok thanks so much for the help. I’ll look into the developing tank and changing bag etc on YouTube… As for scanning I would end up using a DSLR. I’ll look into that more also..
Lense wise I’m looking more toward the Nikkor 35-105 f3.5-f4.5 as just a do it all type lens like you suggested. I already have a Nikkor 24mm lense that came with the camera when my dad bought it. But since I already have the wide angle 24mm would the Series E 75-150 be more appropriate?
14317353:WoFlowz said:
Here are a couple videos I recommend you watch..
As for lenses, yeah the 35-105 is a pretty useful lens. If you already have the 24 mm, thats a good 2-lens setup for most things, and I would generally be happy with that setup. I wouldnt go with only the 24 and the 75-150, as the majority of your shots are going to happen in the 35mm-80mm focal lengths, hence why those are usually the most popular lenses.
Actually, a common thing that I do is take my FE along with my own 24 and the 75-150, and then either a 35mm or a 50mm to cover the middle. That's my usual 3 lens setup if I go on a trip and want a good variety of shot options in a compact and light kit. 24,50,75-150 will cover 99% of all shots youll make on a regular basis.
larger mid-range zooms like the 35-105 only will end up on my camera if I am on a winter hike or backcountry tour or something where changing lenses in weather is zero fun and Its nice to have a good range. I have used my AF 28-70 f2.8 in this capacity for some time now, but I think I might ditch it for a lens with a bit longer zoom range and lighter weight like the 28-105 or 35-135 autofocus lenses - which are also both good ideas for your FM2.
84west
Member
14317353:WoFlowz said:
If you are okay with a prime, and since you already have a 24, You might look into a nikkor 105 2.5. Nikon made a ton of different versions of it over the years so it is easy to find in good shape for cheap and it is one of the most legendary portrait/short tele lenses ever.
84west
Member
I have the chance to shoot with this monster if i want to pay for materials. 11x14 deardorff studio camera (pictured with 8x10 lens board and back (although you can't see the back). Obviously it is not very mobile so it would have to stay in place at the studio. But the owner has the original ground glass and a ton of lens options. I guess i need to save some money to order film for it. (and think of a portrait series worth doing)
h
And here's a picture of a different one in use since i wasn't able to do much besides grab a couple quick phone photos while i was there:
hAnd here's a picture of a different one in use since i wasn't able to do much besides grab a couple quick phone photos while i was there:
14328932:84west said:
OH GOD YESSS
That is fucking sick.
As for paper, and materials.. shoot paper negatives or Arista's ortho-litho film (which is basically like thin film negatives with Arista paper emulsion) and maybe source out some 8x10 film somewhere.
Id froth over access to that thing.
14337062:WoFlowz said:
Oh jesus... what a score... 9 lenses? Youll never need to buy a thing.
The K2 is one of my favourite SLRs out there since its fully mechanical with Aperture priority auto exposure...
Can I have your FM2, though? since you obviously dont need it or anything with that pentax...
WoFlowz
Active member
14337125:DingoSean said:Oh jesus... what a score... 9 lenses? Youll never need to buy a thing.
The K2 is one of my favourite SLRs out there since its fully mechanical with Aperture priority auto exposure...
Can I have your FM2, though? since you obviously dont need it or anything with that pentax...
Hahaha. Maybe in the future. the Pentax is sweet but the FM2 just feels solid and kinda more refined imo. It’s also a bit newer comparatively, but their both amazing and I’m super lucky my dad gave me both. Also been tryna find one of the manual zooms u recommended for the FM2 that don’t have a foggy lense or are beat to hell
CabbyArrant
Member
14328932:84west said:
For some of these Large format cameras I’ve heard of people shooting directly onto the print paper before instead of negatives. This also might be a cool opportunity to play with glass plate negatives and gel emulsions.
gravel
Active member
does anyone have a large format (4x5) developing tank they want to sell me?
got developing chemicals in SLC in august and was finally able to develop my first 35 negatives the other day, some b/w and color. they came out really good! some had some mineral spots from where the water dried off, the water is pretty hard here at home. used photoflo and distilled water for the final rinse though so maybe i just didn’t rinse them thoroughly enough with that. looking forward to doing the same with my 4x5 once i can get a tank for those. looking at the sp-445 since it takes less than 500mL per develop.
i’ll post up a bunch of them later can’t seem to pull the urls from my website to embed them when i’m on mobile.
got developing chemicals in SLC in august and was finally able to develop my first 35 negatives the other day, some b/w and color. they came out really good! some had some mineral spots from where the water dried off, the water is pretty hard here at home. used photoflo and distilled water for the final rinse though so maybe i just didn’t rinse them thoroughly enough with that. looking forward to doing the same with my 4x5 once i can get a tank for those. looking at the sp-445 since it takes less than 500mL per develop.
i’ll post up a bunch of them later can’t seem to pull the urls from my website to embed them when i’m on mobile.
14342458:gravel said:
I use a 3 reel paterson tank with the B's reel which does 6 sheets at once. It's pretty good and foolproof to load. I also have a 12 sheet FP tank that's absolutely great for stand development. It's essentially like a slightly nicer Yankee tank though.
The SP-445 is really nice but I don't like that it only does 4 sheets at once and its kinda a bother to load. Even though it saves on chemistry. Still, if you dont have a 3+ reel paterson already, the SP is a really great option and it stores really well too.
14342646:gravel said:developer fucked up my large format pictures
The top one looks more like a light leak to me... or maybe an agitation issue?
The bottom definitely looks like a developer problem though.. was it fresh dev?
14342418:CabbyArrant said:
Yeah, for cameras with weird formats, or for testing cameras, paper negatives are sick.
gravel
Active member
14342736:DingoSean said:
i was wondering about the top one. but part of me decided it was a developer issue. the little ripples in it look like it was a light leak while in a liquid bath during the pre soak or early in the developer maybe? i had aready shot 10 frames in a bright daytime setting in february to test my film holders and camera for leaks and they came out essentially flawless, so i was just surprised by the leak.
gravel
Active member
oh, and i don’t know about if it was fresh dev. i had taken those LF frames to a darkroom in SLC to be developed. i think that for the color ones the developing person was not agitating enough and was just letting the frames all sit together in the bath without mixing em up. on another color frame i didn’t post you can see it’s overdeveloped roughly in the shape of another 4x5 frame or a few sitting on top of it in a bath, like you can see the edges of those frames “imprinted” on it. and this was exactly the same issue i had with the same darkroom in february, but that had only happened to a single black and white frame while all the other 9 came out money so i decided to take my chances.
Yeesh.. yeah don't go back to that darkroom.
If you want a good suggestion for a 4x5 lab, if you dont want to mess up your expensive portra shots, send it to thedarkroom.com
If you want a good suggestion for a 4x5 lab, if you dont want to mess up your expensive portra shots, send it to thedarkroom.com
gravel
Active member
14342965:DingoSean said:
yeah, lesson definitely learned. but it's fine and i'm not bummed much, fun to learn and also kind of fun to ruin what you spent some good time and coin on. which sounds backwards, but i like to get comfortable with ruining some of them through mistakes.
thanks for the recommendation. at this point, i'm planning to just buy a developing tank for the 4x5 soon. i'm feeling confident about working with the chemicals at home so i just need the tank to put them in. it's easy to ship out the 35mm film but honestly doing the same with 4x5 would make me anxious since they're not already packaged in a lightproof container. and i worry about black and white getting switched up, someone opening the box not in the darkroom, whatever... some irrational anxieties in there of course. either way, i've got the chemicals and stuff to do it at home now so i want to keep going further down that route.
boogerjohnson
New member
bought a minolta x-700 day before this trip out to durango some of them turned out nice
14343019:gravel said:
Ah, they couldnt possibly mix up black and white. Any lab worth their salt would check the notch, and know exactly what film is being developed.
I actually sent in 5 holders of colour 4x5s for development a few years ago and one of them was black and white on accident... but they checked that when loading and made sure to send it back to me undeveloped. They actually kinda have to do that, since putting the wrong film into chemicals can goof them all up - which is really bad when youre a lab that's batch developing. So they always check that.
whenever I have sent out 4x5 for development, i put them in this padded igloo lunch box that fits them perfectly, and then just chuck that in a flatrate cardboard box and send it. Pretty foolproof.
In any case, hell yeah man start developing at home. I have done my fair share of it and its always magic when you pull out those massive sheet negatives...
14363826:WoFlowz said:
Yes. SR76 or LR44 work just fine.
WoFlowz
Active member
Came here for help cause most stuff in a Google search is bs or super confusing. Is there any lens that would fit a Nikon FM2 and replicate the 180 degree image of a Nikkor 7.5 f5.6 fish eye. From what I have found is that it will only fit a F2 and F because of its primitive part of the lense that sticks all the way back to the mirror. Just wondering if anyone knows and cheaper options and options that’ll fit a FM2.
different note: does anyone know any free software to colorize film once scanned with a DSLR. Tryna save myself a few bucks since my parents won’t let me develop my own film. Would take my costs of developing and scanning from about 11$ To 3/4 per roll. Thanks for any responses
different note: does anyone know any free software to colorize film once scanned with a DSLR. Tryna save myself a few bucks since my parents won’t let me develop my own film. Would take my costs of developing and scanning from about 11$ To 3/4 per roll. Thanks for any responses
14386249:WoFlowz said:
First question... why would you want a lens that wide in the first place?
I mean, I have a hard time composing with a 17mm lens on full frame... fish eyes are just ridiculous to me now.
You can use Darktable. I use it, and it works pretty well.
84west
Member
14386249:WoFlowz said:
Rokinon/Samyang makes (or made, but they look like they are available new on b&h) an 8mm 3.5 f mount fisheye. Nikon also made an 8mm 2.8 fisheye for awhile but i'm sure those are insanely expensive. I would try and look for a rokinon used on ebay. Make sure it is a FX (nikon digital for full frame) rather than dx (aps-c) lens or it might have issues mounting on your f2. as long as it has an aperture ring and manual focus you should be good to go.
Do your parents not want you developing film because they are scared of the chemicals or because they don't want you making a mess in the house? Either way you should look into if your school or more likely a local community college has a darkroom you can pay a fee to get access too. You might need to take a class, but you'd learn a shit ton. Unfortunately community darkrooms are tricky to find these days but do some googling and see what you can find.
14386838:WoFlowz said:
Really? Even if you just do it in the bathtub? I mean, It's not like the chemicals are any more harmful than the concentrated drain cleaner your mom certainly has stored in a cupboard somewhere...
Perhaps you can tell them how much money it will save you and how important it is to you and they'll let it slide so long as you don't leave a mess around?
Either way, certainly try to get involved with a local darkroom if you can do it...
No.Quarter
Active member
Working through scanning 11 rolls that span over about 6 years, trying to get back into shooting film.
Last night, for the first time since I picked up a camera, I was happy with every single shot on the roll. It was such an awesome feeling to see those shots for the first time and not have that disappointed feeling that a frame is not very good. Looking through this roll for the first time felt almost poetic for me, as it spans over several experiences that really exemplify the experiences that I seek out the most, and spans through several seasons. While not every shot is perfect or my best photography, this is a truly unique feeling for me to be happy with every shot on the roll. Sure is an effective way to get me stoked to shoot film again.
https://www.flickr.com/gp/109027560@N03/0LovzrH89c
Last night, for the first time since I picked up a camera, I was happy with every single shot on the roll. It was such an awesome feeling to see those shots for the first time and not have that disappointed feeling that a frame is not very good. Looking through this roll for the first time felt almost poetic for me, as it spans over several experiences that really exemplify the experiences that I seek out the most, and spans through several seasons. While not every shot is perfect or my best photography, this is a truly unique feeling for me to be happy with every shot on the roll. Sure is an effective way to get me stoked to shoot film again.
https://www.flickr.com/gp/109027560@N03/0LovzrH89c
14402644:84west said:
But with film you can make prints just the same... which is the best part...
darkroom time is like doing alchemy...
14452476:No.Quarter said:
love hearing people really get back into film...
WoFlowz
Active member
I have to get 6 rolls developed and I’m literally tryna convince my parents I should just get everything to develop stuff on my own because it’s cheaper over time, but they still think it’s unsafe ?. Boomer ass mentality. Thinking I might get prints instead of scans cause it’s the same price at the shop I go too. 10$ a roll for dev plus scan or prints. I tried scanning them using the dark table thing and they all turned out pretty blurry and looked kinda ass. Used a printer to scan and a DSLR and after I cropped neither looked good. So I think it’s gonna be 60$ which won’t feel good on the wallet even if I get payed today.
gravel
Active member
14453098:WoFlowz said:
gimme their number i'll tell em how easy it is and how i get chemicals on myself half the time i develop my photos and i don't have cancer yet.
but fr, you could start by cutting out the scans/prints. have the shop develop them and send the negatives back to you, you can capture them with a DSLR but you would need to get like a light box or something. at the very least that will start to make it cheaper until you can convince them it's safe to develop at home.
14453098:WoFlowz said:
Just buy it on your own. I'm guessing they just dont want you making a mess?
id say just get it without scans and do that on your own if its way cheaper...
gravel
Active member
14453536:WoFlowz said:
i've never scanned with a DSLR and i don't have a light box either, i just use a flatbed scanner epson v650. but i guess a macro might be important, didn't think of it. look up some videos and i'm sure there's someone knowledgeable with info about it.
14453597:gravel said:
Its exceptionally easy... I actually just use my tablet as a lightbox and it works great with the scanning tool I use...
WoFlowz
Active member
Scanned this with my phone as a backlight which made this mad pixelated. Used Dark table to do the colors. Sadly the mad pixelation made it hard to crop but for my first time idk if it’s terrible. Gonna try and get a real backlight and maybe a used macro lense for my DSLR see if those help