yup they were sick. i remember the picture of the two kids standing against the wall had really good tones. was it ektar or portra? i forgot.
Film (Analog) Photography Thread
- Thread starter PacificRimJob
- Start date
TijmenDal
Active member
Picked up all this for 75€.
Leica II from 1932 that was converted to a IIa after the war. With Elmar 5cm 3.5 and Hektor 13.5cm in good condition as well as an original case in really good condition, VIDOM finder and ABLON leader cutter. The VIDOM is broken, but still a cool accessory. HCB used it..
Camera is in great condition with all speeds working correctly.
Leica II from 1932 that was converted to a IIa after the war. With Elmar 5cm 3.5 and Hektor 13.5cm in good condition as well as an original case in really good condition, VIDOM finder and ABLON leader cutter. The VIDOM is broken, but still a cool accessory. HCB used it..
Camera is in great condition with all speeds working correctly.
Caleb.E
Active member
View attachment 719973
this shit, dont know by but it is just blowing me away. It all looks surreal like some wanky fantasy movie set from the 60s
this shit, dont know by but it is just blowing me away. It all looks surreal like some wanky fantasy movie set from the 60s
cwphoto
Active member
I'm pretty excited about this one, its my second roll of self developed tri x (1:25 rodinal) and one of the first good scans that I've done with my t4i. @zbphoto warned me about shitty dslr scans but I'm getting better at it and I don't think it looks too bad. Definitely room for improvement but i think i can make it work.
Clifton by connor_wyckoff, on Flickr
Clifton by connor_wyckoff, on Flickr
13297252:lIllI said:
13298999:connorwyckoff said:I'm pretty excited about this one, its my second roll of self developed tri x (1:25 rodinal) and one of the first good scans that I've done with my t4i. @zbphoto warned me about shitty dslr scans but I'm getting better at it and I don't think it looks too bad. Definitely room for improvement but i think i can make it work.
I actually bought a bellows and film dupe setup, been using it with the d800. I get fantastic results, and they are RAW files, which is great.
I would gladly post a 100% here so you can see what I am working with, but I don't have the file with me right now, so the preview will have to do
13300340:omnidata said:Lel, taped off Nikon logo's, yes your giant black brick is slightly less inconspicuous now.
not sure why people tape off the model number lmao but i gaff tape my prism because it protects it from scratches and shit
any thief will know an expensive dslr lol
13300340:omnidata said:Lel, taped off Nikon logo's, yes your giant black brick is slightly less inconspicuous now.
Makes me feel a lot cooler than I am, so, you know...
I actually have a friend who did it to all his cameras, and I didn't ever understand why. So now whenever I get a new electronic anything, I tape off the logo with black gaff tape and send him photos. I've got a two computers, laserjet printer, several lenses, a card reader, my avy beacon, a couple hard drives... all blacked out. It's become a thing.
13300338:connorwyckoff said:
I will post a 100% crop when I get back to my studio, probably tomorrow or monday. It works really really well, and it cost me just over 200$. Just a pain in the ass to get perfect focus, and the 50mm lens doesn't work the best... but it is worth it to me. Super cheap and really great quality. Lots of control... just have to make sure your negs are clean.
13300738:*DUMBCAN* said:
I do it during the middle of the day so I can use live view zoom to focus. With live view I can tell that I am focused perfectly. I can see the grain, even with the 50mm which isn't the optimal lens for this at all.
I have the whole thing on a table and I have white roll blinds on my windows. The intense white light and a wide open aperture allows the live view to show me what's going on with little enough digital noise to focus accurately.
I stop down the aperture to f/11 because I've found that works the best. Then I pick the whole thing up and I turn it towards a mattebox with a strobe, point it straight at the mattebox and shoot.
It's one frame per photo, yea, and I can see the grain for sure. It's pretty great.
No.Quarter
Active member
Anyone got some tips for star shots when I don't have a digital to make test shots with? I have a Luna-pro sbc, but I haven't really been able to test it out at night. Also what is a decent color film that has moderately good reciprocity failure resistance.
*DUMBCAN*
Active member
13305987:Jamartini said:
There are 5 components here:
At the front is a film holder. Film is inserted and held still on here with a translucent background. The background is roughly, possibly a little larger than, the size of a single frame on the film.
The bellows come next, these block light that would reflect off the film. Their shape means they also absorb light diffracted from the film. As a result the only light that progresses must travel straight through the translucent screen and the film.
Next is the lens, this is just a camera lens.
Macro bellows are then fourth stage. This brings the lens away from the camera, which (for reasons beyond the scope) increases the close-focal magnification of the lens. Basically if you have a 50mm lens and you put it 50mm further away from the sensor you now have a 100mm lens with a much closer minimum focus distance.
Finally there is the camera. It's just a camera.
This whole set-up allows for digitising film photos extremely quickly, just by pressing the shutter. It's faster than scanning and can, potentially, give much better results than all but the most advanced scanners. The key word is potentially, to get the absolute best results you need an even more complicated set-up than this. This will still take 'scans' that are superior to most CCD scanners however.
rudedog41
Member
My photo teacher gave me a changing bag, 2 film reels and a canister today because we don't use those specific ones at school so I'm thinking about developing at home.
Anyone tried this? What chemicals do you recommend? I'll be shooting mainly tri x or hp5.
Also what are your thoughts on scanning the negatives instead of making prints with an enlarger?
Anyone tried this? What chemicals do you recommend? I'll be shooting mainly tri x or hp5.
Also what are your thoughts on scanning the negatives instead of making prints with an enlarger?
rudedog41
Member
13336959:Walter.White said:
I just got the olympus xa and it's great. Perfect size. My only issue is the extremely dim rangefinder patch but I've read that it can by remedied with a small piece of tape covering the patch on the outside of the rangefinder window.
But really its a lot of fun to use and seems pretty versatile to me.
*DUMBCAN*
Active member
13336949:rudedog41 said:
Depends on your throughput. One shot rodinal/R09 is always a good call because it's so stable it lasts forever, but you have to dilute it every time you want to use it. If you're saving money you needn't use a stop bath, just wash many times between developer and fixer. If you prefer precision then use a stop, really shouldn't make a difference when you're learning. When you're learning the technique just keep it simple.
Making prints is an art form in its own right, some people just can't be bothered with it. It's far more technical and time consuming than developing and, in some respects, the actual photography. Scanning is easier, potentially similar quality, much less fun. The argument over how to scan will go on forever, but there are 3 main (cheapish) methods:
- flatbed scanners: cheap, convenient, fast scanning, work across virtually all formats. Dreadful for dust so expect to spend forever in photoshop. Resolution is always miles off the quoted values and they really struggle with dynamic range.
- dedicated scanners: plustek etc. More expensive, slighlty slower scan but much higher resolution and reasonable dynamic range, often capable of HDR to boost the dynamic range. With good practice you can keep the dust down, but it'll still be there.
- dslr + macro lens: Normally this is done with a normal lens and extension tubes to get the magnification. This is completely manual, the quality of results is dictated by the quality of your setup. This can range from complete shit to ~$40k drum scanner quality, depending on your setup. A couple of key points: focal plane and film plane need to be precisely parallel, but this should be a no-brainer; you need a consistent light source behind the film.
rudedog41
Member
13336994:*DUMBCAN* said:
So the rodinal is just the developer? And we just use water as a "stop bath" at school anyways so that I have to problem with. What about a fixer?
The only reason I'm looking to alternatives of actual prints is because I want to do this on my own (this summer) until I can use the darkroom in college. I've tried the dslr/macro lens option and it was a lot of work and variables to be dealt with although I may resort to that if I can't find a flatbed scanner (however, I don't have a macro lens for my gh4 currently).
God I missed shooting the Hasselblad. Took it out today to do some street photography.
I love the inconspicuousness you can have with a top-down viewfinder. Just hold your phone in the opposite hand, pre-focus the camera and get candids all day long.
Tempted to make this my go-to camera for the 1-1-1 project, but I need to get over my street photography fright, and 35mm gives you 3 times as many photos.
I love the inconspicuousness you can have with a top-down viewfinder. Just hold your phone in the opposite hand, pre-focus the camera and get candids all day long.
Tempted to make this my go-to camera for the 1-1-1 project, but I need to get over my street photography fright, and 35mm gives you 3 times as many photos.
No.Quarter
Active member
I am considering trading my OM-1n for a OM-2 or maybe a OM-2s. Does anyone have any experience with these? What are the pros and cons of an electric shutter vs the mechanical one in the om-1? Did quality go down much as the OM line progressed?